PHIL 120 - LOGIC + CRITICAL THINKING FINAL EXAM STUDY
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 Definition
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 p… q
Conditional Arguments
Modus Ponens - Valid
Modus Tollesn - Valid
Affirming 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
2023-07-01