COLLEGE OF NURSING

LESSON 1: Understanding Logic and Language:  Inference: Drawing

Reasoning conclusions based on
available information.
Understanding logic and language in the context
of reasoning involves exploring the principles that 3. Reasoning:
govern how we think and communicate logically.
 Definition: Reasoning is the process
Let's break down some key concepts:
of drawing conclusions based on
1. Logic: evidence or premises.
 Definition: Logic is the study of  Types of Reasoning:
reasoning and argumentation. It seeks
 Deductive Reasoning:
to understand the principles of valid
Involves drawing specific
inference and correct reasoning.
conclusions from general
 Components of Logic: principles. If the premises are
true, the conclusion must be
 Propositions: Statements that
true.
can be either true or false.
 Inductive Reasoning:
 Arguments: A set of
Involves making
propositions where one
generalizations based on
proposition (the conclusion) is
specific observations. The
claimed to follow from the
conclusion is probable but not
others (the premises).
certain.
 Validity: An argument is valid
 Abductive Reasoning:
if the conclusion logically
Involves forming the best
follows from the premises. It
explanation for a set of
doesn't necessarily mean the
observations or evidence.
conclusion is true, but rather
that the conclusion would be 4. Critical Thinking:
true if the premises are true.
 Definition: Critical thinking involves
2. Language: evaluating information, arguments, or
situations in a reflective and
 Definition: Language is a system of
systematic way.
communication using symbols (words,
sounds, signs) to convey meaning.  Skills in Critical Thinking:
 Components of Language:  Analysis: Breaking down
information into its
 Syntax: The structure and
components.
formation of sentences.
 Evaluation: Assessing the
 Semantics: The meaning of
credibility and relevance of
words and sentences.
information.
 Pragmatics: The context-
 Inference: Drawing logical
dependent aspects of
conclusions.
language use.
 Problem-solving: Applying
critical thinking to find
solutions.
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
5. Language and Thought:
 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: This
suggests that language influences
thought. The structure and vocabulary
of a language can shape the way
individuals perceive and think about
the world.
6. Cognitive Biases:
 Definition: Cognitive biases are
systematic patterns of deviation from
norm or rationality in judgment, often
affecting reasoning.
 Examples: Confirmation bias,
availability heuristic, anchoring bias.
Understanding logic and language in
reasoning is essential for effective communication,
problem-solving, and decision-making. It helps
individuals navigate complex information, analyze
arguments, and make informed choices. Developing
strong reasoning skills and being aware of cognitive
biases contribute to better decision-making and
critical thinking
LESSON 2: Arguments: Analysis and
Evaluation
Analyzing and evaluating arguments involves
several key skills, including paraphrasing and
diagramming arguments, recognizing arguments,
and understanding complex argumentative
passages. Let's delve into each of these aspects:
1. Paraphrasing and Diagramming
Arguments:
 Paraphrasing Arguments:
 Paraphrasing is the process of
restating an argument or
statement in your own words
while preserving its original
meaning.
 It helps to clarify complex
language or structure, making
the argument more accessible
for analysis.
 Diagramming Arguments:
 Diagramming involves visually
representing the structure of
an argument, often using
symbols or a graphical format.
 Identify the main conclusion,
premises, and any supporting
sub-arguments.
 Use arrows or lines to indicate
the logical connections
between statements.
2. Recognizing Arguments:
 Identifying Premises and
Conclusions:
 Premises are the statements
or reasons offered in support
of a conclusion.
 The conclusion is the main
claim or point that the author is
trying to establish.
 Recognizing these elements is
crucial for understanding the
logical structure of an
argument.
 Distinguishing Arguments from
Non-Arguments:
 Not every passage contains an
argument. Some may present
information without making a
claim or providing reasons.
 Look for indicator words like
"because," "since," or
"therefore" to identify the
presence of an argument.
3. Complex Argumentative Passages:
 Identifying Components:
 Break down complex
passages into components:
main conclusions, sub-
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
conclusions, premises, and
supporting evidence.
 Look for implicit premises or
LESSON 3: Fallacies of Logic and Debate
assumptions that may not be
explicitly stated.
 Understanding Relationships: Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that
can undermine the validity of an argument. They
 Examine the relationships
often occur when there is a flaw in the logical
between different elements of
structure or the use of persuasive techniques. Here
the argument. How do the
are some common types of fallacies:
premises support the
conclusion? Are there
counterarguments or
alternative perspectives? 1. Ad Hominem:

 Evaluating Strength and  Translation: "To the person"

Coherence:
 Assess the strength of the
premises and the overall
coherence of the argument.
 Consider the relevance and
sufficiency of evidence
provided.
 Evaluate the logical
connections between premises
and conclusions.
 Identifying Fallacies:
 Be alert to common logical
fallacies, such as ad hominem
attacks, strawman arguments,
or appeals to emotion.
 Recognizing fallacies helps in
evaluating the reliability and
validity of an argument.
In summary, effective analysis and evaluation of
arguments involve breaking them down into
manageable parts, recognizing the logical structure,
and assessing the strength and coherence of the
reasoning. Paraphrasing, diagramming, and
recognizing key components contribute to a deeper
understanding of complex argumentative passages.
Developing these skills enhances one's ability to
engage critically with written or spoken arguments.
 Definition: Attacking the person
making the argument rather than
addressing the argument itself.
 Example: "You can't trust Dr. Smith's
research on climate change because
he is a vegetarian."
2. Ad Populum:
 Translation: "To the people"
 Definition: Appealing to popular
beliefs or emotions instead of
providing evidence.
 Example: "Everyone is using the new
social media app, so it must be the
best one."
3. Ad Ignorantiam:
 Translation: "To ignorance"
 Definition: Asserting that a
proposition is true because it hasn't
been proven false, or vice versa.
 Example: "No one can prove that
aliens don't exist, so they must be
real."
4. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
 Translation: "After this, therefore
because of this"
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
 Definition: Assuming that because
one event follows another, the first
event caused the second.
 Example: "I ate an apple before my
exam, and I passed. Therefore, eating
apples makes you smart."
5. Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
 Translation: "With this, therefore
because of this"
 Definition: Incorrectly concluding that
two events are causally related
because they occur together.
 Example: "I wore my lucky socks,
and we won the game. Therefore, my
lucky socks brought us victory."
6. Non Sequitur:
 Translation: "It does not follow"
 Definition: Drawing a conclusion that
does not logically follow from the
premises.
 Example: "She loves reading, so she
must be good at math."
7. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii):
 Translation: "Assuming the initial
point"
 Definition: Assuming the truth of what
one is trying to prove within the
argument itself.
 Example: "The new policy is great
because it's the best policy we've ever
had."
8. Red Herring:
 Translation: "A smoked herring"
 Definition: Introducing irrelevant
information to distract from the main
issue.
 Example: "We were discussing
pollution, but let's talk about the
benefits of walking instead."
9. Strawman (Homunculus Novus):
 Translation: "New little man"
 Definition: Misrepresenting an
opponent's argument to make it easier
to attack.
 Example: "Opponent: We should
invest more in schools.
Misrepresentation: Opponent wants to
waste all our money on failing
schools."
10. Tu Quoque:
 Translation: "You also"
 Definition: Dismissing someone's
argument by pointing out that they do
not practice what they preach.
 Example: "You tell me to recycle, but
I saw you throwing away plastic last
week."
11. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum Ad
Verecundiam):
 Translation: "Argument from respect"
 Definition: Relying on the opinion of
someone considered an authority
rather than providing valid evidence.
 Example: "This new product is the
best because a famous celebrity
endorses it."
12. Ad Misericordiam:
 Translation: "To pity"
 Definition: Appealing to pity or
sympathy instead of addressing the
actual argument.
 Example: "You should give me an A
because I've had a really tough
semester."
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
13. Hasty Generalization (Conclusio Praecox): of deductive reasoning. Examples
 Translation: "Premature conclusion"
include:

 Definition: Drawing a conclusion  Affirming the Consequent:

based on insufficient or biased
evidence.
 Example: "I met two people from that
city, and they were both rude.
Everyone from that city must be rude."
14. Ad Baculum:
 Translation: "To the stick"
 Definition: Using threats or force to
persuade someone rather than
presenting a valid argument.
 Example: "Agree with my opinion, or
I'll make sure you regret it."
Assuming that if a statement is
true, its converse is also true.
 Denying the Antecedent:
Assuming that if a statement is
false, its converse is also false.
 Fallacy of Composition:
Assuming that what is true of the
parts must also be true of the
whole.
 Fallacy of Division: Assuming
that what is true of the whole must
also be true of its parts.

15. Equivocation (Amphibolia): 2. Informal Fallacies: Informal fallacies

occur due to errors in reasoning that
 Translation: "Ambiguity" involve content and context. They can be
 Definition: Using ambiguous further classified into several
language to mislead or deceive. subcategories:
 Example: "A feather is light. What is  Relevance Fallacies:
light cannot be dark. Therefore, a
feather cannot be dark."  Ad Hominem: Attacking the
person making the
Understanding these fallacies, along with their argument rather than
definitions and examples, can help you identify and addressing the argument
avoid flawed reasoning in various contexts.
itself.
 Appeal to Emotion: Using
emotions (e.g., fear, pity) to
manipulate an audience's
Lesson 4: Classification of Fallacies response rather than
Fallacies, or errors in reasoning, can be providing valid reasons.
classified into various categories based on their  Appeal to Authority:
underlying logical flaws. Here are some common Appealing to the testimony
classifications of fallacies: of an authority figure rather
1. Formal Fallacies: Formal fallacies occur than providing evidence or
when the structure or form of an reasons.
argument is invalid, regardless of the  Genetic Fallacy: Judging
content. These fallacies violate the rules the validity of an argument
based on its origins or
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
history rather than its  Hasty Generalization:
content. Drawing a conclusion based
on insufficient or biased
 Red Herring: Introducing
evidence.
irrelevant information to
divert attention from the  Anecdotal Fallacy: Using
main issue. personal anecdotes or
isolated examples as
 Presumption Fallacies:
evidence for a general
 Begging the Question claim.
(Circular Reasoning):
 False Cause (Post Hoc
Assuming the conclusion in
Ergo Propter Hoc):
the premise, thereby
Assuming that because one
providing no evidence for
event precedes another, it
the argument.
must be the cause of the
 False Dilemma (Either/Or second event.
Fallacy): Presenting only
Understanding these classifications can
two options when there are
help individuals identify and avoid fallacious
actually more possibilities
reasoning in their own arguments and critically
available.
evaluate the arguments presented by others.
 Complex Question
(Loaded Question): Asking
a question that presupposes
a particular answer.
 Argument from
Ignorance: Arguing that a
claim is true simply because
it has not been proven false,
or vice versa.
 Ambiguity Fallacies:
 Equivocation: Using a term
with multiple meanings in
different parts of the
argument to create a false
impression of consistency.
 Amphiboly: Ambiguity in
the grammatical structure of
a sentence that leads to
misunderstanding.
 Fallacies of Weak Induction: