************
*   REVIEW
************
*   Chapter 3: discussing 2 kinds of classical logical arguments:
************
    *   deductive arguments
        *   conclusion is PROVED by the premises

        *   rigorous and inescapable, narrows the scope

        *   impossible to both ASSERT the premises AND
            DENY the conclusion

    *   inductive arguments
        *   conclusion is PLAUSIBLE or LIKELY because of the
            premises

        *   can be flawed, but widens the scope

        *   possible to assert the premises and deny the
	    conclusion (you can choose not to believe it)

************
*   REVIEW
************
quick terminology reminders:
************

    *   reminder: a conditional statement has the form:

        if A, then B

        ...where A and B are statements.

        *   the A part is called the ANTECEDENT
	*   the B part is called the CONSEQUENT

------------
    *   reminder: a SYLLOGISM is a 3-statement argument,
	with 2 premises and a conclusion

************
*   REVIEW
************
*   Some CLASSIC COMMON PATTERNS of DEDUCTIVE logic
************    

------------
*   modus ponens ("mode of AFFIRMATION")
------------
    *   PREMISES:
        *   If A, then B.
        *   A is true.
    *   CONCLUSION:
        *   Therefore, B is true.

    *   Also called "affirming the antecedent"
        because A is the antecedent of a conditional 1st premise
	and the 2nd premise asserts that A is true

------------
*   modus tollens ("mode of DENIAL")
------------
    *   PREMISES:
        *   If A, then B.
        *   B is NOT true. (also: B is false)
    *   CONCLUSION:
        *   Therefore, A must NOT be true. (also: Therefore, A is false)

    *   Also called "Denying the Consequent" -- because B is the 
        consequent in the 1st premise, and the 2nd premise asserts
	that B is false

------------
*   Chain Argument
------------
    *   PREMISES:
        *   If A, then B.
        *   If B, then C.
    *   CONCLUSION:
        *   Therefore, if A, then C

************
*   REVIEW
************
be careful, there ARE some NOT valid
    classic deductive patterns:
************
------------
*   NOT VALID: denying the antecedent
------------
    *   PREMISES:
        *   If A, then B.
        *   A is false.
    *   CONCLUSION:
        *   Therefore,...?

	...no valid conclusion can be made about the value of B

------------
*   NOT VALID: affirming the consequent
------------
    *   PREMISES:
        *   If A, then B.
        *   B is true.
    *   CONCLUSION:
        *   Therefore,...?

        ...no valid conclusion can be made about the value of A

********
*   END of REVIEW
********

*   there are some other classic syllogism forms:

    *   categorical - all, none, or some statements
    *   argument by elimination rules out possibilities
    *   mathmetical arguments
    *   argument from definition

*   categorical syllogisms:
    *   arguments whose statements start with
        "all", "none", "no", or "some"

	*   All oaks are trees.
            All trees are plants.

            Therefore... all oaks are plants.

        *   Some Democrats are elected officials.
            All elected officials are politicians.

	    Therefore... some Democrats are politicians.

*   argument by elimination:
    *   these rule out other possibilities to get to the
        conclusion

    (not limited to just two options -- see course text)

    *   Either his name is Joe or his name is David.
        His name is not Joe.

        Therefore... his name is David.

    *   Either Clara walked to the library or she drove.
        But Clara did not drive to the library.

        Therefore... Clara walked to the library

*   mathematical argument
    *   use facts of mathematics to prove the conclusion

    *   1 is less than 2.
        2 is less than 3.
	Therefore...  1 is less than 3.

*   argument from definition
    *   uses definitions of the words in arguments to come to
        a conclusion

    *   Devika is a cardiologist.
        Definition: a cardiologist is a type of doctor

        Therefore... Devika is a doctor.

    *   Bertha is an aunt.
        Definition: an aunt is a female relative.

        Therefore... Bertha is a female relative.

*************
*   some classic INDUCTIVE patterns

*   remember: inductive logic does not have the absolute,
    inescapable nature of deductive logic;

    BUT it can still be used to persuade
    (and often involves "probablies"...)

    *   inductive generalization
    *   predictive argument
    *   argument from authority
    *   causal argument
    *   statistical argument
    *   argument by analogy

*   inductive generalization:
    *   attribute some characteristics to most of or all members
        of some given class

        *   All dinosaur bones found so far are over 65 million years
	    old.

            Therefore, it is PROBABLY true that all dinosaur bones
            are over 65 million years old.

   *   these claim that their conclusions are PROBABLE --
       so, they tend to be inductive.

MORE on these on Wednesday!