This is an introductory textbook in **logic** and **critical** **thinking**. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal **logic**. As such, it is not a formal **logic** textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “**critical** **thinking** textbook.” The formal **logic** in chapter 2 is intended to give an elementary **introduction** to formal **logic**. Specifically, chapter 2 introduces several different formal methods for determining whether an argument is valid or invalid (truth tables, proofs, Venn diagrams). I contrast these formal methods with the informal method of determining validity introduced in chapter 1. What I take to be the central theoretical lesson with respect to the formal **logic** is simply that of understanding the difference between formal and informal methods of evaluating an argument’s validity. I believe there are also practical benefits of learning the formal **logic**. First and foremost, once one has internalized some of the valid forms of argument, it is easy to impose these structures on arguments one encounters. The ability to do this can be of use in evaluating an argumentative passage, especially when the argument concerns a topic with which one is not very familiar (such as on the GRE or LSAT).

Show more
242 Read more

This course is a **Critical** Inquiry Core Course and fulfills one of the core curriculum requirements of the university. It emphasizes ethical and **critical** **thinking** skills necessary for interpreting the self in relation to culture and society. This course will introduce students to **critical** inquiry and to the concepts of elementary **logic**, one of the seminal ideas that have shaped our world. This course stresses the teaching of intellectual inquiry as a way of knowing. The course addresses inductive and deductive reasoning and logical fallacies. Consideration is given to the requirements of correct reasoning with special emphasis on informal fallacies, syllogistic forms, and the analysis of extended arguments.

Show more
12 Read more

True to its name, A Concise **Introduction** to **Logic**, by Craig DeLancey, surveys propositional **logic** and predicate **logic** and goes on to introduce selected advanced topics, in little over 200 pages. The book provides an integrated presentation of basic syntactic and semantic concepts and methods of **logic**. Part I starts with the concept of a formal language. The concept of valid inference, truth tables and proofs are introduced immediately after the first two propositional connectives. Connectives and inference rules are introduced in alternation, to develop a complete simple natural deduction system for propositional **logic**. Part II, adds the apparatus of quantification and proof rules for a complete predicate **logic**. The text covers the **logic** of relations, sentences with multiple quantifiers and Russell’s theory of definite descriptions. The presentation of concepts and principles is orderly, clear and thought provoking. Many topics are introduced with examples of philosophical arguments drawn from classic sources, adding depth of knowledge to an introductory course. The first two parts end with systematic overviews. The focus is on formal deductive **logic** throughout. Informal fallacies and traditional syllogistic **logic** are not covered. Advanced topics covered in the final part of the text include an axiomatic approach to **logic**, mathematical induction, a deduction theorem for propositional **logic**, and brief introductions to set theory, modal **logic** and number theory.

Show more
223 Read more

When I first started teaching informal **logic** in the late 1970s, I had the common hope that I would be helping students to im- prove their **thinking**. Now as then, the need for **critical** **thinking** is acute. A large proportion of the North American population believes that global warming is not a problem, that humans did not evolve from apes, that the moon landing was a hoax (Plait 2002), and even that the earth is the center of the universe. Peo- ple also make many bad decisions, such as smoking, overeating, paying exorbitant interest on their credit card purchases, and voting for politicians who do not act in their interests. Enter- prises such as informal **logic**, **critical** **thinking**, and scientific lit- eracy aim at improving such kinds of theoretical inferences (about what to believe) and practical inferences (about what to do). I shall argue, however, that evidence from psychology and neuroscience reveals that standard approaches are based on mis- conceptions about the nature of inference and argument. By inference I mean the activity of forming mental representations such as beliefs and decisions.

Show more
19 Read more

Fourth, members of the critical thinking movement tend to believe that the traditional logic courses of old-Mental Gymnastics 10 I-did very little to equip students to deal [r]

13 Read more

This course is an **introduction** to **critical** **thinking** and to both informal and formal (symbolic) **logic**. Since everyone uses **logic** (though not everyone studies it!) in making inferences (that is, in drawing conclusions) about any subject matter whatsoever, this course improves us as thinkers in ways that are relevant to all our other academic and non-academic pursuits.

10 Read more

Conse- quently (and here we see from another angle a point made earlier) the Ennis- McPeck dispute between the generality vs. in- formal logic for critical thinking. Rea-[r]

13 Read more

This course is a **Critical** Inquiry Core Course and fulfills one of the core curriculum requirements of the university. It emphasizes ethical and **critical** **thinking** skills necessary for interpreting the self in relation to culture and society. This course will introduce students to **critical** inquiry and to the concepts of elementary **logic**, one of the seminal ideas that have shaped our world. This course stresses the teaching of intellectual inquiry as a way of knowing. The course addresses inductive and deductive reasoning and logical fallacies.

Suppose an argument meets the condition for premise adequacy (whatever that is) and its premises provide sufficient support for its conclusion (however suffi- ciency is understood), but[r]

15 Read more

That said, instead of chapter five as it exists in this edition, this reviewer hopes that in the next edition the authors recommend that medical students take a good pair of gradua[r]

This course helps students develop the means for evaluating the conflicting claims to truth by identifying common fallacies and characteristics of reliable **thinking**, practicing analysis of arguments, and clarifying arguments on both sides of some current issues. This course meets the CSU General Education Requirement for Areas A3-**Critical** **Thinking** and C2-Humanities (Literature, Philosophy, Foreign Language).

motivation is the perceived difficulties with the other types of validity, in particular the lack of a pre-established outside criterion with which to correlate the results of[r]

They stem from the logician's concept of a sound argument (= a logically strong argument with true premisses), now analyzed as three conditions of premisses, individually nec- [r]

With this general model of interrogative arguments in mind, the text turns to a consideration of various possible types ofIQs.. Each of these has specific kinds of information th[r]

If there are reasoners in the world, persons with a passion to transcend egocentric or sociocentric life worlds and the irrational language games which define them, [r]

10 Read more

and pedagogical discussions in the field, generally reflect a common focus on first level undergraduate courses in argument analysis or critical thinking that purport to offe[r]

23 Read more

Jack (agent 1) and Jill (agent 2) have entered a restaurant. They are joined by John (agent 3) shortly after. Waiter A takes their order, which includes three dishes: Vegan, Meat and Fish. Waiter B is supposed to serve them. Waiter B is acquainted with Jack: he knows that Jack is a passionate animal rights activist, often arguing against the consumption of any animal product. He has not met Jill but he has the impression that she is pretty close to Jack and implicitly assumes that she shares his opinion and lifestyle. On the other hand, John is a frequent customer: almost every time he orders the same meat-based dish. As the meals are prepared, Waiter B has an intuitive, yet incomplete, idea on their distribution. System 1 is at work. Influenced by his stereotypes and experience, he thinks that Jack will definitely get the vegan dish, and John the meat. For someone carefully and consciously reading the story, this would mean that Jill ordered fish. Not for waiter B, though: due to Jill’s closeness to Jack, he has trouble inferring this conclusion. He is also willing to consider, albeit reluctantly, that John gets fish. Again he is subconsciously confused enough to take a stance on Jill’s option. Finally scenarios in which Jack orders meat or fish are ruled out by the waiter. Denote by v i , m i , f i ( i = 1, 2, 3 ) the atoms expressing which dish goes to which agent. Let R be the set of rules containing Conjunction **Introduction** (CI) and Modus Ponens (MP). The following figure depicts the plausibility model 18 for waiter B, and

Show more
30 Read more

Computational **thinking** (CT) is a new problem solving method named for its extensive use of computer science techniques. It synthesizes **critical** **thinking** and existing knowledge and applies them to solve complex real world technological problems. Actually, the relationship between CT and **critical** **thinking**, the two modes of **thinking** in solving problems, has not been yet clearly established. In a recent paper [13] we have attempted to shed some light into this relationship. According to Liu and Wang [6] CT is a hybrid of the following modes of **thinking**:

Show more
15 Read more

Note: Be sure to include the APA citations. Your response should be written in an essay format (**introduction**, body and conclusion) and conform to the standards set forth in the APA Writing Style Handbook located at: https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/CWE/pdfs/Axiawriting_style_handbook.pdf If you need help with APA formatting, please use the template found in the course materials section as a guide.

13 Read more

As for the second argument – the argument regarding metacognition - Lipman claims that "only philosophy can provide the logical and epistemological criteria that are now lacking in the curriculum" (Lipman, 2003, p.228). Winstanley offers a similar position, stating that philosophy is the only discipline where "the validity of inferences, the quality of arguments and the meanings of words are constantly under scrutiny" (Winstanley, 2009, p.91). While both formulations suggest the need for the serious study of **logic**, they also claim that the current disciplines are deficient in their attention to logical argument. Considered as such, I find the argument difficult to accept. While I applaud an effort to improve the foundations of logical **thinking**, I can easily think of academic subjects devoted to logical inference. Certainly the standard high school geometry course is devoted completely to elucidating the characteristics of a deductive system, and much of the precollege mathematics and science curriculum examines validity of inferences. Further, though **logic** is often found under the purview of philosophy, it would be difficult to argue that the study of **logic** is, on its own, the study of philosophy.

Show more
17 Read more