Exam 3: Making Sense of Arguments

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Modus tollens and denying the antecedent are both forms of logical arguments that involve conditional statements, but they are fundamentally different in their structure and validity.

Modus tollens, also known as "denying the consequent," is a valid form of deductive argument. It has the following structure:

1. If P, then Q. (Conditional statement)
2. Not Q. (Denial of the consequent)
3. Therefore, not P. (Conclusion)

In modus tollens, if the conditional statement is true and the consequent (Q) is false, then it logically follows that the antecedent (P) must also be false. This form of argument is valid because it correctly applies the rules of logical inference.

Denying the antecedent, on the other hand, is an invalid form of argument. It has the following structure:

1. If P, then Q. (Conditional statement)
2. Not P. (Denial of the antecedent)
3. Therefore, not Q. (Conclusion)

This form of argument is invalid because it makes an incorrect inference. Just because the antecedent (P) is false, it does not necessarily follow that the consequent (Q) is also false. There could be other reasons or conditions that could make Q true, independent of P.

The two major differences between modus tollens and denying the antecedent are:

1. Validity: Modus tollens is a valid argument form, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form; even if the premises are true, the conclusion may still be false.

2. Logical Structure: Modus tollens correctly infers the falsity of the antecedent from the falsity of the consequent, which is a valid logical move. Denying the antecedent incorrectly infers the falsity of the consequent from the falsity of the antecedent, which is a logical error.

In summary, modus tollens is a valid argument form that correctly applies logical inference, while denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form that makes an incorrect logical leap.

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

The text you are referring to is not provided, so I cannot directly quote the four basic steps in assessing a long argument from it. However, I can give you a general outline of the steps typically involved in assessing any long argument:

1. **Identify the Main Conclusion**: The first step is to determine what the main point or conclusion of the argument is. This is the statement that the argument is trying to persuade you to accept.

2. **Outline the Supporting Evidence**: Once the main conclusion is identified, the next step is to outline the evidence or reasons that are presented to support this conclusion. This involves breaking down the argument into its constituent premises.

3. **Evaluate the Validity and Soundness**: After identifying the conclusion and the supporting evidence, you should evaluate the logical structure of the argument. This means checking if the argument is valid (if the conclusion logically follows from the premises) and sound (if the premises are true).

4. **Consider Counterarguments and Objections**: The final step is to consider any potential counterarguments or objections to the argument. This involves thinking critically about the weaknesses in the argument and whether the conclusion can be challenged.

These steps are a basic framework for critical thinking and analysis of arguments, and they can be applied to most long arguments you will encounter in writing or debate. Keep in mind that the specific steps or terminology might vary slightly depending on the context or the source of the information.