PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment; Journal; Inference, Fallacies, Civic Responsibility

Week 4 Journal Student Name Chamberlain College of Nursing Phil347N Critical Thinking DateAccording to our text, valid is defined as, “describes an argument or inference such that the truth of the premises entails or implies that conclusion must be true; in other words, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true.” (Gittens & Facione, 2015). Warranted is similar but has key differences. Our text defines warranted as, “describes an inference or argument such that the truth of the premises justifies or strongly supports confidently accepting the conclusion as very probably true, but not necessarily true.” (Gittens & Facione, 2015). A warranted inference is a type of inference that shows the assumed truth to a premise, giving truth, or probable truth, to a conclusion. Putting the definitions side by side allows me to connect the dots to the purpose of an inductive argument – it is assuming the truth of a premise warrants the probable truth of the conclusion. It is not based in fact, the conclusion is not factual, but more than likely true. A valid inference is a type of inference where the truth of a premise lies in logical truth, or fact, making the conclusion impossible to be untrue. Again, having these definition side by side allows me to drawn a certainty in my mind for the purpose of a deductive argument – the premises of such an argument, if valid, leave no question to the conclusion. If the conclusion is absolutely true, the premises must then also be factual. Denying the Antecedent Example: If my daughter were to study hard, then she would get better grades. She did not apply herself while studying, therefore, she did not get a better grade. Denying the Consequent Example: If everyone stayed at home during the current pandemic, then we would see