Today, we have

• Three parts
GE2134 – RECAP - Fallacies of relevance from the last lecture
1. Valid Inferences
Critical and Creative Thinking 2. Warranted Inferences

• RE-visited the coming (ongoing) assessment tasks in GE2134

– Participation
Inferences and Fallacies – Individual Assignment
Week 6 SemA 2024
– Final Quiz
– Group Project – a group basis  ALL members have to participate
1. Group Oral Presentation
2. Group Report

RECAP – Your reading assignment

Common Reasoning Errors

• Fallacies: Deceptive arguments that appear logical, but upon

Have you studied/read these? closer analysis, fail to demonstrate their conclusions
• Learning to recognize common fallacies and to explain the
Week 4 (Tue/CA1 and Thurs/C01) mistaken reasoning in non-technical terms aid evaluation of
Week 5 (Wed/C02) arguments
• Recognizing a fallacious argument is a strong defense against
7 Fallacies of relevance (slide #55 - #59) being misled
&
The Discussion Question (slide #60) – Fallacies of relevance

Slide #55
modified
4
3
Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of Relevance

• Appeals to ignorance • Appeals to emotion

– It is false to assume that the absence of a reason for an idea – False to assume that one’s initial emotional response to an
should count as a reason against the idea idea, event, story, person, image, or proposal is the best guide
• Appeals to the mob for forming reflective fair-minded judgments
– One should not assume that because a large group of people • Ad hominem attacks
believe in something or do something, their opinion is correct – Claims that a person’s ideas must be tainted because the
person has some vice or flaw

Slide #56 Slide #57

5 6

Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of Relevance

• Straw man fallacy • Playing with words fallacy

• Assuming that, by refuting a weaker argument among several – Exploits problematic vagueness, ambiguity, donkey cart
independent reasons, one has successfully refuted all the expressions, stereotyping, and slanted language in order to
reasons for a claim support a claim
 Example – Could you cite one to three examples? • Misuse of authority fallacy
 Includes the practice of attributing to the opposition an argument that is
not theirs, and then demolishing that argument
– False assumption that if a powerful person makes a claim, then
the claim must be true

Slide #58 Slide #59

7 8
Discussion Question

• Give an example of a recent argument that fails one or

more of the four tests for evaluating arguments
– State the argument and explain which test or tests it failed and
why

Valid Inferences
PART 1

Slide #60
9

Given the constraint of context

• Playing sudoku
Learning Outcomes for Valid Inferences Opening Video about Valid Inferences • His own budgeting
• Budget her time
• Evaluate the logical strength of inferences presented to imply or entail that their
conclusions must certainly be true if we take their premises to be true

• Recognize reasoning fallacies masquerading as valid inferences

11 12
Structure of the Reasoning Structure of the Organ Transplant Scenario
• Inferences offered as certain
• Reasoning with declarative statements
• Reasoning about classes of objects
• Reasoning about relationships

13 14

Structure of the Organ Transplant Scenario Inferences Offered as Certain

• People make arguments believing that truth of the premises guarantees truth of
Were invited to join a clinical trial the conclusion
for a newly invented synthetic liver

• Thoughtful and fair-minded interpretation is essential

• Context and intention of the argument maker are to be considered

“I want to live”

What can we infer if we assume that the claim “I must go overseas for a transplant,” is false?

15 16
Inferences Offered as Certain Reasoning with Declarative Statements
• Laws of nature or logic cannot be suspended • Denying the consequent • Affirming the antecedent
– Premise #1 - If A, then B – Premise #1 - If A, then B
• Logical strength of an inference can be evaluated by a counterexample – Premise #2 - Not B – Premise #2 - A
– Conclusion - Therefore, not A – Conclusion - Therefore, B

A = The price quote from College ABC

A = “The city has a reliable public is lower than the price quote from
transportation system.” University of XYZ
B = “I will use the city’s public B = We will get the T-shirts for our
transportation system.” American Cancer Society Relay for Life
team printed at College ABC
• Premise #1?
• Premise #1?
• Premise #2?
• Premise #2?
• Conclusion: Therefore, it is not the • Conclusion: Therefore, we will get
case that the city has a reliable public the T-shirts from our ACS Relay for
transportation system Life team printed at College ABC

17 18

Reasoning with Declarative Statements Grammatically Equivalent Structures

• Disjunctive syllogism
– Premise #1 - Either A or B
– Premise #2 - Not A
– Conclusion - Therefore, B

Premise #1 – Either we’ll go to Miami for spring break, or we will

go to Myrtle Beach.
Premise #2 – We are not going to Miami for spring break.
Conclusion – So, we will go to Myrtle Beach.

19 20
Simulation practice with “neither, unless and only” arguments Reasoning About Classes of Objects
• Applying a generalization
– Premise #1 - Every member of group F is a member of group G
– Premise #2 - Individual object X is a member of F
– Conclusion - Object X is a member of G

21 22

Reasoning About Classes of Objects Simulation practice with arguments pertaining to classes and objects
• Applying an exception
– Premise #1 - Every member of group F is a member of group G
– Premise #2 - Object X is not a member of G
– Conclusion - Object X is not a member of F

• Power of only
– Only has the ability to change the meaning of a sentence depending on where it is
placed

23 24
Power of Only Power of Only

25 26

Reasoning About Relationships Reasoning About Relationships

• Terms that describe relationships help make valid inferences • Reflexivity relationship
about the objects to which the terms apply – If x has a reflexive relationship to y, then y has the same reflexive
– Example - John is Susan’s younger brother. So, they must have the same relationship to x
mother or the same father – Example - Leonardo DiCaprio played Jordan Belfort in the 2013 film
The Wolf of Wall Street
• Transitivity relationship • Actor who played Jordan Belfort in that film was nominated for an Oscar
– If x has a transitive relationship to y, and y has the same transitive • So, Leonardo DiCaprio received an Oscar nomination for his performance in
relationship to z that film
• x has the same transitive relationship to z
• Example - David is Stanley’s neighbor. So, Stanley is David’s neighbor • Identity relationship
– If x is y, then y is x

27 28
 Fallacies When Reasoning with Declarative Statements
Affirming the consequent
Discussion Question Denying the antecedent
Fallacies when reasoning about classes of objects
False classification
• “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth” - Fallacies of composition
Sherlock Holmes Fallacies of division
Fallacies of false reference
– Is it possible to follow Sherlock Holmes’ advice on how to figure out the one right Personal infallibility?—We don't think so
answer to a problem?
• Your thoughts?

Fallacies Masquerading as
Valid Arguments

29 30

Fallacies Masquerading as Valid Arguments Fallacies When Reasoning with Declarative Statements
• Fallacies when reasoning with declarative statements • Affirming the consequent
• Fallacies when reasoning about classes of objects – Premise #1 - If A, then B
• Fallacies of false reference – Premise #2 - B
• Personal infallibility?—We don't think so – Conclusion - Therefore, A
• Not logical to believe that A must be true because B is true

31 32
Fallacies When Reasoning with Declarative Statements Fallacies When Reasoning About Classes of Objects
• Denying the antecedent • False classification
– Premise #1 - If A, then B – Example - Criminals enjoy mafia movies and Cassandra enjoys
– Premise #2 - Not A mafia movies
• Does not apply that Cassandra is a criminal
– Conclusion - Therefore not B
• Not logical to think that B cannot happen because A does not happen

33 34

Fallacies When Reasoning About Classes of Objects Fallacies of False Reference

• Fallacies of composition • Occur when reasoning about relationships
– A group and each of its members may not have the same attributes – Identity, reflexivity, or transitivity

• Fallacies of division • Comparable reasoning mistake

– Attribute to each individual member of a group a characteristic that is true of the group – Occurs when people are not aware that same object, person, or event can be identified
as a whole using multiple descriptions

35 36
 How valid inferences can be made
using the limited number of constraints and rules of the context
Personal Infallibility? Closing video in reviewing Valid Inferences
• The human species is capable of inferring with certainty the implications of rules,
laws, principles, and regulations
– Capacity for certainty drives people toward wrongheaded conclusions

• Probability of personal infallibility approximates to zero

Example: America is the
GREATEST country in
the WORLD.

37 38

Learning Outcomes for Warranted Inferences

• Evaluate the logical strength of inferences presented to justify or support the
belief that their conclusions are very probably, but not necessarily, true if we
take their premises to be true

• Recognize reasoning fallacies masquerading as warranted inferences

Warranted Inferences
PART 2

40
 Evaluation of logical strength of inferences can lead to believing that
the conclusions are probabilistically true
Opening Video about Warranted Inferences Evidence Currently at Hand
• Weight of evidence
• Evaluating generalizations
• Coincidences, patterns, correlations, and causes

41 42

Weight of Evidence Evaluating Generalizations

• Leads people towards a single conclusion • Generalization is based on data gathered systematically or
• Logical strength of probabilistic arguments can be evaluated by systematic unsystematically
method for assigning levels of confidence
– People over the age of 60 tend to prefer to listen to oldies
– 73 percent of the hotel room beds in the city are infested with
bedbugs

43 44
Evaluating Generalizations Coincidences, Patterns, Correlations, and Causes
• Evaluation of logical strength of probabilistic • Coincidences
generalizations – Events that occur together by chance
– Requires asking questions and finding satisfactory answers
• Was the correct group sampled?
• Patterns
• Were the data obtained in an effective way? – Observed in events that initially appear to be random
• Were enough cases considered? coincidences
• Was the sample representatively structured? – Concentration of multi-million dollar luxury casinos in Las Vegas,
Atlantic City

45 46

Coincidences, Patterns, Correlations, and Causes

• Correlations
– Describe the degree to which two different sets of events are
aligned
– Calculated using statistical analyses
• Causes
– Causal explanations are desirable as they enable us to explain,
predict, and control parts of the natural world
Fallacies Masquerading as
Warranted Arguments

47 48
Fallacies Masquerading as Warranted Arguments Erroneous Generalization
• Erroneous generalization • People make hasty and erroneous generalizations by:
• Playing with numbers – Relying on little information
– Exaggerating the importance of one or two particular experiences
• False dilemma
• Gambler’s fallacy
• Generalizations can be deceptively fallacious

• False cause
• Slippery slope

49 50

Playing with Numbers False Dilemma

• Arguments that use: • Real dilemma - Situation in which all our choices are bad
– Raw numbers when percentages would present a fair-minded – At times, turns out to be a false dilemma on closer analysis
description
– Percentages when raw numbers would present a fair-minded
• Referred to as the either/or fallacy
description

51 52
Gambler’s Fallacy False Cause
• Random events that are not patterned, correlated, or • Assumption that two events are causally related as one
causally connected happens after the other
• People make arguments with wrong assumption that • Referred as post hoc, propter hoc
what happens by chance is somehow connected with
things we can control

53 54

Discussion Questions Slippery Slope

• Give an example of when you connected some action you • False assumption that events are linked together
took with a positive result and then found yourself – First step in the process necessarily results in problems
repeating it in the hope of producing a similar outcome
– How did that associational inference work out for you?
• Give reasons to support your conclusion

55 56
 Evaluation of the logical strength of a probabilistic argument
Fallacies Closing video in reviewing Warranted Inferences

57 58

GE2134 Assessment tasks Purpose(s) of GE2134

What is critical thinking?

RE-visited
What is Creative thinking?
Explained in Week 1 using the GE2134 course outline
Its applications!
Mentioned in-class in the past, too
 Created By CBi China Bridge ‘Ongoing’ Individual
Wethefinished
from Noun Projectthe Critical thinking part. Participation
01 Assignment
What did you learn?
04 02
• Check/Review/Study
• Lecture material
Learn
• Exercises done in class, discussions,
Canvas, and in the simulations Group Project 03
in two Final Quiz
… components
• Prepare for your Final Quiz by
drafting your own 1-page cheat
sheet
Your coming (and ongoing) assessment tasks

Please fill it in yourself

Importance Relevance Significance What are your next steps? (fill it in yourself)