PHIL 1100 Study Guide - Euphemism, Rhetorical Question, Fallacy

• School: Memorial University
• Department: Philosophy
• Course: PHIL 1100
• Professor: Arthur Sullivan

Document Summary

Step 2(a): identify the exact content of the premises and conclusion. Step 2(b): identify the structure of the argument. Step 1: isolate conclusion and premises: to standardize an argument is to explicitly set apart its conclusion and its premises. This will involve omitting irrelevant and repetitive material, and adding implicit material. (see the table on p. 31, note that identifying the conclusion comes first) Step 2(b): identify the structure of the argument: sub-arguments (24-8, linked vs. convergent premises (38, linear structure (27-8): a succession of one premise subarguments. 41-48: unstated ps and cs filling in what is left unsaid. A condition, language- sometimes both arguers and evaluators can be lured into thinking that something has been justified, when the persuasive burden is, to some extent, carried by the particular choice of words. Ecl expresses a positive or negative evaluative attitude about what is being described: e. g. , terrorist vs. freedom fighters. The point is not that ecl is always irrational, illogical, illegitimate.