Critical Thinking: The Art of Argument (Available Titles Aplia)
George W. Rainbolt, Sandra L. Dwyer
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
With a complete, approachable presentation, CRITICAL THINKING: THE ART OF ARGUMENT is an accessible yet rigorous introduction to critical thinking. The text emphasizes immediate application of critical-thinking skills to real life. The relevance of these skills is shown throughout the text by highlighting the advantages of basing one's decisions on a thoughtful understanding of arguments and presenting the overarching commonalities across arguments. With its conversational writing style and carefully selected examples, the book employs a consistent and unified treatment of logical form and an innovative semiformal method of standardizing arguments that illustrates the concept of logical form while maintaining a visible connection to ordinary speech. Without sacrificing accuracy or detail, the authors have clearly presented the material with appropriate study tools and exercises that emphasize application rather than memorization.
Therefore, (3) Intrinsic gradualism is false. Intrinsic gradualists might make the following argument: (1) If a large extraterrestrial object had collided with the Earth, it would have left a large crater. (2) There’s no such crater. Therefore, (3) Extrinsic catastrophism is false. The two sides in this debate are arguing about explanations. The texts you might read about this issue intersperse arguments and explanations. This makes it difficult to distinguish the arguments from the explanations.
are things with a perfect genetic code of a homo sapiens. Definition (c) is too broad because it includes any cell from a human body (such as those found in a drop of blood spilled on a counter) that has a perfect genetic code. Recall from your high-school science classes that every cell of an organism contains its genetic code. Definition (c) is also too narrow because it excludes those people who have genetic mutations (as most humans do). To represent this graphically, let’s assume that
won’t take Math 1113. She’s planning to graduate after next semester, and Math 1113 isn’t offered next semester. You know Not S1 You can conclude that Irene will take a higher-level math course. You can conclude S2 You’ve made an argument that denies a disjunct. Here’s the standardization of the argument: (1) Irene must take Math 1113 or a higher-level math course (or both). (2) Irene can’t take Math 1113 Therefore, (3) Irene must take a higher-level math course. This argument has form 1 above
S2. (2) S1. Therefore, (3) S2. Key Concept The form of affirming the antecedent. This is a valid (proper) form. Let’s look again at our example about snow. (1) If it’s snowing, then the temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. (2) It’s snowing. Therefore, (3) The temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. This argument affirms the antecedent. Rodrigo Enrique Elizondo-Omaña and three other researchers recently did an experiment to determine whether the pace of a course had any effect on
then.” There are lots of different ways to express conditionals. The “if” part of a conditional is the antecedent, and the “then” part is the consequent. A conditional is true when its consequent is true or its antecedent is false. There are eight common propositional argument forms. A proper deductive argument form is a called a “valid” form, and an improper deductive argument form is called an “invalid” form. Denying a disjunct, affirming an exclusive disjunct, affirming an antecedent, denying