Your Grades Have Been Uploaded

Thanks to all of you who gave it the college try!

This blog will remain idle until I teach another section of this class.

Note on Format of Final Project

Even when you write something more like an "essay" or "paper" for the final project, you still need to:

A. Label the argument,

B. set it out in explicit, numbered premises,

C. display the pattern, and

D. provide a transcriptions guide.

Example:
------------
blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda.

First Cause Argument

Premise 1: If something has a beginning, then it must have a cause.

Premise 2: The universe had a beginning.

Conclusion: The universe must have a cause.

This argument follows this pattern:

1. If x is P then x is Q

2. u is P

*Therefore, Q

where

P = "has a beginning"

Q = "must have a cause"

u = the universe

blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blahbidy blah blah blah yadda yadda.
----------------------

Note well in this example how the result of substituting the transcription guide into the pattern is *exactly* the argument. If it doesn't work that way, there's a mistake.

Here are some further comments.
Keep in mind that there is almost *always* a valid argument to be found by the Principle of Charity in accordance with reasonable exercise of the Principle of Faithfulness (err on the side of Charity).
The odds are that if you do not find a valid argument, you are missing something. So the odds are that if you haven't found one yet, you need to keep digging.
You *must* lay out your arguments like we did on the slides (separate numbered propositions) and you *must* include the pattern and a transcription guide (see attachment) to get an A.
The odds are that if your argument has more than 3 or 4 premises you are confused. It is best if you offer supporting arguments for the premises.
If you take the words to heart, the odds are you will get an A or high B on the project.

Suggestions for Argument Analysis

I've pasted them in below, but you can follow this link to a better-formatted document.

http://www.trent.dougherty.net/Pages/Reason_and_Argument/reasonandargument.htm



Here are some suggestions I have based on reading the first homework assignment.

1. Don’t do psychology, i.e. don’t try to explain what might make someone believe something, stick to considerations of evidence.
2. Don’t re-summarize the argument, it just wastes time and space, it’s redundant.
3. Don’t editorialize, it’s not called for. Just give me the logical facts.
4. Don’t do autobiography, it’s not called for.
5. Method:
a. Form argument
b. what’s the pattern? [Most people didn’t do this, please do it (as in, if you do not you likely will not pass).] Don’t forget that technically validity is defined in terms of a pattern.
c. is it valid?
d. Go through each and every *basic* premise saying how strong it is (according to textbook def. of “strong”.
i. Indicate which premises are intermediate by indicating which basic premises they depend upon.
ii. You don’t need to discuss intermediate premises, but they do effect validity so watch out.
e. Cut out anything not related to a-d.
6. If your arguments are coming out longer than 6 premises, consider breaking it up into two subsidiary arguments.
7. Don’t rely too heavily on penetrating questions as objections.
8. Don’t just comment upon the premises, state the evidence for and against them.
9. Don’t use quotes unless *absolutely* necessary.
10. Don’t evaluate premises on the basis of how popular they are!
11. If the premises are reasonable say “A good reason for premise X is that ________” if the premise is weak say “A plausible counter example is _______”.
12. Use the following terms (correctly) to evaluate the argument:
a. Valid
b. Cogent
c. Well-formed
d. Deductively Strong/weak
e. Inductively Strong/weak
f. Defeated
g. Counter-example
13. Think about the structure of the book:
a. Part I was about the basic concepts of the class.
b. Part II was about Argument Analysis which has two parts
i. Argument Reconstruction – summarized on p. 165 (you don’t have to hunt for these summaries, they are clearly listed in the table of contents).
ii. Argument Evaluation – summarized on p. 214
c. Part III was applications of part II to particular kinds of arguments.
d. The assignment is to give an analysis of the arguments. This means doing what it says on pp. 165 and 214 (most people got this but many did not). No more, no less: this is not an “essay” like in other classes, it’s an Argument Analysis.
14. The bottom line: Is it a strong argument or not? Look at the definition of “strong argument” and treat each of the items in it (see also item #12 on this list).


1. Article 1: Name and Author
a. Argument A: Reconstruction
i. Premise 1
ii. Premise 2, etc
iii. Conclusion
b. Argument A: Evaluation
i. Validity
1. Yes, Arg A is valid, it’s form is
a. If P then Q
b. P
c. Therefore Q [for example]
2. Transcription guide:
a. P = “I stand out in the rain.”
b. Q = “I get wet”
OR
3. No, Arg A is not valid, here’s a counter example
a. [counter example goes here]
ii. Strength
1. Premise 1 is/is not reasonable because…
2. Premise 2 is/is not reasonable because…
c. Argument B: Reconstruction
i. Premise 1
ii. Premise 2, etc
iii. Conclusion
d. Argument B: Evaluation
i. Validity
1. Yes, Arg B is valid, it’s form is
a. If P then Q
b. P
c. Therefore Q [for example]
OR
2. No, Arg B is not valid, here’s a counter example
a. [counter example goes here]
ii. Strength
1. Premise 1 is/is not reasonable because…
2. Premise 2 is/is not reasonable because…
ETC, FOR HOWEVER MANY ARGUMENTS YOU DO
2. Article 2: Name and Author

FOLLOW PATTERN FOR ARGUMENT A ABOVE

If you stick to this pattern, you will be much safer.



-----------------------------------------------
Trent Dougherty
Dean's Fellow
Department of Philosophy
University of Rochester, New York
www.Trent.Dougherty.net/Philosophy.htm

Model Assignments for Assignment #1

If the links don't work for you (Blogger is fussy about this), then either scroll down or get the full document here.

First Model
Second Model
Third Model

FIRST MODEL
Eastland
Argument A1
Premise 1: No type of social policy that makes racial distinctions is an acceptable type of social policy.
Premise 2: Affirmative action is a type of social policy that makes racial
distinctions.
Conclusion: Affirmative action is not an acceptable type of social policy.
This is the basic structure of Eastland’s argument, and it follows a valid pattern. (2) is true by definition, so criticism will focus on (1).
To support (1), Eastland appeals to America’s “own best traditions.” He cites the Declaration of Independence’s famous promise of equality (paragraph
15) as well as recent Constitutional interpretations from the Supreme Court (paragraphs 12-13) which indicate that social policies based upon racial distinctions are contrary to the founding principles of our country. It is implicit, although not uncontroversial, that social policies contrary to the founding principles of our country are not acceptable. The argument in standard form is now:
Argument A2
Premise 1: Social policies based upon racial distinctions are contrary to the founding principles of our country.
Premise 2: Social policies contrary to the founding principles of our country are unacceptable.
Premise 3: Affirmative action is a social policy based upon racial distinctions.
Conclusion: Affirmative action is not an acceptable type of social policy.
Premise (1) of A2 is supported by appropriate primary evidence, and (3) of A2 is again true by definition. (2) of A2 is now the controversial premise, upon which acceptance of the conclusion depends. Acceptance of (2) seems to depend upon one’s personal political leanings. One with a conservative judicial philosophy is likely to accept (2), while a more liberal individual is not.
Perhaps recognizing this, Eastland provides several other reasons to accept Premise (1) of Argument A1 that don’t depend upon Premise (2) of Argument A2.
For example, one specific objection to Premise (1) of Argument A1 is that social policies which make racial distinctions can still be acceptable if they are intended to help minorities. Eastland deals with this commonly expressed objection by applying Argument B. B1 is a generalized form of an argument alluded to in paragraph 8 (I am liberally applying the principle of charity):
Argument B1
Premise 1: The only type of social policy that makes racial distinctions and is an acceptable type of social policy, is the type that cannot have negative effects.
Premise 2: Every type of social policy that makes racial distinctions can have negative effects.
Premise 3: No type of social policy that makes racial distinctions is an acceptable type of social policy. (1), (2) Premise 4: [A social policy which makes racial distinctions and is intended to benefit minorities] is a type of social policy that makes racial distinctions.
Conclusion: [A social policy which makes racial distinctions and is intended to benefit minorities]is not an acceptable type of social policy. (3), (4)
Premise (3) is an intermediate conclusion (notice that it is in fact Premise (1) of Argument A1), and (4) is true by definition. The controversial premises are
(1) and (2). According to Eastland (paragraph 5), the objection specified above was supported by the founders of affirmative action as follows:
Argument B2
Premise 1: A social policy that makes racial distinctions is an acceptable type of social policy if and only if it cannot have negative effects.
Premise 2: Social policies carried out by people intending to help minorities
cannot have negative effects.
Conclusion: Social policies that make racial distinctions carried out by people intending to help minorities are an acceptable type of social policy.
To accept this (valid) argument in favor of the objection, one must accept Premise (1). Once one does so, Premise (1) of Argument B1 is a necessary result. (Notice that B2 is a weak argument because Premise (2) of B2 is not reasonable to believe. However, Eastland is not only interested in showing this argument to be weak, but also in showing its contradiction to be strong.) The only premise to Argument B1 that remains controversial, to those who accept Argument B2 in support of the objection that B1 sets out defeat, is Premise (2).
In support of (2), Eastland argues that any policy based upon racial distinctions encourages us to think in racial and ethnic terms, which can lead to resentment and chauvinism (paragraph 11).
If one rejects the conclusion of Argument B2, then one does not have the specified objection to Premise (1) of A1. If one accepts Argument B2, then Argument B1 which contradicts the specified objection to Premise (1) of A1 is a strong argument. However, it is still possible to disagree with Premise (1) of
A1 in two ways. One can either have a different objection to the premise, or one can have the specified objection, but support it with a line of reasoning that does not imply the truth of Premise (1) of B2.
Eastland fails to establish that Premise (1) of B1 is necessarily reasonable to believe, and therefore fails to establish the strength of argument B1. It seems that acceptance of this premise depends upon one’s political inclinations, much as did the acceptance of Premise (2) of A2.
The other arguments that Eastland makes in favor of his conclusion similarly depend upon Premise (1) of Argument B1. Take the following example (from paragraphs 6 and 8).
Argument C
Premise 1: The only type of social policy that makes racial distinctions and is an acceptable type of social policy, is the type that cannot have negative effects.
Premise 2: Affirmative action is a type of social policy.
Premise 3: Affirmative action makes racial distinctions.
Premise 4: Affirmative action can cause self-doubt, dependency, and entitlement
among supposed beneficiaries.
Premise 5: Causing self-doubt, dependency, and entitlement among supposed beneficiaries is a negative effect.
Premise 6: Affirmative action can have negative effects. (4), (5)
Conclusion: Affirmative action is not an acceptable type of social policy.
(1), (2), (3), (6)
This is a valid pattern of argument, so to attack it we must attack the premises. Premises (2) and (3) follow from the definition of affirmative action, and are therefore quite reasonable to believe. (5) appears to be widely accepted and not a point of contention between those who disagree on this issue, and (6) is an intermediate conclusion.
In support of (4) Eastland appeals to testimonies from the “supposed beneficiaries” themselves. He claims that many of them have testified that affirmative action often leads to the stated effects (paragraph 6). Although he doesn’t offer any sort of statistical evidence, in this case it does not seem to be necessary. Premise (4) only claims that affirmative action CAN lead to said effects, not that it “must” or “probably will”; his evidence therefore only has to show that in some cases affirmative action leads to the said effects, which the evidence provided makes it reasonable to believe. It is therefore reasonable to accept (4).
Premise (1), however, is the controversial premise, the same one that prevented us calling B1 a strong argument. This premise is one that proponents of affirmative action are likely to disagree with, and prevents us from calling
Argument C a strong argument as well.
Marshall and Katzenbach
Argument D
Premise 1: Minorities are at a disadvantage with regard to getting hired as compared with whites.
Premise 2: This disadvantage exists despite the absence of overt racial bias
(i.e. in a “color blind” society.)
Premise 3: That this disadvantage exists inhibits the realization of an integrated society.
Premise 4: An integrated society is desirable.
Premise 5: It is desirable that conditions inhibiting the realization of a desirable end be eliminated.
Premise 6: It is desirable that the disadvantage that minorities experience with regard to hiring as compared to whites be eliminated. (3), (4), (5) Premise 7: A social policy which achieves a desirable goal is desirable.
Premise 8: A social policy of affirmative action eliminates the above
disadvantage.
Conclusion: Affirmative action is a desirable social policy. (6), (7), (8)
This argument follows a valid pattern, so the criticism must focus on how reasonable it is to believe the premises.
Premise (1) is a statement of fact about the world which could be verified statistically. Instead of doing so, Marshall and Katzenbach support (1) by reasoning that managers, who tend to be white, are more likely to hire white employees (paragraph 13), perhaps because of conditioning resulting from life in a segregated society. This may or may not be a correct explanation, but the fact of the matter is that if Premise (1) is false, then this whole argument becomes pointless. The distinction between a color blind policy and a policy of affirmative action only exists where this race-based disadvantage exists. The fact that the merits of affirmative action are debated implies that Premise (1) is true, or at least that it is accepted. (This is the gist of paragraph 17.)
If Premise (1) were true but Premise (2) were not, then the cause of the disadvantage to minorities would be solely overt racial bias. The appropriate way to deal with the disadvantage would of course be to deal with this overt racial bias. This was the goal of the Civil Rights movement, and this goal was largely accomplished (paragraph 9). According to most blacks, however, a more subtle bias still exists (paragraph 19). This is testimonial support for the truth of Premise (2).
Consider also the following argument (mine) in favor of Premise (2).
1. Racial disadvantage is either a result of overt racial bias, or would exist despite the absence of overt racial bias.
2. Overt racial bias is agreed to be wrong. If it exists, steps will be taken to eliminate it if possible.
3. Steps are no longer taken to eliminate overt racial bias. (This is an observed fact.) 4. Overt racial bias either no longer exists, or cannot be eliminated.
(Consequence of 2 and 3.)
5. If overt racial bias no longer exists, then the racial disadvantage asserted by Premise (1) must exist despite the absence of overt racial bias (this would be the confirmation of Premise (2)). If instead it is impossible to eliminate overt racial bias, Premise (2) could be false. However, if this is the case, then a program such as affirmative action that could treat the symptoms of overt racial bias is still the only way to impose equality.
That Premise (3) of Argument D is true follows from the nature of the disadvantage assumed to exist from (1). If less blacks are hired, there will be less blacks in the workforce. Premise (4) is taken to be accepted by those on both sides of the issue, and is not a point of contention (paragraph 8).
Premise (6) is an intermediate conclusion, and Premise (8) is true by the definition of affirmative action. (The whole point of affirmative action is that it levels the playing field, see paragraph 19.) This leaves premises (5) and (7).
It seems to be common sense that in most cases, Premise (5) is true. If some obstacle is preventing you from accomplishing a goal, you want to overcome or eliminate that obstacle. The only case in which this does not seem to be the rational course of action is when eliminating the obstacle has other undesirable
consequences.
The story with Premise (7) is essentially the same. A policy which accomplishes a desirable goal might not be desirable in the case that the policy has other undesirable consequences. Opponents of affirmative action could plausibly argue that this caveat applies and is exactly the reason that affirmative action is not a good policy; indeed, as Eastland argues, the negative effects of affirmative action are myriad. He argues that the fact that there are ANY negative effects is enough to condemn affirmative action. As discussed extensively above, this is somewhat difficult to accept.
However, a modification of Premise (7) to read “A social policy which achieves a desirable goal is desirable if and only if it does have other consequences more undesirable than the goal is desirable” is easier to accept, and probably even rational to believe. This modified premise opens up Argument A to the objection that if the negative effects of affirmative action (self-doubt, dependency, stigmatism of minorities, encouraged racial identification) outweigh the benefits (leveling the playing field, facilitating integration) then the conclusion in favor of affirmative action no longer holds, even with all of the other premises intact.


SECOND MODEL
Argument A. Last Paragraph on Page 4 to the top of Page 5 Premise 1. Many ostensible beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action (S) have said it is true that preferential treatment of one person over another based on their race often leads to feelings of self-doubt, dependency and entitlement. (EP) Premise 2. (S) were sincere in saying in saying (P). (IP) Premise 3. These (S) are knowledgeable about the subject matter of (P). (IP) Premise 4. Usually, when a person sincerely states that P is true and is knowledgeable about the subject matter of P, P is true. (IP) Conclusion. It is true that the preferential treatment of one person over another based on race often leads to feelings of self-doubt, dependence and entitlement in its recipients. (IP) (1)-(5)
This argument is a testimonial argument and all testimonial arguments following any of the standard patterns, which this one does, are cogent. To be inductively strong for a person this argument must be cogent, have premises that are all reasonable to believe, and it must not be defeated by a person’s total evidence. We already know that the argument is cogent because it is not valid and because it follows a pattern such that all arguments following the same pattern have a conclusion that is probably true if all the premises are true.
Therefore, we must evaluate the reasonable truth of each premise.
It is rational for us to believe premise (1) because we have little doubt to believe the author giving the testimonial argument misunderstood what was said or for some other reason was wrong in attributing this statement to “the many ostensible beneficiaries of affirmative action”. It is also rational for us to believe premise (2) because we have no reason to believe that the testifiers were insincere in saying what they said or that they had anything to gain by making this testimony. Individuals who were actually beneficiaries of affirmative action would want the program to thrive and therefore would have little reason to give negative feedback about their experiences in the program.
Premise (3) seems to be rational for us to accept as well. Since we can assume that the testifiers did undergo the affirmative action program, unlike the author of the essay, it seems nearly impossible that they could not be knowledgeable about the subject matter; their personal experiences. We do not need to evaluate the truth of premise (4), the principle of testimonial arguments.
Therefore, since it is reasonable for us to believe that all the premises are true we must now see whether the argument is defeated by our total evidence.
This argument is not defeated by my total evidence. I have not discussed the
effects of affirmative action with anyone I know who might be a beneficiary of it. Other essays I have read on the topic have discussed the benefits of affirmative action but did not specifically say that those benefits aren’t accompanied by such feelings as self-doubt, dependency and entitlement so I do not know of other sincere experts who explicitly deny the conclusion. I do not have another premise or set of premises that if added to the argument formed would make the conclusion improbable.
Argument B. Bottom of pg 4 to top of pg 5 Premise 1. It is true that the preferential treatment of one person over another based on race often leads to feelings of self-doubt, dependence and entitlement in its recipients. (IP) Premise 2. Self-doubt, dependency and entitlement are negative feelings for people to have. (IP) Premise 3. It is true that preferential treatment of one person over another based on race often leads to negative feelings for their recipients. (EP) (5) – (7) Premise 4. All Race-based Affirmative Action programs are the preferential treatment of one person over another based on their race. (EP) Premise 5. It is true that all race-based affirmative action programs often lead to negative feelings for their recipients. (EP) (7)-(9) Premise6. All race-based affirmative action programs are meant to be beneficial for their recipients. (EP) Premise 7. All race-based affirmative action programs are meant to be beneficial for their recipients and often lead to negative feelings for their recipients (5) – (6) (IP) Premise 8. Unless it is a case of life or death, no one should choose to implement programs that are meant to be beneficial for their recipients but that often leads to negative feelings for their recipients. (EP?) Premise 9. The raced-based Affirmative Action program is not a case of life or death. (IP) ________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion. No one should choose to implement Affirmative Action programs.
*reconstructed with absolute generalizations because of the tone of the essay
This argument is valid because it follows a pattern such that it is impossible for any argument following this same pattern to have true premises and a false conclusion. Net one must determine whether the argument is deductively strong.
An argument is deductively strong for a person if and only if it is deductively valid and if it is reasonable for the person to believe all the argument’s premises. We already know that the argument is deductively valid. Therefore, to reject the argument, we must criticize one or more of its premises, or their conjunction. We must have reason to believe that one or more of the premises is false or it must be reasonable for us to suspend judgment about one of the premises, or about their conjunction. We will not criticize premises (3) or (5) or (7) because they are intermediate premises. In argument evaluation one should never criticize an intermediate conclusion directly, one should focus criticisms on the basic premises.
In this reconstruction one can assume that premise (1) follows from the testimony argument provided in (A). Based on the deductive strength of that testimonial argument there is no reason to criticize Premise (1). If we did not have that testimonial argument, however, premise (1) would likely be a contentious premise for the proponents of affirmative action. Premise (2) also seems to be fairly easy to accept. If one has ever held these feelings personally they could call upon the negative feelings these emotions gave them.
It is unlikely that anyone would argue that self-doubt and dependency are positive qualities that people should aspire to. In addition, though people with a sense of entitlement might find it a positive attribute, this is probably an expression of the entitlement itself. Others would be hesitant to approve someone else’s sense of entitlement. Premise (4) is a very contentious premise and its reasonable truth for a person depends largely on whether that person is a proponent or opponent of affirmative action. For the purposes of this evaluation it is impossible to consider all of the arguments that could be given for or against this premise by participants in the affirmative action debate; therefore, I will determine that all opponents are in agreement with the arguments in essay 1 and all proponents with those in essay 2. Opponents of affirmative action would accept Premise (4) because they believe that preferential treatment is inherent to all affirmative action programs and that individuals are preferred over other individuals because of their race and are judged only on the basis of their race, not on their individual merit.
Proponents of affirmative action would find premise (4) unreasonable because they do not think that affirmative action prefers one individual over another for no reason other than race. They would point to counterexamples where those who are administrating affirmative action programs did not give preference to one less qualified black person over one more qualified white person for a position but who looked at the overall make-up of a group and chose African Americans to establish diversity. For proponents of affirmative action, then, premise (4) is easy to criticize because they define affirmative action differently and because it is a wide generalization with many cases it is easy to find a counterexample to it.
It seems that premise (6) would be rational for participants on both sides of the affirmative action debate. Even though there are opponents to affirmative action, it is unlikely that they believe that those who are in favor of it are trying to cause its recipients harm. They would concede that it has good intentions for its recipients but that its practice causes harm for them and for those who they see as being discriminated against because of it. Premise (8) is also reasonable. It seems to be common sense that no one who seeks a positive outcome from a given action would still take that action if they knew that it often produced a negative outcome. The only situation that it seems reasonable to do this would be in a case of life or death; where the possibility of negative feelings for a person would better than their death. For example, risky operations are supposed to be beneficial but they can cause negative feelings. However, if the person would die without that operation it is better to have it and ‘take the good with the bad’. Finally, premise (9) is also reasonable. No one would argue that the difference between having affirmative action and not having it would be a difference between life and death.
One comes to the conclusion that opponents of affirmative action would find all the premises of Argument B to be reasonable by themselves, and they would find them reasonable taken together, so they would find Argument B to be deductively strong. Proponents of affirmative action, however, would find B to be valid but weak since they do would reject (4). Since this is a highly debated topic it is unsurprising that this argument is strong for one group but weak for others.
Argument C: Page 15, after the break, along with 3rd paragraph on page 16 Premise 1 .The majority of college admissions officers admit some applicants based on geography, financial ability, relationship to graduates, or relationship to other people important in other ways to the institution, etc.
Premise 2. Geography, financial ability, relationship to graduates and relationship to other people (etc.) are all non-merit based categories.
Premise 3. The majority of college admissions officers admit some applicants on the basis of non-merit based categories. (1) - (2).
Premise 4. If the majority of college admissions officers do not admit some applicants on the basis of non-merit based categories then they should admit all applicants based on their test scores alone. (EP) Premise 5. No one wants the majority of college admissions officers to admit all applicants based on their test scores alone. (EP) Premise 6. The majority of college admissions officers should admit some students on the basis of non-merit based categories. (4) – (5) (IP) Premise 7. Race and national origin are non-merit based categories. (EP) Premise 8. The majority of college admissions officers should admit some
students on the basis of race and national origin. (6) – (7) (IP)
Premise 9. To admit some students on the basis of race and national origin is affirmative action. (EP) Conclusion. The majority of college admissions officers should admit some
students on the basis of affirmative action. (8) – (9)
Evaluation:
This argument is valid because it follows a pattern such that it is impossible for any argument following this same pattern to have true premises and a false conclusion. Net one must determine whether the argument is deductively strong.
An argument is deductively strong for a person if and only if it is deductively valid and if it is reasonable for the person to believe all the argument’s premises. We already know that the argument is deductively valid. Therefore, to reject the argument, we must criticize one or more of its premises, or their conjunction. We must have reason to believe that one or more of the premises is false or it must be reasonable for us to suspend judgment about one of the premises, or about their conjunction. We will not criticize premises (3) or (6) or (8) because they are intermediate premises. In argument evaluation one should never criticize an intermediate conclusion directly, one should focus criticisms on the basic premises.
Premise (1) is reasonable for one to believe. One can believe that there are some admission officers who do not admit based on these categories; however, it is difficult to disprove that most do not. Premise (2) is also reasonable for us to believe. One usually considers merit based categories to be measurable in terms of achievement. For example, test scores, honors and awards, and grades are merit based categories. Where you are from or how much money you have are not considered to be ‘merit-based.’ Premise (4) is a difficult premise to accept; however, it is explicitly stated in the author’s argument that the only alternative to accepting students on grounds that are ‘anit-merit’ is to accept them exclusively because of their test scores. Therefore, it must be included in the reconstruction in this way. Premise (4) is a conditional. We cannot determine that the antecedent is a sufficient condition for the consequent, that if A is true B must be true. There seem to be many other merit-based categories other than test scores that admissions officers could take into consideration in such a situation. Likewise, we cannot determine that A is a necessary condition for be, that just incase A is true B must be true as well. In fact, the consequent is so exclusive that the antecedent of the conditional does not even make the consequent probable; there just seem to be too many other options that could be enacted before the consequent would hold to be true. Therefore, we should reject this conditional, premise (4). Premise
(5) also seems fairly reasonable. Even if there are students who only have their test scores ‘going for them’ it is unlikely that they would truthfully want that to be the only factor in their admissions process. However, if one thinks that there must be some people who want this, which would be an insubstantial criticism because it fails to identify a real flaw in the argument, one would be justified in suspending judgment about (5). Premise (6), due to the same reasons as premise (1) is a very reasonable premise. Race and national origin are inherent and are not based one’s merit or achievement.
Finally, premise (9) seems acceptable, for proponents and opponents of affirmative action. If you are admitting students solely on the basis of their race, whether you consider it to be on an individual basis or you are looking at it as a whole, then you are practicing affirmative action. It seems impossible to separate one’s race from the process of affirmative action. Even if you are creating a diverse student body through affirmative action you are still admitting students based, at least partially, on their race.
Based on this evaluation one finds that 2A is valid but weak. Premise 4 is very unreasonable and 5 unlikely. Therefore, there is no way to accept all the premises alone or taken together.
Argument D. Last Paragraph on pg 13, continuing to page 14 Premise 1. We live in a largely segregated society. (EP) Premise 2. Living in a largely segregated society creates a natural inclination in all white middle managers to hire/promote those who are the same race as them. (IP) Premise 3. African Americans are not the same race as them. (IP)
Conclusion: Living in a largely segregated society does not create a natural
inclination white middle managers to hire/promote African Americans.
Evaluation:
This argument is valid because it follows a pattern such that it is impossible for any argument following this same pattern to have true premises and a false conclusion. Net one must determine whether the argument is deductively strong.
An argument is deductively strong for a person if and only if it is deductively valid and if it is reasonable for the person to believe all the argument’s premises. We already know that the argument is deductively valid. Therefore, to reject the argument, we must criticize one or more of its premises, or their conjunction. We must have reason to believe that one or more of the premises are false or it must be reasonable for us to suspend judgment about one of the premises, or about their conjunction. We will not criticize premise (4)) because it is the conclusion and rejecting an argument’s conclusion cannot disprove the strength of the argument.
Premise (1) is a premise that is more reasonable for some people than it is for others. A reasonable belief in Premise one seems to depend on where you live.
If you are from a town that is well-integrated then you would have reasonable belief to think that our society is not segregated and that minorities fit in very well. However, if you are from the majority of towns where judgment is passed on minorities or ones that predominately white and you are able to infer segregation because of that you would believe that we live in a segregated society. Additionally, if you are a minority and you experience the negative effects of segregation regularly, you would clearly accept premise (1). Thus, it seems the majority would accept premise (1) but some might suspend judgment about it or reject it, depending on their experience with segregation. Premise
(2) is difficult to accept. First of all, unless we are basing the argument on the testimony of the author of the essay, which it doesn’t seem that we should, there is no testimonial argument included to support this premise.
Additionally, his essay does imply the wide generalization of ‘all’ white middle managers and I do know white middle managers who are just as likely to promote and hire those outside their race as those within it. Premise (3) is an implicit premise that is rational to believe. No person can be of two races; well, maybe Michael Jackson but one shouldn’t rationally base an argument around him.
Therefore, we find that this argument is deductively valid but not deductively strong. We would reject this argument’s strength because Premise (1) isn’t reasonable or is likely for one to suspend judgment on it and because premise
(2) isn’t reasonable to believe. Therefore, one cannot accept each of the premises in the argument or their conjunction.

MODEL THREE
ESSAY 1 “Affirmative Action: Is It Fair?”
Argument A (found on page 7)
Premise 1: Affirmative action draws racial and ethnic lines.
Premise 2: Drawing racial and ethnic lines encourages Americans to think of themselves in racial and ethnic terms.
Premise 3: If Americans think of themselves in racial and ethnic terms, then feelings of resentment and chauvinism are created.
Premise 4: Feelings of resentment and chauvinism do not promote the good health of our democracy.
Conclusion: Therefore, affirmative action does not promote the good health of our democracy.
Strengths:
Argument A is valid and well-formed. If each premise is true then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Premise 1 is a good premise because it is reasonable to believe that affirmative action draws racial and ethnic lines. It would be difficult to find a counterexample in which affirmative action does not draw racial and ethnic lines. Premise 4 is a good premise because it is reasonable to believe that feelings of resentment and chauvinism do not promote the good health of our democracy.
Weaknesses:
In Argument A, it is not reasonable for one to believe that all of the argument’s premises are true. It is reasonable that a person would suspend judgment on one or more of the premises. For example, it is possible to provide a counterexample to premise 3. Such an example would be a situation in which Americans thought of themselves in racial and ethnic terms and not only did it not create feelings of resentment and chauvinism, but it created opposite, positive feelings of togetherness and empowerment. It would not be unreasonable for a person to suspend judgment on premise 2 if he or she was unsure how to evaluate how the drawing of racial and ethnic lines influence the
self-perceptions of Americans.
Overall: Although the argument is valid and well-formed, it is not reasonable for one to believe that all of the argument’s premises are true. The argument
is not deductively strong.
Argument B (found on page 8)
Premise 1: All individuals should enjoy a fundamental equality of rights.
Premise 2: Only a colorblind law fully respects the equal rights of all persons, as individuals.
Premise 3: Affirmative action is not a colorblind law.
Conclusion: Therefore, affirmative action does not fully respect the rights of all persons, as individuals.
Strengths:
Argument B is well-formed because it is valid. The argument follows the pattern that if the premises are all true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Premise 1 is a good premise because there are many sources that make it reasonable to believe that all individuals should enjoy a fundamental equality of rights such as the Declaration of Independence, works of John Locke, and speeches by Abraham Lincoln. Premise 3 is a good premise because “not a colorblind law” is basically the definition of affirmative action. It is nearly impossible to find a counterexample in which affirmative action is a colorblind law.
Weaknesses: It is not reasonable to believe that all of the premises in Argument B are true. Although premise 1 is strongly supported by historical evidence, there is a possibility that one could provide a counterexample of an individual that should not enjoy a fundamental equality of rights such as a convicted felon. Premise 2 is a very weak premise. By the author stating in his essay that the Declaration implies that “only a colorblind law fully respects the equal rights of all persons, as individuals”, he makes it easier to disprove the premise by providing just one counterexample of another law that fully respects the equal rights of all persons, as individuals. Removing the word “only” would make this premise stronger, more reasonable, and consequently the conclusion stronger. However, one could still reasonably reject that a colorblind law fully respects the equal rights of all persons, as individuals by providing examples in which it is reasonable for one to believe that there is a person for whom a colorblind law would not fully respect the equal rights of as an individual (such as a minority). Premise 2 is a very debatable premise and exemplifies the complex problem of affirmative action policy by showing how one could rationally believe both pro-affirmative action and anti-affirmative action arguments.
Overall: Argument B is not a deductively strong argument. The possibilities of counterexamples to premises 1 and 2 provide easy ways to make the premises untrue. If the premises are easily proven untrue, then the conclusion is easily proven to be false.
ESSAY 2 “Not Colorblind: Just Blind.”
Argument A (found on page 17)
Premise 1: If problems of race are to be solved, then they must be seen as the race-based problems they are.
Premise 2: Affirmative action programs see problems as the race-based problems they are.
Conclusion: Therefore, affirmative action is a solution to problems of race.
Strengths:
Argument A is cogent. If the premises in the pattern are true, then the conclusion is probably true. If premise 1 and 2 are true, then it is probably true that affirmative action is a solution. Premise 1 is a good premise. It is reasonable to believe that to solve problems of race, one must view the problems as race-based. The author strengthens this point in the text by showing how problems of race are really race-based problems and how they are tied to lack of power in a society.
Weaknesses:
Argument A is not valid. In this pattern, if the premises are true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. Even if it is reasonable for one to believe premise 1 and 2, it is rational for me to conclude that if problems of race are to be solved then programs similar to affirmative action but NOT affirmative action are the solutions.
Overall:
Argument A is a confusing argument. The author is trying to convey the overall ideas that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination towards whites by explaining its roots in history and affirmative action applies to only minority populations that do not have power. I struggled to find a way to make this argument stronger and clearer while attempting to fulfill the principles of charity and faithfulness. However, I chose to include it because it was a main point and I thought it was an interesting argument because it is not circular as it seems at first glance.
Argument B (found on page 16)
Premise 1: Admitting African Americans to college provides a diverse student body.
Premise 2: A diverse student body contributes to educational excellence and to the preparation of students to live in an integrated society.
Premise 3: Admitting African Americans to college contributes to the educational excellence and to the preparation of students to live in an integrated society.
Premise 4: If race cannot be taken into account and admission is based on test scores alone, far fewer African Americans will qualify for admission.
Premise 5: If far fewer African Americans qualify for admission, there will be less of a contribution to the educational excellence and to the preparation of students to live in an integrated society.
Conclusion: If race cannot be taken into account, then there will be less of a contribution to the educational excellence and to the preparation of students to live in an integrated society.
Strengths:
Argument B is a good argument. It is well-formed and valid with a very solid pattern. It represents the author’s point of view accurately. Premise 1 is a good premise. It is reasonable to believe that in most cases, admitting African Americans to college provides a diverse student body. Premise 2 is a good premise. Many universities openly advertise that they believe diversity contributes to educational excellence and prepares students to live in society.
If one believes premises 1 and 2, one must believe premise 3. Premise 4 is a good premise because admittance and score data exists as evidence to support the premise.
Weaknesses:
As always, a counterexample is the best way to disprove a premise. Although premise one is almost always true, premise 1 would not be true in a case such as an African American college where admitting an African American would be doing the opposite of providing diversity. Also, it is reasonable that there are people who would suspend judgment on premise 2 or find it unreasonable to believe that diversity contributes to educational excellence. Perhaps an opponent of premise 2 could even state an example where a minority student disrupted a learning environment and did not contribute to educational excellence.
Overall: Argument 2 is a good argument in support of affirmative action. It follows a very clear, structured pattern and is valid and well-formed. Although there are possible counterexamples to premise 1 and 2, most reasonable people would think that it is rational to believe premise 1 and 2 are true. Especially if the adjective “predominantly white” was placed in front of colleges in premise 1 to ensure that African Americans were the minority and would therefore increase diversity. With the correction of premise 1, premise 2 would be the
only attackable premise that could not be reasonably refuted.

Suggestion: Make your premises simpler

Here's another suggestion: make your premises simpler sentences.

For example, consider the premise "Whoever has been admitted to a school, or won the promotion or the contract, based on race, has suffered discrimination (pg 4)."

One way to symbolize this is
"If A, B or C due to X then Y."

Notice that (i) being admitted to school, (ii) getting a promotion, (iii) or getting a contract are all cases of "receiving a benefit". So it would be much simpler to have the premise be:

"If A due to X then B"

where

A = one receives a benefit

X = racial status

B = one has suffered discrimination.

But now also notice that though racial status is key to the topic it does not necessarily need to have it’s own symbol.

If you just let

A = "one receives a benefit due to racial status"

then the premise is as simple as

"If A then B".

There will always be a balance between putting more in the letters, you can clearly put too much in, you just have to think hard about it and make a considered judgement. Hopefully this example will help with that.

Follow up

Harell seemed to think I was making some kind of illicit move in class the other day. I've posted this so that if he wants to follow up on that he can post it in the comments.

Quiz #10 Example

Here's a great example of how short and to the point can be ideal.

Quiz #7 Model

Notice that the evaluation simply makes reference to the strength of each premise. Since the argument is valid, the only way it can be weak is for the premises to be weak. Thus, I don't waste time talking about anything but the strength of each premise.
-----------------------------
1. Result of Sample: 20% of the sample population--the first 25 students to enter class--had the measured property: saying they got an A.
2. Accuracy Premise: If 20% of the sample *said* they got an A, then 20% of the sample *did* get an A.
3. Representativeness Premise: If 20% of the *sample* got an A, then 20% of the *target* population--the whole class--got an A.
4. Therefore, 20% of the target population--the whole class--did get an A.

Assuming the pollster didn't make any recording mistakes, premise 1 seems solid. 2 is quite questionable due to the fact that people often lie about their grade by saying they got a higher grade than they really did. 3 is especially questionable since the first 25 to class might be the "overachievers" who are more likely to get an A.
---------------------

To see an actual student example of a perfect score click here.

Open Comments

If you have any constructive comments you'd like to share, you can just post them as responses to this message.

New Address for Archive Page

Slides will now be posted directly to Prof. Contessa's homepage here:

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/contessa/teaching.htm

Just a Reminder

*I am certainly willing to believe I've made mistakes in grading, but there are two guidelines
which *must* be followed:

i. You must have read the entirety of this post and compared your essay honestly with the examples here.

ii. You must have an *argument* as to why the grade was inaccurate including the grade which you think *is* accurate, and you must submit this to me in writing so I can evaluate it properly and think about it for a few days.

iii. Since I am the one that graded it, you must come to me--Trent the TA--before going to Professor Contessa or anyone else. If we cannot agree, then further steps may need to be taken. The process begins, however, with the grader.

Model Essay for Last Quiz

At a trial, witness A testifies that the defendant was at home all day and Witness B testifies that it is not the case that the defendant was at home all day.

i) Under what circumstances, if any, would it be rational for you to believe that both testimonies are true?

The Correspondence Principle states that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to the way things really are. The way things really are cannot include both what A says and what B says. The two testimonies are contradictory. There are no circumstances under which contradictory statements are true. Therefore there are no circumstances under which it would be rational to believe both testimonies.

[The only wiggle room I can think of is if the witnesses have different conceptions of “being at home”. For example if the defendant had an acreage and was on his property, but over a mile from his house. One could consider this “at home” and the other not. That’s quite a stretch, though.]

ii) Under what circumstances, if any, would it be rational for you to believe that both

testimonies are false?
The statements are as contradictories, so it is not possible for them both to be false according to the Correspondence Principle, so it could not be rational to believe them both.

[The only wiggle room I can think of here is if the person in question didn’t realize the logical relations, didn’t realize that contradictories couldn’t both be true and thought that each witness seemed credible. Again, a stretch.]

iii) Under what circumstances, if any, would it be rational for you to suspend your judgment about both testimonies?

If both were on par with respect to motive, ability, and other considerations pertaining to credibility, then there would be equal evidence and the Rational Belief Principle says the rational thing to do in such circumstances is to suspend judgement.

iv) Under what circumstances, if any, would it be rational for you to believe A’s testimony and not B’s testimony?

If he fared better with respect to motive, ability, or other considerations pertaining to credibility, then there would be more evidence for his case and the Rational Belief Principle tells us that it is rational to believe him.
Motivate your answers to these questions clearly and succinctly.

Model Essay for Previous Quiz

I just realized I never posted a model essay for the previous quiz.

The principle of faithfulness favors A because Philip it contains as a premise an explicit statement of Philip’s which B lacks. The principle of charity favors B because premise A of argument A is technically superfluous. The conclusion is an inequality, so the absolute amount is irrelevant. More importantly, premise C is a universal generalization whereas premise 2 is a less risky non-universal generalization. It is not necessary for the conclusion to be made reasonable by the premises that Paul smokes more cigs *every* day. In B, by contrast” 2 is made reasonable only by a narrower generalization that Paul “usually” smokes more than Philip. So even though A is valid, B is cogent and has more reasonable premises and is therefore stronger. Since PC directs us to make the strongest reconstruction, B is more in accordance with PC.

Quiz #4 Stats

Here are the stats:

Slides up

Sorry, for got to tell you that the slides from last week are up. They've been up for awhile.

Archive Page

td

Student Model Essay from last quiz

Here is an example from a student. It received 100%.

Putting the argument into standard form helps to answer the questions asked.

1. We cannot justify induction deductively.
2. We cannot justify induction inductively.
3. Arguments are either inductive or deductive.
4. We cannot justify induction through argument.

The conclusion of the argument as presented by Haack, although never stated explicitly, is that we have no way to justify induction trough argument. In support of premise 1, she argues that any justification of induction which uses deduction would be "too strong". In other words, induction is weaker than deduction so induction should not be able to be justified deductively.

in support of premise 2, she argues that any justification of induction which depends upon induction would be circular. In other words, for the argument to be justified, induction has to be justified in the first place, which is what we are trying to prove. An implicitly premise seems to be premise 3, leading us to our conclusion.

Model Essay for Last Quiz

Here we see once again a *dilemma* form of argument.

1. Anything rationally justified must be justified inductively or deductively.
2. Induction cannot be justified deductively.
3. Induction cannot be justified inductively.
4. Therefore, induction cannot be justified.

This argument is of the following pattern:

1. x is J only if either it is IJ or DJ
2. ind cannot be DJ
3. ind cann be IJ
4. Therefore, ind cannot be J

The first premise states the basis of the dilemma which is a matter of definition, so its truth is guaranteed. The second premise states that one horn of the dilemma is a dead end, and the other states that the other horn is a dead end. Thus, no matter what, it's a dead end. This is what the conclusion states, so the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises: it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

The reason Haack gives for Premise 2 is that deduction would be too strong. This is because deductive arguments are *conclusive* whereas inductive arguments are not. The reason Haack gives for premise three is that is would be circular. This is a problem because it would assume the reliability of the very thing in question.

Monday's slides are now available

On the archive page.

I just realized they are dated "Oct 8th" rather than "2nd" I'll fix that soon, but I 've got to catch the bus now.

Todays slides posted

On archive page.

Wednesday, Sept. 27 Slides Posted

On archive page.

Please notice the post below.

Very Helpful Information

There's been some confusion about cogency and strenth. Here are some things to keep in mind.


Cogency is to Induction, what validity is for Deduction.


Cogency and validity are the two different species of well-formed arguments.

Cogency = genus, well-formed; species, inductive.

Validity = genus, well-formed; species, deductive.


Strength is a matter of the reasonableness of the premises on total evidence.

Neither valid nor cogent arguments are necessarily epistemically strong. They only become strong-for-me when *my* evidence makes it reasonable to believe the premises.

You will be very glad if you take this to heart.

Quiz #2 Model Essays

***begin example

Standard form:
(1) The evil in the world is either with the intention of the Deity or against the intention of the Deity.
(2) If it is with it, then the Deity is not omnibenevolent.
(3) If it is against it, then the Deity is not omnipotent.
---------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, (4) Either the Deity is not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent.

Since validity is a matter of an argument's *pattern* we must look at the pattern of this argument. It is as follows [two alternative formulations given].

(1) W --> ~B
(2) A --> ~O
(3) W v A
Therefore, ~B v ~O

(1) If W then not-B
(2) If A then not-O
(3) Either W or A
Therefore, not-B or not-O

W = Evil is with the intention of Deity; A = Evil is against the intention of Deity; B = Deity is omnibenevolent; O = Deity is omnipotent

By definition, in order for this argument to be valid it must be such that IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion MUST be true as well. Since this is a conditional property, we can ASSUME [in the "pretend" sense] that the premises are true. (3) tells us that one of two things must be true. One of those things leads to one result, the other to another. But if one path *must* be taken--as (3) says--then one destination *must* be reached. Since that's all the conclusion states--that one or the other destinations is reached--the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
***end example

Now here are some of the best examples from class [I have not reproduced the standard for or argument patterns since they are the same in each case]:

Student Example 1 (This one got 100%)
Regardless of whether the conclusion is true or false, the argument presented by David Hume is valid. It follows the PATTERN [symbolized argument omitted by me to save time].
We are given two CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS . Then we are given a proposition that states one of the two given ANTECEDENTS are true. If the antecedent is affirmed, then the second part of the conditional statement must be true. Therefore the conclusion either B or D is true must be true if the antecedent follows. FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE VALID, the conclusion of the argument must necessarily follow from the premises in that it must be true if they are. When assessing validity, we are not concerned with actual truth of the premises, but what happens if we assume them to be true. With respect to this argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. As a result we can say that this argument is valid.

Student Example 2 (This one got 100%)
[standard form and patterns omitted to save me time typing]
I believe his argument is valid. This is because he says what happens if it his intention or not his intention and one of these *must* be true. This is because if a statement is false, its negation must be true, and vice verse. Therefore the evil either is or is not intended. Now since one of those statements must be true, thin it must also be true that Q or Y is true, for one premise goes from P to Q and the other goes from ~P to Y. This necessarily leaves us with Q or Y, which, by definition, makes this argument valid: the conclusion can't be false if the premises are true.

There were several other examples of essentially flawless responses.

Quiz #2 Analysis

Average on T/F: 74.7%

Average on Essay: 83.4%

Overall Average: 79%

A. General Remarks about Grading

B. Main errors appearing in this batch of essays

A. First, a word about grading in general. The first batch was graded fairly easily, but I'll be "easing" you into the kind of standards that are, well, standard in Philosophy. Naturally, more will be expected from you as time goes on. So this time I gave several "mercy" grades of "69" for answers that were essentially non-existent and therefore technically could be given F's, though some thought seemed to be going on. Such "effort" grades will be phased out over time. As always, email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am the grader and grading questions should be directed *directly* to me.

DON'T FORGET YOU CAN DROP YOUR WORST GRADE.

I can't write detailed comments on each of 50 essays and many problems occur again and again so I often write "see blog" for further details. However, I have made many comments and in general I've marked good comments on green and misdirected comments in red so you'll have some idea of where the problem is. As always, email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am the grader and grading questions should be directed *directly* to me.

If you disagree with your assigned grade the procedure, as always is this:
1. Read this post IN ITS ENTIRETY.
2. Form an hypothesis as to what your grade *should* be.
3. Email me stating what grad *you* think you ought to get with an *argument* as to why you're right and I'm wrong.
4. Give me a week to think about your argument.

If you don't disagree, but just want some more explanation, then email me and we'll get together and talk about it.


B. Here are the main problems which were recurrent on this quiz

*Use the DEFINITIONS! Don't just make stuff up. If you USE THE DEFINITIONS then all will be well. Excellent answers can almost always be constructed almost completely out of the DEFINITIONS. It's pretty much all about the DEFINITIONS.

*In particular, if you will want to be very clear on the definitions of validity and cogency. A bunch of people confused the two. Validity has NOTHING to do with whether the premises are TRUE or even REASONABLE. Validity is a CONDITIONAL property about what's true IF the premises are true: i.e. the conclusion MUST be true as well. VALID ARGUMENTS CAN HAVE FALSE AND EVEN UNREASONABLE CONCLUSIONS. E.g.

1. All dogs are cats.
2. All cats are fish.
3. Therefore, All dogs are fish.

THIS IS A VALID ARGUMENT. Yet it has absurdly false premises. What makes it valid is that IF the premises WERE true, THEN the conclusion WOULD be true. That's ALL there is to validity for our purposes.

*Given the above, the Reasonable Belief principle is NOT in ANY way relevant to validity. A bunch of people missed this.

*Although you can show that an argument is INVALID by giving just one counter-example, you CANNOT prove an argument VALID by giving other examples of arguments with the same pattern which has true premises and a true conclusion.

1. Some swans are black.
2. Most kittens are furry.
3. Therefore, you are reading this sentence.

This argument has true premises and a true conclusion but the pattern it displays is not at all valid.

*Also, someone wrote the definition of validity down wrong leaving "if" out of it and then shared this definition with a bunch of people who used it on the quiz to no avail. The definition used in class is on slide 4 of Sept. 20.

*Please SO SUMMARIES OR RE-STATEMENTS NECESSARY AT ALL.

Quiz #2 Analysis

Average on T/F: 74.7%

Average on Essay: 83.4%

Overall Average: 79%

A. General Remarks about Grading

B. Main errors appearing in this batch of essays

A. First, a word about grading in general. The first batch was graded fairly easily, but I'll be "easing" you into the kind of standards that are, well, standard in Philosophy. Naturally, more will be expected from you as time goes on. So this time I gave several "mercy" grades of "69" for answers that were essentially non-existent and therefore technically could be given F's, though some thought seemed to be going on. Such "effort" grades will be phased out over time. As always, email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am the grader and grading questions should be directed *directly* to me.

DON'T FORGET YOU CAN DROP YOUR WORST GRADE.

I can't write detailed comments on each of 50 essays and many problems occur again and again so I often write "see blog" for further details. However, I have made many comments and in general I've marked good comments on green and misdirected comments in red so you'll have some idea of where the problem is. As always, email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am the grader and grading questions should be directed *directly* to me.

If you disagree with your assigned grade the procedure, as always is this:
1. Read this post IN ITS ENTIRETY.
2. Form an hypothesis as to what your grade *should* be.
3. Email me stating what grad *you* think you ought to get with an *argument* as to why you're right and I'm wrong.
4. Give me a week to think about your argument.

If you don't disagree, but just want some more explanation, then email me and we'll get together and talk about it.


B. Here are the main main reccurent problems on this quiz:

*Use the DEFINITIONS! Don't just make stuff up. If you USE THE DEFINITIONS then all will be well. Excellent answers can almost always be constructed almost completely out of the DEFINITIONS. It's pretty much all about the DEFINITIONS.

*In particular, if you will want to be very clear on the definitions of validity and cogency. A bunch of people confused the two. Validity has NOTHING to do with whether the premises are TRUE or even REASONABLE. Validity is a CONDITIONAL property about what's true IF the premises are true: i.e. the conclusion MUST be true as well. VALID ARGUMENTS CAN HAVE FALSE AND EVEN UNREASONABLE CONCLUSIONS. E.g.

1. All dogs are cats.
2. All cats are fish.
3. Therefore, All dogs are fish.

THIS IS A VALID ARGUMENT. Yet it has absurdly false premises. What makes it valid is that IF the premises WERE true, THEN the conclusion WOULD be true. That's ALL there is to validity for our purposes.

*Given the above, the Reasonable Belief principle is NOT in ANY way relevant to validity. A bunch of people missed this.

*Although you can show that an argument is INVALID by giving just one counter-example, you CANNOT prove an argument VALID by giving other examples of arguments with the same pattern which has true premises and a true conclusion.

1. Some swans are black.
2. Most kittens are furry.
3. Therefore, you are reading this sentence.

This argument has true premises and a true conclusion but the pattern it displays is not at all valid.

*Also, someone wrote the definition of validity down wrong leaving "if" out of it and then shared this definition with a bunch of people who used it on the quiz to no avail. The definition used in class is on slide 4 of Sept. 20.

*Please SO SUMMARIES OR RE-STATEMENTS NECESSARY AT ALL.

Quiz #2 Analysis

Average on T/F: 74.7%

Average on Essay: 83.4%

Overall Average: 79%

A. General Remarks about Grading

B. Main errors appearing in this batch of essays

A. First, a word about grading in general. The first batch was graded fairly easily, but I'll be "easing" you into the kind of standards that are, well, standard in Philosophy. Naturally, more will be expected from you as time goes on. So this time I gave several "mercy" grades of "69" for answers that were essentially non-existent and therefore technically could be given F's, though some thought seemed to be going on. Such "effort" grades will be phased out over time. As always, email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am the grader and grading questions should be directed *directly* to me.

DON'T FORGET YOU CAN DROP YOUR WORST GRADE.

I can't write detailed comments on each of 50 essays and many problems occur again and again so I often write "see blog" for further details. However, I have made many comments and in general I've marked good comments on green and misdirected comments in red so you'll have some idea of where the problem is. As always, email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am the grader and grading questions should be directed *directly* to me.

If you disagree with your assigned grade the procedure, as always is this:
1. Read this post IN ITS ENTIRETY.
2. Form an hypothesis as to what your grade *should* be.
3. Email me stating what grad *you* think you ought to get with an *argument* as to why you're right and I'm wrong.
4. Give me a week to think about your argument.

If you don't disagree, but just want some more explanation, then email me and we'll get together and talk about it.


B. Here are the main main reccurent problems on this quiz:

*Use the DEFINITIONS! Don't just make stuff up. If you USE THE DEFINITIONS then all will be well. Excellent answers can almost always be constructed almost completely out of the DEFINITIONS. It's pretty much all about the DEFINITIONS.

*In particular, if you will want to be very clear on the definitions of validity and cogency. A bunch of people confused the two. Validity has NOTHING to do with whether the premises are TRUE or even REASONABLE. Validity is a CONDITIONAL property about what's true IF the premises are true: i.e. the conclusion MUST be true as well. VALID ARGUMENTS CAN HAVE FALSE AND EVEN UNREASONABLE CONCLUSIONS. E.g.

1. All dogs are cats.
2. All cats are fish.
3. Therefore, All dogs are fish.

THIS IS A VALID ARGUMENT. Yet it has absurdly false premises. What makes it valid is that IF the premises WERE true, THEN the conclusion WOULD be true. That's ALL there is to validity for our purposes.

*Given the above, the Reasonable Belief principle is NOT in ANY way relevant to validity. A bunch of people missed this.

*Although you can show that an argument is INVALID by giving just one counter-example, you CANNOT prove an argument VALID by giving other examples of arguments with the same pattern which has true premises and a true conclusion.

1. Some swans are black.
2. Most kittens are furry.
3. Therefore, you are reading this sentence.

This argument has true premises and a true conclusion but the pattern it displays is not at all valid.

*Also, someone wrote the definition of validity down wrong leaving "if" out of it and then shared this definition with a bunch of people who used it on the quiz to no avail. The definition used in class is on slide 4 of Sept. 20.

*Please SO SUMMARIES OR RE-STATEMENTS NECESSARY AT ALL.

September 25th Slides posted

On the archive page.

I'll have quizes ready to hand back tomorrow.

Slides Posted for Monday, Sept 25th

Posted on the archive page.

I'll have quizes ready to hand back tomorrow.

Sept. 18, 20 Slides Posted

Now available on the archive page.

First Quiz Essay Results

The first batch of essays have been graded. Here are a few comments. [You can also download a document version of this from the archive page, which also has a graph of the grade distribution.]

*I have marked "good" things in green and "problems" in red. I have tried to make clear enough notatations, but if you have further questions, please email me at reasonandargument@gmail.com and we'll discuss it and/or make an appointment to discuss it further.

*They may look all scratched up with notes and lines and circles and grades crossed out and re-written. This is because I worked very hard to be fair and I repeatedly raised grades, sometimes multiple times because as I read on I realized the answers were better than I thought. After I've gotten a better feel for the class the papers will not be so messy. Thanks for your understanding.

*I am certainly willing to believe I've made mistakes in grading, but there are two guidelines which *must* be followed:
i. You must have read the entirety of this post and compared your essay honestly with the examples here.
ii. You must have an *argument* as to why the grade was inaccurate including the grade which you think *is* accurate, and you must submit this to me in writing so I can evaluate it properly and think about it for a few days.
iii. Since I am the one that graded it, you must come to me--Trent the TA--before going to Professor Contessa or anyone else. If we cannot agree, then further steps may need to be taken. The process begins, however, with the grader.

*Most people did very well, good job!

Here are the stats:

A's = 20
B's = 19
C's = 8
D's =2

The ideal essay is constructed primarily out of the key definitions and distinctions from the text raised in class, and is argumentative in structure. Here is an example.

It may seem at first that A and B are disagreeing, for in telling B not to drive so fast, A implies that B should not be driving so fast. Thus, she asserts the proposition that B should not be driving so fast. By not consenting, B signals that she disagrees with what she takes to be the proposition expressed by A's assertion. However, this appearance of disagreement can be deceiving. For when we look at B's counter-evidence--which consists in information about the law--we see that this needn't have any connection with issues pertaining to safety which form the basis of A's judgement. Rational disagreement does not pertain to words or actions, it pertains to attitudes one has toward propositions. In particular, for two individuals to disagree they must take contrary attitudes to one and the same proposition--e.g. one believes it, the other doesn't. But in this case, it is not clear there is one proposition being disagreed about for A could express the proposition You are prudentially-required to slow down whereas B could express the proposition I am not legally-required to slow down. So even they they may appear to disagree in their words and actions, they do not necessarily have a rational disagreement here, due to the fact that there is not necessarily a single proposition one believes and the other doesn't.

Commetns: Note that even though in the quiz we have a *narrative* rather than their own words, we can recover the propositions of the simplest version of the conversation. As mentioned in class, people can use different *grammatical kinds* of sentences to do different things, such as using rhetorical questions or even--in this case--imperatives--to assert that something is or is not the case. The above essay makes use of the distinction between sentences and propositions, it makes use of the notion of beliefs as attitudes toward propositions as well as explicitly applying the concept of disagreement.

Here is a brief summary of things that commonly went awry with essay answers:

*Not applying the definition of disagreement. This was the most common error. The question was primarily about disagreement, so the definition of disagreement should have been the main point in an answer.

*Many people fixated on the *evidence* which A and B gave for their perspectives. This was a bit of a red herring. Although the evidence they cite is itself evidence for what they *meant*, for which propositions they were asserting, it is not the target of the question. A lot of people got drawn off by this and discussed disagreement or lack thereof in the *evidence* rather than the conclusion.

*It was common for people to fall into the habit of summarizing the story. The story is printed on the other side, so there's no need to summarize anything. You can use what they say as evidence in an argument like "When B responds that the legal limit doesn't change this is evidence that she's not interpreting A as talking about a moral sense of 'should.'"

*Several people were thrown off by the fact that there was a *narrative* instead of the exchange like "Ann said 'blah blah' and Beatrice replied 'yak yak.'" We were told that A told B not to do something and some people acutely observed that imperative sentences are not truth-apt, so there can't be a disagreement. However, we pointed out in class that one can *use* non-declarative sentences to make assertions. Consider the use of rhetorical questions to make assertions. "Are you really so crazy as to do that?" asserts You are crazy if you do that. Thus A telling B "(You) slow down" is to assert You need to slow down. This is just like the example in class where the guy's title was "Don't marry career women" but it really asserted It is not rational to marry a career woman.


ACTUAL EXAMPLES FROM CLASS OF EXCELLENT ANSWERS

Notice how the examples below have many of the properties of the "Ideal Essay".

Note: there were good grades given to people who argued that there *was* disagreement, but none of them were as carefully argued as the following.

MODEL STUDENT ESSAY #1

Beatrice and Ann are not in disagreement. In order to be in disagreement about something the proponents must have two different epistemic attitudes towards the same proposition. Beatrice and Ann are not discussing the same proposition. Beatrice is using an imperative sentence to tell Ann to drive slower and imperative sentences are not truth-apt so they cannot create a disagreement. Beatrice goes on to say that it is a foggy night and the visibility is reduced--which Ann does not refute. Ann makes a second proposition that the speed limit on the road is not reduced in the fog at night (which shows she has an implicit belief that one should only reduce speed if required by law). In order to be in disagreement over Ann's proposition. Beatrice would have to argue that Ann still should reduce her speed even though the law does not require it.

MODEL STUDENT ESSAY #2

Although we may be inclined to think that Ann and Beatrice are disagreeing because Ann believes that Beatrice should slow down, and Beatrice believes she should not, when looking closely at the language used in their sentence tokens, Ann and Beatrice are not disagreeing. Their sentence tokens are describing different propositions. Ann proposes that Beatrice should slow down. Her premises for this conclusion are that the visibility is reduced. Had Beatrice argued that the fog was not affecting visibility and therefore she should not slow down, they would be in disagreement. However, Beatrice instead of directly addressing her personal speed, as Ann does, addresses the speed limit. As Ann does, addresses the speed limit. As An is not making an argument that Beatrice should slow down because the speed limit is reduced, they are technically talking about different things. Therefore they are not really in disagreement.

MODEL STUDENT ESSAY #3

Ann and Beatrice are not disagreeing. Although it appears Beatrice does not approve of Ann's advice, their sentence tokens do not express the same proposition. Ann feels Beatrice should slow down because she may be putting them in a dangerous situation. Beatrice, however, is concerned only with the speed limit. Were Beatrice to say "I should not slow down simply because of the conditions," there would be a disagreement. The concern Ann shows is implicit--she does not mention safety, but it is clearly implied. in order for there to be a disagreement, two people must have opposing views on the same proposition, or one must suspend his/her judgement. Neither is happening in his scenario.

MODEL STUDENT ESSAY #4

Ann and Beatrice are not disagreeing because they are expressing different propositions. Ann's proposition is [you should not drive so fast] while Beatrice's is, in a sense [The law doesn't require me to slow down]. Beatrice is not openly saying she will not slow down which would indeed be disagreeing with Ann. Beatrice is simply stating she is not required to slow down by the speed limit, implying she doesn't have to slow down, but this is not stated in her proposition. Ann and Beatrice state two sentence tokens expressing two completely different propositions which do not contradict one another or give rise to disagreement. They are addressing different issues altogether.

MODEL STUDENT ESSAY #5

In this case, Ann and Beatrice do not disagree. Ann tells Beatrice that she should not drive so fast due to the reduced visibility form the fog. Beatrice replies that the laws don't require her to slow down in foggy conditions. In Anne's propositions she is presumably worried about the reduced visibility and hence reduced safety. Beatrice's statement involves the simple fact that the law doesn't require her to slow down. If Ann had said, "It is a bad idea to drive fast," and Beatrice had replied, "It is not a bad idea to drive fast," then they would disagree on whether or not it was a good idea to drive fast, As it is, there is no disagreement on a single proposition.

Did you notice how many of them told us what it *would* take to have disagreement? Did you notice how many made explicit use of definitions?

Here are a couple of other really good ones.

Ann and Beatrice are not disagreeing because they are making two entirely different propositions. In order to disagree they must be considering the same proposition, and one must believe that proposition while the other does not believe it. In this case, Ann makes the proposition that visibility is reduced because of the fog, Beatrice's reply, that the speed limit is not reduced is a completely different proposition.

Ann and Beatrice are not disagreeing because they are suggesting different propositions. These are different because Ann is suggesting to Beatrice what she should do to be safe, whereas Beatrice is suggesting that it is not required for her to to it by law. Therefore, Ann has not taken a position on the proposition that the law does not require drivers to reduce their speed. And Beatrice has not taken a position on whether or not her visibility is reduced from the dark and fog. Ann and Beatrice therefore are not in disagreement.

Ann and Beatrice are not disagreeing because they each are making propositions about different issues. Although it seems that Beatrice is implying that she will not slow down as An told her to, she is actually just pointing out that she is legally in the right, however reckless. Ann is addressing the safety issue while Beatrice is addressing the legality issue.

So there were seven (8) which were very very good to excellent, that's well over 10% of the class. In fact, it's over 15%, and there were other "A"s I didn't list.

Wednesday, Sept. 13 Slides Posted

The slides from today have now been added to the class archive page.

Slides

The slides up to Sept. 11 are posted on the class archive page.

Each class's slides will be posted ASAP after class.

Archive Page Established

I've posted the syllabus as well as the handout from class on the class archive page.

Sorting it Out

So after considering both sides, who, on the whole, had the better reasoning and argument?

If you vote, you should probably make a comment briefly describing why.

Who had the better reasoning and argument? Michael Noer Elizabeth Corcoran view results

Office Hours

I'll be having office hours on Mondays and Wednesdays a half-hour before and after class across from the check-out desk in Rush Rhees library, at the long tables or the little round table next to them.

By far the best thing to do, though, is to email me if you have a question. That way I'll have a chance to think about your question before responding rather than making something up which is likely what I'll do if you come to office hours! ;-)~

Trent.Dougherty@Rochester.edu

Marriage Advice??

So we talked about "hidden assumptions" or "tacit premises" in class today and why such were left tacit. There seemed to be a tacit assumption that the author was trying to hide something. I'd like to challenge that assumption.

Assumptions are generated by contexts. For example, there is a tacit assumption in this post that you are in the class Reason and Argument at the University of Rochester. I'm not trying to hide anything, I've just got an intended audience in mind.

I'm willing to bet lunch at that Pit that over two-thirds of Forbes Magazine subscribers are professional males and that regular readership does not deviate much from subscribership. This is not an argument that his intended audience is professional males: I think that's sufficiently obvious on its own. The demographic information is just to suggest a reason why it's perfectly reasonable to have that as an intended audience.

So when you take data that says that division of labor is more efficient and thus lessens the work load and thus lessens the stress of married couples and apply that to professional males you get the intended application which is: Working guys, don't marry professional women.

There's also the question of whether he intends this to be an absolute or a "defeasible" rule. A defeasible rule is one that you apply unless there are over-riding reasons to violate. For example: don't cause pain. You shouldn't cause people pain unless there is a sufficient over-riding reason. It's hard to believe anyone sophisticated enough to even write such an article would be suggesting an absolute rule. But as a defeasible rule I'm not sure we discovered much reason to resist.

We'll talk a bit more about this on Friday.

Welcome to "Reason and Argument"

Hi, this will be a place where we can follow up on class discussion or you can post questions for discussion.

Please post responsibly!

<---This is the main text for the class.

The class will be challenging at times, but I really believe it will be a great help if you dig in and wrestle with it.

See you in class!

--td