hello and thank you for coming back for a round two in this video we're going to primarily apply what we learned in part one I'll start with a brief review then introduce argument form give you some common valid argument forms and most of this video is spent on practicing the method by applying it to arguments and I'll close with a brief recap so let's start with our review when analyzing an argument you can use the following process apply it systematically and in the order that I presented it here is it clear first identify the argument in our readings it may take a bit of practice to get really clear about what the author's conclusion and premises are remember it takes practice look for indicator words and think carefully about what the author is trying to convey is it valid remember that validity is all about the form of the argument not the content so assuming all the premises are true must the conclusion be true also if you can find a reason why it may be false it's probably invalid is each premise true one by one see if you can prove any premise false is it sound if you found a false premise the argument is unsound if all the premises are true then it's sound but also remember that sound arguments must first be valid all invalid arguments are automatically unsound even if we find that all the premises are in fact true that is why I think it's helpful to distinguish between the question of whether the premises are true from the question about whether the argument is sound I have also listed some important terms for you to review let me start by introducing something new in philosophy when we present arguments we often use them in what's called argument form or standard form this involves listing and numbering each premise on a new line and then listing the conclusion below the premises also as part of the numbered list sometimes a C is used to denote the conclusion argument form helps approach argument systematically and also has the feature of clearly and simply stating the most basic parts of reasoning necessary to reach the conclusion here are some common valid argument forms presented in symbolic form this is by no means an exhaustive list but it does cover some important argument forms you may want to pause the video here to write these down in your notes if you recognize any argument that has the same form as one of these valid arguments then you know that argument is also valid I have also included a web page in canvas that goes into more detail and provides examples with each of these valid argument forms consider this example if there are no chance factors in chess then chess is a game of pure skill there are no chance factors in chess therefore chess is a game of pure skill is it clear yes assuming we know what chess is it's quite clear and well organized is it valid if the premises are true then we have perfect assurance that the conclusion is also true notice how closely the premises are linked together this involves a hypothetical or conditional statement which is just a fancy way of saying the premise is one of those if-then statements if it is the case that there are no chance factors in chess and the second premise asserts that it is in fact the case then we know that chess is a game of pure skill so yep this argument is valid if each premise true rather than googling it or asking your friend the chess master to think just think about it for yourself given what you know are these premises likely true can you think of a compelling reason to suppose that either is false the first really is about the meaning of the words clearly the concepts chance and pure skill are contrasting terms that are mutually exclusive one can not have pure skill by chance or claim that what was merely a chance accident is somehow an active skill so assuming those concepts are clearly and correctly identified the first premise looks true the second we might not be so sure about but here consider what that you might know that computers can regularly and reliably be human editor's this suggests that there is a basic but incredibly complex mathematical model at the root without additional reasons to suppose the second premise is false we can probably conclude that premise 2 is also true that means this argument is valid and sound let's take this next argument more quickly if I'm in Bowling Green then I'm in Ohio I'm not in Bowling Green therefore I'm not in Ohio it's clear assuming that B G denotes the one in which our University campus is found is it valid can you think of how it might be true that I'm not in Bowling Green but still in Ohio easily I could be in Perrysburg Toledo or Columbus I'd still be in Ohio just not in BG so this argument is invalid that is the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises even though we know the argument is also unsound simply because it's invalid let's quick look at the premises the first premise is true but you may not know about the second since you don't monitor my every move I hope it turns out that it doesn't matter since this is a conditional statement it doesn't matter whether I'm in fact in B G if I wasn't BG then it would also be true that I was in Ohio again however we know that the argument is unsound because it's invalid so this argument is invalid and unsound consider this argument all banks are financial institutions BGSU is a bank thus BGSU is a financial institution this argument is clear enough so let's move on to validity have we seen a similar argument that use this same form all X R Y B is X therefore B is why hmm yes that's the same form of the Socrates argument so we know that all arguments that take this form are valid now is each premise true the first premise yes that's true so no problem here the second premise nope obviously BGSU is a university not a bank or financial institution so this argument is unsound because one of the premises is false so we should conclude that this argument is valid and unsound finally consider the following argument Eli favors affirmative action policies because they will do the most good over the long run all consider Dennis opposes affirmative action policies because they could lead to encouragement of rights therefore no one knows if affirmative action policies ought to be adopted the argument is clear so long as we have some idea what affirmative action policies are meant to do while the content may differ generally speaking affirmative action policies aim at correcting for previous and justices that occurred on the basis of race or sex particularly with reference to education or employment is it valid does this fit one of the argument forms we saw previously it doesn't look like it which might mean it's invalid so let's check the connection between the premises and the conclusion would the conclusion necessarily be true if the premises were true each premise features the perspective of one person and provides a brief reason why that position is adopted by that person the premises are both about views on the same topic affirmative action the conclusion makes a claim about knowledge that no one knows in reference to the same topic but do the premises say anything about what is known unknown knowable or unknowable no this conclusion does not follow because the premises do not provide a tight enough link to support it upon a closer examination we see that the premises and conclusion are about subtly different things furthermore both Eli and Dennis provide reasons why policy should be adopted or rejected perhaps with further discussion evidence and reasoning they can determine the extent to which their viewpoints are defensible another thing that may lead to confusion is that this is a moral argument involving moral value judgments some think that there is simply no way to resolve moral issues and thus no point in arguing about them roughly this is a view called relativism but this is a position that needs to be supported by arguments and compared to alternative viewpoints we shouldn't assume this position without considering whether we have good reason to hold it among the various alternatives in one of our first readings we found that relativism is a very controversial view that most philosophers reject to reject it however doesn't mean that there is necessarily an answer or only one answer to a moral question but what Eli in Dennis's arguments show is that we often have competing considerations to consider in what kinds of policies we adopt which are not easy to resolve but this doesn't mean we should avoid all such disputes or throw out all arguments that involve moral content both Eli and Dennis likely agree that racism and sexism is wrong they just disagree about what is best to do about it since we have now seen that this argument is invalid we know it's unsound as well but since our third question first asks us to consider the truth value of each premise one by one let's do that briefly the best way to determine whether the premises are true is to go ask aligned dentists but notice also that the reasons offered in support of the viewpoints tend to be consistent with the view offered those who think that a policy may produce the most good is often a reason for adopting it those who think a policy may violate rights in objectionable ways tend to oppose such policies so short of asking Eli and Dennis we can probably take these premises to be true even so because we know the argument is invalid even with true premises the argument is unsound so again this argument is invalid and unsound I have chosen very simple examples that are straightforward and easy to analyze since our concern is not with a content of these particular arguments instead our focus has been on developing a toolkit to help with argument analysis so let's close with a quick recap philosophy is all about arguments so we can benefit ourselves by understanding how to analyze them effectively we have learned several helpful things to look for in the text like key words and certain patterns of inference I briefly provided an argument to show the importance of arguing as a basic and necessary skill even one that you probably rely on more than you think logic helps us think communicate and write more clearly so taking the time to practice these skills will pay off and your other pursuits as well next I introduce what we mean by arguments in logic and philosophy an argument is a group of statements one of which is supported by other statements that offer reason and evidence most importantly we explored some basic tools to analyze arguments when you come across an argument follow this simple procedure is the argument clear is it valid that is does the conclusion necessarily follow assuming all true premises is each statement true and finally is the argument sound analyzing arguments effectively takes practice and will get practice on real arguments found in environmental ethics soon as we proceed remember to ask questions read and reread and discuss the arguments with others thanks for watching email me if you have any questions