Category: Logic

I need pages 4-6 finished by November 3rd. The instructions include videos to watch and arguments to consider. Please use Times New Roman font, size 12, with one-inch margins everywhere. No cover page or bibliography is necessary. Double-space it, please.

For this week’s course notes FROM CHATPER 7 ; CRITICAL THINKING BY MOORE & PARKER ; focus on understanding the various types of induction fallacies. These are key concepts in identifying flaws in reasoning when generalizing from specific cases. Your notes should include the following terms:
Hasty Generalizing
Argument by Anecdote
Refutation by Anecdote
Hasty Generalizing Used as Disproof
Skewed Generalizing
Fallacy of Biased Sample
Self-Selection Fallacy
Accident
Weak Analogy
Mistaken Appeal to Authority
Mistaken Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Tradition
Bandwagon Fallacy
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Confusing Correlation with Causation
Overlooking the Possibility of Chance Variation
Overlooking the Possibility of Regression to the Mean
Slippery Slope
Untestable Statement
Select 5 of the above and provide an example that illustrates how the fallacy appears in reasoning.

(We are currently using CHAPTER 7 “BOGUS LOGOS 2” in Moore & Parker Critical Thinking)
For this assignment, you will find a news article, social media post, or other piece of media that demonstrates an induction fallacy. Induction fallacies occur when a conclusion is drawn from evidence that is not sufficiently strong or representative to justify it. Examples include hasty generalizations, false cause, or slippery slope arguments. Once you have selected your source, make sure it is publicly accessible and include a direct link to it in your submission.
In your analysis, identify the specific induction fallacy present in the argument, such as a hasty generalization, false cause, or slippery slope. Summarize the argument made in the source, including its main claim and supporting evidence, and explain why the reasoning is fallacious, discussing how the evidence provided is insufficient or flawed in supporting the conclusion. Finally, suggest a way the author could strengthen their argument to avoid the fallacy. Consider what additional evidence or reasoning would make the argument more convincing. Be sure to use specific examples and quotes from the source to support your analysis.

To help you all with this, here’s an example:
I chose a social media post from Twitter in which the author claims that “all politicians are corrupt” based on a recent news story about a local politician caught in a bribery scandal. The tweet reads: “Just saw the news about the mayor taking bribes. It’s always the same—ALL politicians are corrupt! #DrainTheSwamp.” https://x.com/AP/status/1839409552220946562
This argument demonstrates a hasty generalization, which is a type of induction fallacy. In a hasty generalization, the author draws a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample. In this case, the author uses the actions of a single mayor to make a sweeping claim about all politicians. The post relies on one example of corruption and assumes that it is representative of every politician, which is not a justified leap in reasoning. While it’s true that some politicians have engaged in corrupt behavior, it does not logically follow that all politicians are corrupt. There is insufficient evidence to support such a broad claim.
To avoid the fallacy, the author could provide additional evidence or qualify their statement. For example, instead of claiming that “all politicians are corrupt,” they could say, “Some politicians have been involved in corruption, as the recent bribery scandal shows, and it’s important to hold them accountable.” This revision would acknowledge the issue without making an overgeneralized statement. Additionally, the author could include statistics or reports on the prevalence of political corruption to make a more well-supported argument about the need for reform in politics.

PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM “PART 1 FINAL DOCX” AND SUPPLEMENT WITH QUOTES FROM THE READINGS ATTACHED

Please upload a document of 400-500 words responding to all of the following instructions:
(1) Compose a sound (categorical) syllogism in standard form.
(2) List the middle term, major term, & minor term.
(3) State the figure and mood of the syllogism.
(4) Clearly and fully state Houser’s four rules of validity
(5) Articulate why or how your syllogism conforms to each of Houser’s four rules of validity. Be thorough and detailed in your explanation.
(6) Convert the syllogism into a short paragraph, ensuring that all three premises are present.
(7) Would the paragraph benefit from a more subtle approach? If so, omit one of the premises or conclusions in order to formulate an enthymeme.
(8) Would the paragraph benefit from additional support? If so, add an epicheirema or another argument.
The uploaded document should be single-spaced, with 1 in. margins all around, and executed in a standard 12 pt. font such as Times New Roman, Arial, Garamond, etc. While this is primarily a response paper, you should provide parenthetical citations wherever applicable. Citations should follow the following format: (Last Name of Author, short title, #).
Remember, your essay should be your own and based primarily upon the course material and/or the designated resources for the assignment. This is not a research paper. Do not copy and paste from outside web sources or consult any unauthorized material (whether print or digital). If you would like to utilize a source you are unsure about, please seek permission from the professor. Use of unauthorized source material will result in a “0” on the assignment. Use of LLMs, Generative AI, chatbots, or prompt-generators of any kind is absolutely prohibited. This includes but is not limited to ChatGPT, QuillBot, and AI enhanced applications such as Grammarly. The consequences for plagiarism or other forms of academic dishonesty are outlined in the syllabus.
This is the idea I want in this essay: All ancient cities have rich histories, and Jerusalem is an ancient city. Therefore, Jerusalem has a rich history.
PLEASE USE QUOTES FROM THE BOOK THAT SUPPORT THE CONTENT, I HAVE ATTACHED: HOUSER, LOGIC AS A LIBERAL ART BOOK
ALSO HERE IS AN OUTLINE OF WHERE YOU CAN FIND THE PAGES/LESSONS FOR THE QUOTES:
The Syllogism & Its Parts
Houser, Logic as a Liberal Art, Lesson 24
Reading 18: Houser, Logic as a Liberal Art, Lessons 25, 28, & 30 (Skim)
Lecture 19: Evaluating Syllogisms
Reading 19: Houser, Logic as a Liberal Art, Lessons 26 & 29
PLEASE ALSO INCORPORATE HOUSER’S FOUR RULES OF VALIDITY LESSON 25 ON THE BOOK. PAGES 281-284
PLEASE USE DIRECT QUOTATIONS AS WELL WITH IN TEXT CITATION (Houser, Logic, PG #).
THANK YOU SO MUCH I REALLY APPRECIATE IT

4-5 pages, TNR double-spaced, 1-inch margins, number pages
Fundamental Task:
• 1– identify argument(s), premise(s), sub-argument(s), definitions, non-argumentative passages
(emotive, informative etc.), any fallacies, etc… Review Chap 1-3 from beginning of semester
• 2– argument(s) (& sub-arguments)
• 3 – /analyze argument(s) (strong/weak/valid/cogent/sound)

In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic; thus, at least one of the arguments will contradict your personal opinion. You will compose the arguments in standard form, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Do not write your arguments as an essay.
Assignment: Download the submission template below, which further breaks down the steps involved in this assignment. You will return the completed template as your Touchstone submission.
Critical Thinking Touchstone 4 Template.docx
In order to foster learning and growth, all essays you submit must be newly written specifically for this course. Any plagiarized or recycled work will result in a Plagiarism Detected alert. Review this tutorial for more about plagiarism and the Plagiarism Detected alert: Touchstones: Academic Integrity Guidelines. For guidance on the use of generative AI technology, review Ethical Standards and Appropriate Use of AI.
A. Directions
Step 1: Choose a Topic
Choose one topic from the following list:
Should people eat meat?
Should marijuana be legal?
Should pet cats be kept indoors?
Should zoos exist?
Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop?
Should seat belt wearing be mandatory?
Should children be required to take gym/physical education?
Should public roads be used for private car parking?
Step 2. Develop Logically Contradictory Normative Conclusions
Develop two logically contradictory normative conclusions on this topic. You do not need to agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both of them.
The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another.
EXAMPLE If you selected the topic “Should people eat meat?”, your conclusions might be:
People should not eat meat.
People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
People should reduce their meat consumption.
People need not reduce their meat consumption.
Another option could be:
It is morally permissible to eat fish.
It is not morally permissible to eat fish.
Note that you need not indicate which conclusion you actually agree with. An omnivore might write an excellent logical argument for veganism, or vice versa!
Step 3: Write Normative Argument for First Conclusion
Choose your first conclusion and write a normative argument in standard form to reach that conclusion. This requires knowledge of the standard form of logical arguments, which you can find in 2.1.1 What Is an Argument?, and understanding of normative arguments, which you can find in 2.1.2 Identifying Arguments and Statements. Because normative arguments rely on standards of human behavior, you should also review 4.3.3 Moral Frameworks. The directions in the template will give you further instructions.
Step 4: Write Normative Argument for Second Conclusion
Repeat Step 3 for your second conclusion.
Here is an example of two arguments with normative conclusions taking contrary points of view. The normative premises are marked with an asterisk. This serves as an example of what arguments look like in standard form. This topic may not be used for your own Touchstone.
Americans are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a foundational principle of its founding documents.
Among these rights are bodily autonomy and personal decisions about family planning.*
Forcing a parent to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth violates these principles by taking away their basic right to liberty and long-term pursuit of happiness.*
Forcing a parent to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth also frequently presents a threat to the life of the birth parent.
There is no constitutional or scientific reason to confer personhood on a fetus.
Any opinion on the personhood of fetuses is thus not based on law or science, but a personal moral or religious choice.
The Constitution (Amendment 1) establishes the freedom of religion.
Therefore, any law derived from a religious stance is unconstitutional (from 5-7).
Therefore, pregnant people have the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason (from 1-4, 8).
It is wrong to kill a human being without justification such as self-defense.*
An unplanned pregnancy may be inconvenient, but only in rare cases does it present a threat to a person’s life.
In no other cases besides abortion do we make it legal to murder people who inconvenience us.
Born children are also inconvenient, but it is not legal for parents to kill them.
In no other cases besides abortion do we make it legal to murder the born children of rape or incest.
A fetus is a viable human being at 24 weeks.
Therefore, except in cases where the pregnancy presents a threat to the birth parent’s life, abortion should be illegal after 24 weeks.
Step 5: Reflection
Answer the reflection questions about your reasoning behind the arguments you wrote. One question asks to identify a deductive rule of inference or an inductive practice used in your arguments. You can find these in 3.3.2 Valid Rules of Inference From Conditional Statements, 3.3.3 Valid Rules of Inference From Conjunction and Disjunction, and the 4.1.4 Inference to the Best Explanation, or other inductive practices discussed throughout unit 4.
Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Argument Preparation
❒ Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?
❒ Do your two arguments have logically contradictory conclusions?
❒ Is each argument at least five declarative sentences, ending in a conclusion?
❒ Does each argument have a normative conclusion (saying what people ought to do)?
❒ Is there at least one normative premise that supports each conclusion?
2. Annotating Your Argument
❒ Did you place an asterisk (*) on the normative premise(s) that support your conclusion?
❒ Did you underline any subconclusions in your argument?
❒ Are there sources for any assertions that are fact-based and not well known/accepted?
3. Reflection Questions
❒ Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?
❒ Do your answers meet the length requirement and fully answer the question?
————————————
If the writer requires additional information from course materials, they can be provided.

Immediately before the structured interview, the panel members will require the applicant to submit a handwritten or typed essay on standard 8.5 by 11 paper essay titled, “Why I Want to be an Army Officer.”

Section 4 (40 Points):
Use trees to assess the following arguments. If they are not valid, provide a counterexample evaluation. Show all working
1. ~(p ∨ q), ~((r ∨ s) ∨ t), ~(~(q ∨ s) ∨ t) ∴ ~u
2. ((p ∨ q) –> (r&s)), (q ∨ t), ∼ t ∴ s

Use trees to check whether the following formula is satisfiable. If it is, describe an evaluation that makes it true. Show all working
1. ~(p ∨ ¬q) <--> ¬r
2. (p ∨ (q –> ∼ r)) & s