Study Guide

PHL 102

IMPORTANT: You should do some of this with me on WebEx. If you come to the virtual office hours, we can slowly go over whatever you’d like.

I. Arguments: be able to distinguish arguments from non-arguments, know premise and conclusion indicators, be able to diagram arguments (with independent and collaborative arrows as in 1.4 and Araucaria; Also make sure you understad the "standard diagram" of an argument: premises above the line, conclusion below it).

II. Inductive Arguments: You should know the inductive concepts (inductive, strong, cogent) and be able to apply them. And you should know types of inductive argument. The most important type so far is the argument by *analogy*. How do you evaluate these? It’s not so easy. See both the Café and the philosophypages.com link for details. IMPORTANT: make sure your response to someone (or even yourself) includes a nice analysis in terms (some) of the six points for evaluating analogies. The exam will include something like this!

III. Deductive Arguments: You should know the deductive concepts (deductive, valid, sound, logically true, self-contradictory, contingent, logically equivalent, consistent). These are defined in chapter 2 (or before) even though they are applied in chapter 4 and tested by tables. You’ll need to know what formal logic is (basically it’s a deductive argument), know the valid forms (e.g., DS) and the invalid ones (e.g., AC).

IV. Tables…you should be able to do truth tables of one row or many rows. (How many rows are there for ‘A&(Bv~C)’?) You should be able to do all the tests for deductive concepts.

V. Symbolizations: There are lots of these in chapters 2 and 4. So, there will be a bunch on the exam!

VI. Derivations: 5.1