some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). .. The ninth edition of Understanding Arguments differs from the eighth. eBook: Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, 9th Edition. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Robert J. Fogelin. Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is Chauncey Stillman Professor site Store; ›; site eBooks; ›; Politics & Social Sciences .

Understanding Arguments Ebook

Language:English, French, Dutch
Country:United States
Genre:Business & Career
Published (Last):22.10.2015
ePub File Size:19.55 MB
PDF File Size:12.19 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Uploaded by: RUDOLF

Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. 9th Edition. Sinnott-Armstrong eBook Features. Read Anywhere . ADVANGEBOOKS - UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS: AN INTRODUCTION TO INFORMAL LOGIC, 9E teaches students how to Textbook/eBook from $ Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. Textbook/eBook from $ Whether you're downloading or renting .

In one context, it may be used as a word that seeks cause, which as it happens is the main driver of science, and in another it may be used as a word that seeks purpose and deals with morals and gaps, which science may well not have answers to. For example, one may argue: Science cannot tell us why things happen.

Why do we exist? Why be moral?

If one of those categories is rejected, then one has to accept the other. For example, In the war on fanaticism, there are no sidelines; you are either with us or with the fanatics. In reality, there is a third option, one could very well be neutral; and a fourth option, one may be against both; and even a fifth option, one may empathize with elements of both.

In The Strangest Man, it is mentioned that physicist Ernest Rutherford once told his colleague Niels Bohr a parable about a man who bought a parrot from a store only to return it because it didn't talk. You wanted a parrot that talks. Please forgive me.

The best slides from the closing arguments in the Apple ebooks case

I gave you the parrot that thinks. Two events may occur one after the other or together because they are correlated, by accident or due to some other unknown event; one cannot conclude that they are causally connected without evidence. The recent earthquake was due to people disobeying the king is not a good argument. With the latter, because an event happens at the same time as another, it is said to have caused it.

Here is another one that I recently saw in an online forum: The attacker took down the railway company's website and when I checked the schedule of arriving trains, what do you know, they were all delayed! Rather than provide evidence to show that a conclusion follows from a set of premisses, which may provide a legitimate cause for fear, such arguments rely on rhetoric, threats or outright lies.

For example, I ask all employees to vote for my chosen candidate in the upcoming elections. If the other candidate wins, he will raise taxes and many of you will lose your jobs. Here is another example, drawn from the novel, The Trial: You should give me all your valuables before the police get here.

They will end up putting them in the storeroom and things tend to get lost in the storeroom. Here, although the argument is more likely a threat, albeit a subtle one, an attempt is made at reasoning. An appeal to fear may proceed to describe a set of terrifying events that would occur as a result of accepting a proposition, which has no clear causal links, making it reminiscent of a slippery slope. It may also provide one and only one alternative to the proposition being attacked, that of the attacker, in which case it would be reminiscent of a false dilemma.

For example, asking ten people on the street what they think of the president's plan to reduce the deficit can in no way be said to represent the sentiment of the entire nation.

Although convenient, hasty generalizations can lead to costly and catastrophic results. For instance, it may be argued that the engineering assumptions that led to the explosion of the Ariane 5 during its first launch were the result of a hasty generalization: the set of test cases that were used for the Ariane 4 controller were not broad enough to cover the necessary set of use-cases in the Ariane 5's controller.

Signing off on such decisions typically comes down to engineers' and managers' ability to argue, hence the relevance of this and similar examples to our discussion of logical fallacies.

Hence, absence of evidence is taken to mean evidence of absence. The burden-of-proof always lies with the person making a claim. Moreover, and as several others have put it, one must ask what is more likely and what is less likely based on evidence from past observations. Is it more likely that an object flying through space is a man-made artifact or a natural phenomenon, or is it more likely that it is aliens visiting from another planet?

Since we have frequently observed the former and never the latter, it is therefore more reasonable to conclude that UFOs are unlikely to be aliens visiting from outer space.

A specific form of the appeal to ignorance is the argument from personal incredulity, where a person's inability to imagine something leads to a belief that the argument being presented is false. For example, It is impossible to imagine that we actually landed a man on the moon, therefore it never happened.

Responses of this sort are sometimes wittily countered with, That's why you're not a physicist. When faced with evidence challenging that claim, rather than accepting or rejecting the evidence, such an argument counters the challenge by arbitrarily redefining the criteria for membership into that category.

The ambiguity allows the stubborn mind to redefine things at will.

The fallacy was coined by Antony Flew in his book Thinking about Thinking. A genetic fallacy is committed when an argument is either devalued or defended solely because of its history. Edward Damer points out, when one is emotionally attached to an idea's origins, it is not always easy to disregard the former when evaluating the latter. Consider the following argument, Of course he supports the union workers on strike; he is after all from the same village. Here, rather than evaluating the argument based on its merits, it is dismissed because the person happens to come from the same village as the protesters.

That piece of information is then used to infer that the person's argument is therefore worthless. Here is another example: As men and women living in the 21st century, we cannot continue to hold these Bronze Age beliefs. Why not, one may ask. Are we to dismiss all ideas that originated in the Bronze Age simply because they came about in that time period?

Account Options

Conversely, one may also invoke the genetic fallacy in a positive sense, by saying, for example, Jack's views on art cannot be contested; he comes from a long line of eminent artists.

Here, the evidence used for the inference is as lacking as in the previous examples. For example, My opponent is calling for a healthcare system that would resemble that of socialist countries. Clearly, that would be unacceptable. Another type of argument, which has been repeated ad nauseam in some societies, is this: We cannot let women drive cars because people in godless countries let their women drive cars.

Essentially, what this and previous examples try to argue is that some group of people is absolutely and categorically bad. Hence, sharing even a single attribute with said group would make one a member of it, which would then bestow on one all the evils associated with that group.

Here, we have three propositions: two premisses and a conclusion. A is called the antecedent and C the consequent.

Such an argument is valid in addition to being sound. The error it makes is in assuming that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true, which in reality need not be the case.

For example, People who go to university are more successful in life.

Online Assessment of Belief Biases and Their Impact on the Acceptance of Fallacious Reasoning

John is successful; hence he must have gone to university. Clearly, John's success could be a result of schooling, but it could also be a result of his upbringing, or perhaps his eagerness to overcome difficult circumstances.

More generally, one cannot say that because schooling implies success, that if one is successful, then one must have received schooling.

On an episode of the topical British TV show, Have I Got News For You, a panelist objected to a protest in London against corporate greed because of the protesters' apparent hypocrisy, by pointing out that while they appear to be against capitalism, they continue to use smartphones and download coffee.

That excerpt is available here. Though it may be the case that the sequence of events may happen, each transition occurring with some probability, this type of argument assumes that all transitions are inevitable, all the while providing no evidence in support of that.

The fallacy plays on the fears of an audience and is related to a number of other fallacies, such as the appeal to fear, the false dilemma and the argument from consequences. For example, We shouldn't allow people uncontrolled access to the Internet. The next thing you know, they will be frequenting pornographic websites and, soon enough our entire moral fabric will disintegrate and we will be reduced to animals.

Some of the arguments that have impeded the widespread acceptance of pioneering ideas are of this type. Galileo, for example, faced ridicule from his contemporaries for his support of the Copernican model. More recently, Barry Marshall had to take the extreme measure of dosing himself in order to convince the scientific community that peptic ulcers may be caused by the bacterium H. Luring people into accepting that which is popular is a method frequently used in advertising and politics.

For example, All the cool kids use this hair gel; be one of them. Politicians frequently use similar rhetoric to add momentum to their campaigns and influence voters. For example, You're not a historian; why don't you stick to your own field. Here, whether or not the person is a historian has no impact on the merit of their argument and does nothing to strengthen the attacker's position.

This type of personal attack is referred to as abusive ad hominem. A second type, known as circumstantial ad hominem, is any argument that attacks a person for cynical reasons, by making a judgment about their intentions. For example, You don't really care about lowering crime in the city, you just want people to vote for you. In circular reasoning, a conclusion is either blatantly used as a premiss, or more often, it is reworded to appear as though it is a different proposition when in fact it is not.

For example, You're utterly wrong because you're not making any sense. Here, the two propositions are one and the same since being wrong and not making any sense, in this context, mean the same thing.

A circular argument may at times rely on unstated premisses, which can make it more difficult to detect. It's like a hippie threatening to punch you in your aura. If every sheep in a flock has a mother, it does not then follow that the flock has a mother, to paraphrase Peter Millican. Here is another example: Each module in this software system has been subjected to a set of unit tests and has passed them all. Therefore, when the modules are integrated, the software system will not violate any of the invariants verified by those unit tests.

The reality is that the integration of individual parts introduces new complexities to a system due to dependencies that may in turn introduce additional avenues for potential failure. Division, conversely, is inferring that a part must have some attribute because the whole to which it belongs happens to have that attribute.

For example, Our team is unbeatable. Any of our players would be able to take on a player from any other team and outshine him. While it may be true that the team as a whole is unbeatable, one cannot use that as evidence to infer that each of its players is thus unbeatable. A team's success is clearly not always the sum of the individual skills of its players. As it happens, that was the inspiration for this book's cover.

Would you like to tell us about a lower price? By taking out the non-essential instruction, this edition hones in on the ""argument construction"" involved in day-to-day life, and how to do it better. Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product text may not be available in the ebook version. Read more Read less. site Cloud Reader Read instantly in your browser. Customers who bought this item also bought. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1.

Lessons From Critical Thinkers: Albert Rutherford. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. Elements of Critical Thinking: A Rulebook for Arguments. Anthony Weston. On Bullshit. Harry G. A Mind For Numbers: Product details File Size: Cengage Learning; 9 edition January 1, Publication Date: January 1, Sold by: Cengage Learning Language: English ASIN: Not enabled X-Ray for Textbooks: Share your thoughts with other customers.

Write a customer review. Read reviews that mention course coursera class taking arguments. Showing of 18 reviews. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews.

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. site Edition Verified download. It also contains a slew of exercises which help you check and validate your understanding. Those who follow the course will have the correction to the book exercises: I bought this book to accompany Dr. I'm happy with the material in this first course and his presentation of it. So happy, in fact, that I decided to order the book.

I can't even download it to the device - that option is not available. This is not a technical problem, it appears to be some kind of copy protection "scheme" that limits me to reading it on the PC!

If I wanted to carry my laptop or worse desktop with me everywhere I go, then I've have ordered the physical book. If does affect my downloading decision. Paperback Verified download. I bought this for my wife's online classes, and now I keep losing arguments. I am renting this as a textbook for a class I am taking, and it's really good. It's a subject that interests me, so that helps, but it's written well, with excellent examples, so that makes the subject that much easier to understand.

Great book for those who want to learn how to argue effectively, and understand arguments and what are not arguments. One person found this helpful.Some of which is rather detailed and complex, but nevertheless worth the effort. For example, Astrology was practiced by technologically advanced civilizations such as the Ancient Chinese. Consider the following argument: How can you be against faith when we take leaps of faith all the time, with friends and potential spouses and investments?

It also contains a slew of exercises which help you check and validate your understanding. Feminism and Abortion 8. I have selected a small set of common errors in reasoning and visualized them using memorable illustrations that are supplemented with lots of examples.

ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. I can't even download it to the device - that option is not available.

JACKSON from Tulsa
Browse my other posts. I have always been a very creative person and find it relaxing to indulge in juttejutsu. I relish sternly .