Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

PHILOSOPHY - UBCO

PHIL 120 - LOGIC + CRITICAL THINKING

FINAL EXAM STUDY

Date and Time: Friday, June 30, 2022 @ 8:30am — 11:00am

Location: CANVAS Online (Respondus LockDown Browser + Secondary Zoom Device)

Format: ~100 Multiple Choice Questions

Scope: Sessions 2-10 (inclusive)

Exam Technical Requirements

Respondus LockDown Browser: Students will be required to complete the exam on      CANVAS while utilizing the Respondus Lockdown Browser. Please make sure that the  special browser works on your computer before the exam date, and if not… follow the  link below and contact IT Services… I cannot troubleshot technical issues on/before the

exam time + date.

Zoom Invigilation: Students will be required to be logged into a secondary device for Zoom invigilation with the front-facing camera displaying your workspaces (e.g., desk area). I reserve the right to ask you to pan around the room to make sure you do not have study aids, etc.  Students who do not log into Zoom may not have their                examinations graded, or the exam will be subject to a 50% points deduction. Note the  session will be recorded from the start to ensure attendance and for invigilation.

STUDY GUIDE TERM SHEET

[2] LANGUAGE + DEFINITIONS

Valid v. Sound

Relevance of Logic

Objectivity

Functions of a Denition

Rules for Definitions

Genius + Differentia

Neither Too Broad / Narrow

Essential Attributes

[4] ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Elements of an Argument

Arguments v. Explanations

Chains of Inferences

Dependent / Independent Premises

Evaluating Arguments

Essential Attributes of Arguments Deductive v. Inductive

Validity v. Cogency

Implicit Premises

Distilling Arguments

[5] FALLACIES

Fallacies of Relevance

-  Subjectivism

-  Appeal to Majority

-  Appeal to Emotion

-  Appeal to Tradition

-  Appeal to Force

-  Ad Hominem

-  Abusive Ad Hominem

-  Circumstantial Ad Hominem

-  Tu Quoque

-  Poisoning the Well

Inductive Fallacies

-  Appeal to Authority

-  False Dichotomy

-  Post Hoc Fallacy

-  Hasty Generalization

-  Accident Fallacy

-  Slipper Slop

-  Logical Slippery Slope

-  Empirical Slippery Slope

Fallacies of Presumption + Diversion

-  Begging the Question

-  Equivocation

-  Appeal to Ignorance

-  Missing the Point

-  Straw Person Fallacy

-  Red-Herring

[6] COGNITIVE BIASES

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

Belief Bias

Hindsight Bias

Heuristics

Stereotypes

Representativeness

Availability Heuristic

Self-Defensive Biases

Cognitive Dissonance

Attribution Bias

Countering Bias

[7] CATEGORICAL LOGIC

Categorical Propositions (A / E / I / O) Subject / Predicate / Copula

Quality v. Quantity

Translating into Standard Form

Special + Singular Universals         Definite Article v. Indefinite Article Only - Implicit Universal

Non-Standard Quantifiers

Square of Opposition

Contradictories

Contraries

Subcontraries

Conversion

Obversion

Contraposition

[8] CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

Syllogisms

Major / Minor / Middle Term

Major / Minor Premise

Mood + Figure

Valid Arguments

Distributed v. Undistributed

Rules for Distribution

Rules for Validity

Compound Propositions

Disjunctive Propositions

-  Exclusive v. Inclusive

-  Disjunctions + Negations

Disjunctive Syllogisms

-  Rules for Valid Disjunctive Syllogisms

-  Component Parts - Valid Syllogism

-  Valid: Denying the Disjunct

Conditional Propositions (If-Then)      Standardizing Conditional Statements Standard v. Non-Standard Form

Exceptions + Special Cases

-  Only if

-  If and only if

-  Unless…

-  Without pq

Conditional Arguments

Modus Ponens - Valid

Modus Tollesn - Valid

Afrming the Consequent - Invalid

Denying the Antecedent - Invalid

Arguments from Analogy

Appeal + Limits of Analogies

Component Parts

-  Source Analogue

-  Target Analogue

-  Shared Properties

-  Target Property

Evaluating Analogies

-  Reasons to Accept / Reject

-  Relevant differences / similarities

-  Evaluative Standards

Analogies in Ethics

Analogies in Legal Reasoning

Nature of Law (Civil v. Common Law) Common Law - Legal Precedent

Explanation + Science

-  Argument v. Explanation

-  Explanandum

-  Hypothesis

Explanations

Hypothesis: Evaluative Standards

-  Adequacy + Truth

-  Strength / Completeness / Informativeness

Testing Hypotheses

Plausibility + Consistency + Simplicity

Pseudo-Explanations

Pseudo-History / Pseudo-Science