| |
| |
| Preface | |
| |
| |
| |
| Informal Logic | |
| |
| |
| |
| Basic Concepts | |
| |
| |
| Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions | |
| |
| |
| Note on the History of Logic | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 1 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Recognizing Arguments | |
| |
| |
| EMINENT LOGICIANS: Aristotle | |
| |
| |
| Simple Noninferential Passages | |
| |
| |
| Expository Passages | |
| |
| |
| Illustrations | |
| |
| |
| Explanations | |
| |
| |
| Conditional Statements | |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 1 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Deduction and Induction | |
| |
| |
| Ruth Barcan Marcus | |
| |
| |
| Deductive Argument Forms | |
| |
| |
| Inductive Argument Forms | |
| |
| |
| Further Considerations | |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 1 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency | |
| |
| |
| Deductive Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Inductive Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| EMINENT LOGICIANS: Chrysippus | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 1 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity | |
| |
| |
| Counterexample Method | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 1 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Extended Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 1 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Language: Meaning and Definition.Varieties of Meaning | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Intension and Extension of Terms | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Definitions and Their Purposes | |
| |
| |
| Stipulative Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Lexical Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Precising Definitions | |
| |
| |
| EMINENT LOGICIANS: Peter Abelard | |
| |
| |
| Theoretical Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Persuasive Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Definitional Techniques | |
| |
| |
| Extensional (Denotative) Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Intensional (Connotative) Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Criteria for Lexical Definitions | |
| |
| |
| Rule 1: A Lexical Definition Should Conform to the Standards of Proper Grammar | |
| |
| |
| Rule 2: A Lexical Definition Should Convey the Essential Meaning of the Word Being Defined | |
| |
| |
| Rule 3: A Lexical Definition Should Be Neither Too Broad nor Too Narrow | |
| |
| |
| Rule 4: A Lexical Definition Should Avoid Circularity | |
| |
| |
| Rule 5: A Lexical Definition Should Not Be Negative When It Can Be Affirmative | |
| |
| |
| Rule 6: A Lexical Definition Should Avoid Figurative, Obscure,Vague, or Ambiguous Language | |
| |
| |
| Rule 7: A Lexical Definition Should Avoid Affective Terminology | |
| |
| |
| Rule 8: A Lexical Definition Should Indicate the Context to Which the Definiens Pertains | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Informal Fallacies.Fallacies in General | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 3 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of Relevance | |
| |
| |
| |
| Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the“Stick“) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Accident | |
| |
| |
| |
| Straw Man | |
| |
| |
| |
| Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi ) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Red Herring | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 3 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of Weak Induction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Appeal to Ignorance | |
| |
| |
| (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) | |
| |
| |
| |
| False Cause | |
| |
| |
| |
| Slippery Slope | |
| |
| |
| |
| Weak Analogy | |
| |
| |
| EMINENT LOGICIANS: William of Ockham | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 3 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy | |
| |
| |
| |
| Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Complex Question | |
| |
| |
| |
| False Dichotomy | |
| |
| |
| |
| Suppressed Evidence | |
| |
| |
| |
| Equivocation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Amphiboly | |
| |
| |
| |
| Composition | |
| |
| |
| |
| Division | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 3 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies in Ordinary Language | |
| |
| |
| Detecting Fallacies | |
| |
| |
| Avoiding Fallacies | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 3 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Formal Logic | |
| |
| |
| |
| Categorical Propositions.The Components of Categorical Propositions | |
| |
| |
| Alice Ambrose | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Quality, Quantity, and Distribution | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition | |
| |
| |
| Aristotle and Boole | |
| |
| |
| EMINENT LOGICIANS: George Boole | |
| |
| |
| Venn Diagrams | |
| |
| |
| The Modern Square of Opposition | |
| |
| |
| Testing Immediate Inferences | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition | |
| |
| |
| Conversion | |
| |
| |
| Obversion | |
| |
| |
| Contraposition | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Traditional Square of Opposition | |
| |
| |
| Testing Immediate Inferences | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Venn Diagrams and the Traditional Standpoint | |
| |
| |
| Proving the Traditional Square of Opposition | |
| |
| |
| Testing Immediate Inferences | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Translating Ordinary Language Statements into Categorical Form | |
| |
| |
| |
| Terms Without Nouns | |
| |
| |
| |
| Nonstandard Verbs | |
| |
| |
| |
| Singular Propositions | |
| |
| |
| |
| Adverbs and Pronouns | |
| |
| |
| |
| Unexpressed Quantifiers | |
| |
| |
| |
| Nonstandard Quantifiers | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conditional Statements | |
| |
| |
| |
| Exclusive Propositions | |
| |
| |
| |
| “The Only“ | |
| |
| |
| |
| Exceptive Propositions | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Categorical Syllogisms.Standard Form, Mood, and Figure | |
| |
| |
| Exercise 5 | |
| |
| |
| |