### Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

• Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
• People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
• This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

# (2.2) Recognizing Arguments & Formal vs Informal Logic

No description
by

## Matthew Owen

on 14 October 2015

Report abuse

#### Transcript of (2.2) Recognizing Arguments & Formal vs Informal Logic

Recognizing Arguments
Elements of Arguments
Premise(s)
Conclusion
Logical relations
When arguments are presented in writing or orally, the following can be true of the premises:
explicit
implicit

assumed defended

assumed defended
Explicit
Implicit
Like premises, conclusion can also be either:
To boot!
Those presenting arguments usually won't make it explicit whether the premises are meant to guarantee the conclusion, make the conclusion probable, or be explained by the conclusion.
TRICKY!
Yet it's even trickier!
People don't always make it clear when they are intending to give an argument!
Hence, we must look for indicators.
Are These Arguments?
My second lecture:
'Why Study Logic?'
For your career you should do what you love to do. Because you'll do your best, if you're doing what you love to do.
Implicit conclusions: We should study logic.
Assumed premise: We should do our best when we do our work.
What we have been considering here are what some call "
informal logic
" because the arguments given are not formalized. In other words, the premises and conclusions of the arguments are not formally clarified.
...However, there is also what's called "
formal logic
". It's called such because the arguments, and their premises and conclusions, are formally clarified.

Consider these examples of what is called
informal logical
from Homework 1 and how we might formalize the arguments.
P1
P2
C
1. Crime is common.
2. Logic is rare.
3. Therefore, we should dwell on the logic not the crime.
P1: Children are easy to beat in Scrabble.
P1
P2
C
P2: Children are easy to cheat in Scrabble.
C: Children are the most desirable opponents in Scrabble.
How would we formalize this argument?
Full transcript