Study Guide for Test 3

Dr. Gass=

HCOM 235=

Spring 2009

Study Guide for Test 3

T= est 3 will consist of 60 or more multiple choice questions. Bring a Scantron 88= 2 E answer sheet with you. The questions will cover material from class lecture and the text = since Test 2. The study guide below highlights key terms and concepts you will ne= ed to know. Much of the material= on the test will be drawn from class lecture, and much of this material is not= in the text. You should access t= he class lecture material from my website: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass=

Types of Reasoning (see Ch. 7)

Causal reasoning

&= nbsp; definition of causal inference

&= nbsp; cause (antecedent), effect (consequent)

&= nbsp; cause-effect relationships must be inferred, not direc= tly observed

&= nbsp; a cause cannot precede its effect

Ty= pes of causal inferences

&= nbsp; partial or contributory cause

&= nbsp; necessary cause

&= nbsp; sufficient cause

&= nbsp; sole cause (necessary and sufficient)

effect to cause reasoning (a form of sign reasoning)

reciprocal causation

&= nbsp; causal chain or multi-step causation (domino effect)

Er= rors in causal reasoning

&= nbsp; post hoc ergo propter hoc (“post hoc” fall= acy)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; confusing coincidence with causation=

&= nbsp; confusing correlation with causation=

&= nbsp; alternative causation

&= nbsp; oversimplification or reductionism

&= nbsp; associations in advertising

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; equating products with positive images or lifestyles

Te= sts of Causal reasoning

&= nbsp; Is the cause necessary to produce the effect? (must= the cause be present?)

= ; Is the cause sufficient to produce the effect? (= capable of producing the effect?)

&= nbsp; Are there cumulative or contributory causes?

&= nbsp; Are there alternative causal explanations?

&= nbsp; Are there countervailing causes? (other factors that explain the effect)

Reason= ing by Analogy

definition of analogy

includes arguments based on similarity, comparison, precedent<= o:p>

analogies in real-life spheres of argument; politics, law, religion, economics, etc.

T= ypes of analogies

literal versus figurative analogies

T= ests of analogies

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Are things being compared in their essential, relevant respects?

structural versus surface features of analogies

Are important dissimilarities being ignored?

<= o:p>

Parallel Case

not included on the exam.

<= o:p>

Authority<= /b>

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       not included on the exam

Sign reasoning

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       definition of sign reasoning

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       signs signify what, but not why

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       one thing as a predictor or reliable indicator of anot= her

material goods as status symbols, economic indicators, politic= al actions as signifiers, physiological symptoms in medicine, circumstantial evidence in law

examples of faulty sign reasoning

cumulative effect of signs (additive inferential power)

T= ypes of Sign Reasoning

fallible versus infallible signs

T= ests of sign reasoning

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       How reliable or consistent is the sign?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Is the sign fallible?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Is the sign ambiguous (could it signify something else?)

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Are there a sufficient number of signs?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Are there negative or contradictory signs?

Genera= lization and Example

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       definition of generalization

necessity of forming of generalizations

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       fallibility of generalizations

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       false stereotypes as generalizations=

T= ypes of generalizations

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       universal generalizations

statistical generalizations

contingent generalizations

inductive generalization (reasoning from particular cases, examples, or a sample to form a general rule)

deductive generalization (reasoning from a general rule or aver= age to a particular case)

T= ests of generalizations

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       How valid or reliable is the general rule?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Is the sample from which the generalization is drawn sufficient?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Are there exceptions to the general rule?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       Even if the generalization is true, in general, does it apply to this specific c= ase?

R= easoning by Example

        varieties and types of examples

watch out for hand-picked example= s

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       testimonials as examples

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       anecdotal evidence

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       controlled, double-blind studies are superior to examp= les

T= ests of examples

Is the example relevant or germane?

H= ow typical or representative is the example? (no “cherry picking”)

D= o the examples cover a critical period of time?

A= re there sufficient examples to prove the case? (no= isolated cases)

A= re there any negative or contradictory examples?

Arguing Constructively

Avoiding arguments doesn’t help

  &nb= sp;            = Arguing gets issues out in the open, on the table

  &nb= sp;            = Arguing let’s people know where they stand in the relationship

  &nb= sp;            = Couples who report high relationship satisfaction arguing frequently over specific issues

Rules for arguing effectively=

  &nb= sp;            = Deal with one issue at a time

  &nb= sp;            = Bring up issues in the “here and now” (as soon as possible)

  &nb= sp;            = Don’t engage in “sandbagging” or ambushes

  &nb= sp;            = Express anger by “owning” your emotions

  &nb= sp;            = Use “” statements when disclosing feelings

  &nb= sp;            = Acknowledges good points made by your opponent

Use effective listening skills

Avoid mental counter-arguing—listen carefully

Use paraphrasing to demonst= rate you understand the other’s position

Use perception checking to clarify the other’s position

Avoid verbal aggression

  &nb= sp;            = Avoid insults, put-downs, ultimatums, threats

  &nb= sp;            = Avoid passive-aggressive behavior

  &nb= sp;            = Your goal should not be to damage the other person’s self esteem.

Fallacies in Reasoning (see Ch. 8)

faulty cause

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by applying “necessary” and/or “sufficient” tests

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by arging that corr= elation does not prove causation

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by arging your oppo= nent is confusing coincidence with causation

refute by arguing your opponent is confusing temporal proximity with causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)

<= o:p>

sweeping generalization

same as the fallacy of division (what is true of the whole is true of the part)

refute by pointing out the “general” rule is false (false stereotypes, for example)

refute by arguing exceptions to t= he general rule

refute by arguing the general rule doesn’t apply to a specific case

hasty generalization (hasty conclusion)

same as the fallacy of composit= ion (what is true of the part is true of the whole)

refute by arguing the sample is atypical or non-representative

refute by arguing the sample is n= ot random (cherry picked)

faulty analogy

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by focusing on structural features of the analo= gy

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by offering a counter-analogy=

<= o:p>

appeal to ignorance

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by noting the advocate has the burden of proof = for her/his claims

<= o:p>

bifurcation (either-or, all or nothing)<= /p>
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by demonstrating there are more than two option= s

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by demonstrating the options aren’t mutua= lly exclusive (do both)

<= o:p>

false dilemma (artificial dichotomy)

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by showing there are more than two options=

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by showing one “horn” of the dilemm= a is good

<= o:p>

faulty sign (including argument from circumstance)

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by demonstrating the sign is fallible

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by providing negative signs
<= o:p>

damning the source (ad hominem)

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by focusing on the issue, not personal insults<= o:p>

<= o:p>

tu quo q= ue (two wrongs make a right, look who’s talking)

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by noting two wrongs don’t make a right

<= o:p>

equivocation

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by pointing out the shift in the meaning of a t= erm

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by asking your opponent of a precise definition= for a term

<= o:p>

begging the question

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by noting that premise hasn’t been proven=

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by identifying “smuggled” presuppos= itions

<= o:p>

tautology or circular reasoning

refute by showing the argument can’t be falsified (e.g., there is no test capable of proving the argument false, even if the argument were false)

<= o:p>

appeal to authority

refute by applying tests of source credibility (e.g., qualifications, objectivity, bias, etc.)

<= o:p>

appeal to tradition

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by demonstrating the tradition serves no purpos= e or is counterproductive

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by arguing the observe of tradition is progress=

<= o:p>

appeal to the crowd (ad populum<= /span>, appeal to popularity)

refute by arguing popular opinion= or majority will can be wrong (a majority once supported slavery)

<= o:p>

straw man (a.k.a. fallacy of refutation)<= /span>

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by arguing your opponent is focusing on a minor= issue

<= o:p>

slippery slope (snowball argument or domino effect)

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by arguing no second or third step need be take= n

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by showing the first step has already been take= n

<= o:p>

appealing to extremes

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by demonstrating no one advocates taking the ar= gument that far

<= o:p>

hypothesis contrary to fact

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by noting your opponent is engaged in an intell= ectual exercise

<= o:p>

non-sequitur (irrelevant reason)<= /p>
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;       refute by noting the conclusion does not follow from t= he evidence

<= o:p>

red herring (diversionary tactic)

refute by noting your opponent is trying to distract attention away from the real issue(s)<= /p>
<= o:p>

inconsistency

refute by pointing out your opponent’s arguments are inconsistent with one another

<= o:p>

tests of fallacies:= you should know common tests for refuting or exposing these fallacie= s

Formal Logic and Deductive Reasoning =

deduction or formal logic

reasoning f= rom known premises, or premises presumed to be true to conclusions that are certain, inevitable

   &nbs= p;            the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises

   &nbs= p;            the form or structure of a deductive argument determin= es its validity

   &nbs= p;            formal logic can’t establish the truth of the premises, only the validity of the conclusion

validity: = the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises

soundness: = the premises are true and the conclusion is valid

inductive reasoning or informal logic

   &nbs= p;            reasoning from uncertain premises to conclusions that = are probable, reasonable

syllogisms

   &nbs= p;            major premise

   &nbs= p;            minor premise

   &nbs= p;            conclusion

types of syllogisms

   &nbs= p;            categorical (based on universal premises)

   &nbs= p;            hypothetical (if-then premises)

   &nbs= p;            disjunctive (either-or premises)

invalid f= orms of reasoning     &= nbsp;         (see the rules for syllogisms below too)

   &nbs= p;            affirming the consequent (If A, then B. B, therefore A= )

   &nbs= p;            denying the antecedent (If A, then B. No B, therefore = no A)

undistributed<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> m= iddle term (middle term must be in the subject of one premise and the predicate of the other

rules f= or a valid syllogism

   &nbs= p;            a valid syllogism must possess three, and only three, unambiguous terms.

   &nbs= p;            the middle term must be “distributed” in b= oth premises, and may not appear in the conclusion

the middle term must be universal and unqualified in at least o= ne premise.

qualified premises require qualified conclusions; no te= rm may be universal in the conclusion that is not universal in a premise; if one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular.=

at l= east one premise must be affirmative; there cannot= be two negative premises; if either premise is negative the conclusion = must be negative