# CRITICAL THINKING A CONCISE GUIDE TRACY BOWELL AND GARY KEMP

However they are joined, what a conditional says is that the truth of one proposition ensures that of another. To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number. Remember that premise and conclusion indicators are not part of those propositions: Notice two things about this characterisation of probability in terms of rational expectation. Feb 17, Anne rated it really liked it Shelves: If the argument is deductively unsound, it follows that either the argument has at least one false premise, or the argument is invalid or perhaps both — perhaps it is invalid and it has one or more false premises. However, instances of lexical ambiguity also occur when 7 a word has alternative meanings that are much closer together.

Once we go beyond what we may reasonably assume the arguer to have had in mind, then we are no longer in the business of interpreting their argument. We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. If you do know that there are no platypuses at the zoo, then you know it is possible to give a deductively sound argument for that con- clusion. C1 is the conclusion of an argu- 6 ment whose premises are P1 and P2; C2 is the conclusion of an argument 7 whose premises are C1 and P3. Sometimes this is frustration with ourselves; but it can easily look like 2 frustration with the person giving the argument it can certainly be inter- 3 preted as such by that person! The conclusion does not follow. The conclusion of that argument may itself serve as a premise for another argument and so on.

Performance Studies Richard Schechner. And since all mammals are warm-blooded, it follows that Fido is warm- blooded. C Abortion is murder. If the 2 probability-indicator were regarded as part of the conclusion, then the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments becomes more complicated, and less intuitive.

KRUTETSKII PROBLEM SOLVING

# Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide – Tracy Bowell, Gary Kemp – Google Books

The connecting premise was left implicit. The conclusion of that argument may itself serve as a premise for another argument and so on.

Unlimited One-Day Delivery and more. It is not the same as 4 ambiguity, but it is often mistaken for it.

Look again at the last argument given concerning Fiona, who lives in Inverness. Also, the possible interpretations of 6 gkide sentence may be closely related so that there may not appear to be a 7 very wide difference in meaning. Why should we become critical thinkers? Identifying arguments is largely a matter of determining what the author or speaker intends by interpreting her words spoken or writtenand this comes with practice.

## Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide

Sign in Create an account. In reconstructing arguments you should follow the 8 example below by taking these steps: Certainly 8 bowsll you had to bet on whether or not the conclusion is true, then, given 9 no relevant information except for P1, you would bet that it is true, not that it is false.

Consider a further example: So we have no idea what dog, if any, 5 has been referred to. You know that the local zoo has no platypuses. A Concise Guide will equip students with the concepts and techniques used in the identification, analysis and assessment of arguments.

## Follow the Author

This can best be appreciated by thinking again of something like cards. Further, truth is the 10 concept in terms of which the logician attempts to explain everything 1 else. This can be seen most easily in the case of a completely fictional 5 example, in which the question crihical the truth-values of the premises cannot 6 yary arise: The crucial 9 thing is the logical relationship between them.

CURRICULUM VITAE KA SETSWANA

If P then Q. In particular, you have a reason for its being true.

# Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, Critical Thinking. A Concise Guide – PhilPapers

In such a case, which reconstruction should you prefer? T P2 All baritones are women. Ambiguity A sentence is ambiguous in a given context when there is more than one possible way of interpreting it in that context — that is, if there is more than one proposition it could plausibly be taken to express in that context.

Rewrite them so as to give the most plausible interpretation. T 3 C Janet Baker is a soprano.

The announcement will be made 9 tomorrow. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l’Etranger 1: Furthermore, 3 the arguer is assuming, without explicitly stating, that it is illegal to take 4 such drugs. Very good — really helped to clarify my thinking process. Things that fall under the term will generally exhibit these characteristics, but there is no logical contradiction in supposing there to be a thing that falls under the term but lacks a characteristic ceitical under the secondary con- notation.