Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Critical Reasoning Journal 4: Analyzing Fallacies and Civic Responsibility, Lecture notes of Management Accounting

This journal entry from chamberlain college of nursing delves into the concepts of inference, warranted and valid arguments, and fallacies, specifically focusing on the denying the antecedent fallacy. It also discusses the importance of civic responsibility, the role of critical thinking in evaluating current issues, and an example of a contemporary issue: the cost of tuition during the pandemic. The journal encourages students to apply their critical thinking skills to analyze and evaluate arguments on this and other topics.

Typology: Lecture notes

2023/2024

Available from 05/21/2024

helperatsof-1
helperatsof-1 🇺🇸

4

(3)

8.5K documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

Related documents


Partial preview of the text

Download Critical Reasoning Journal 4: Analyzing Fallacies and Civic Responsibility and more Lecture notes Management Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! Running head: JOURNAL 4 1 Week 4: Journal Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning November 2020 JOURNAL 4 2 Inference Valid in regards to an argument or proving a point, is having a sound foundation built upon logic, fact, or evidence. Warranted is to officially guarantee or pledge. The connotations and lexical definitions of warranted and valid aid in our understanding of the differing motives of inductive and deductive reasoning by how information affects the claim or the reasoning. For warranted arguments, information can guide us to revise our conclusions without deserting any of the initial premises. When given new information, we have the capability to determine that the initial conclusion was flawed even though all of the premises remain true. When considering valid arguments, the conclusion is implied by the premises. This means that if the conclusion is false, then one or more of the premises may also be false (Facione, 2016,). Warranted pairs with inductive reasoning while valid pairs with deductive reasoning. Fallacies The fallacy of Denying the Antecedent follow an invalid pattern that views as: Premise 1: If A, then B. Premise 2: Not A. Conclusion: Therefore not B. The speaker confuses the directionality of the logical relationships in their argument (Facione, 2016). In this kind of fallacy, we would use the Denying the Consequent as a valid argument template which looks like: Premise 1: If A, then B. Premise 2: Not B, Conclusion: Therefore, not A. Logically, this is correct way of reasoning with declarative statements. By analyzing the meaning of the terms given and the grammatical rules of the language that is used, it will allow us to determine where the source of error is coming from- either the antecedent or the consequent. Civic Responsibility I believe that finishing such an exercise would be worth the time that was spent on it because it is a major issue in our country that many have strong feelings towards, so it would be
Docsity logo



Copyright © 2024 Ladybird Srl - Via Leonardo da Vinci 16, 10126, Torino, Italy - VAT 10816460017 - All rights reserved