CS 100 - Week 11 Lecture 1 - 10-30-12

still in Chapter 7 --
but now moving on to summarizing longer arguments
by writing them in standard logical form

*   a good thing about learning to write an
    argument in standard logical form as well
    as learning to diagram it:
    ...it involves two additional useful argument
       analysis skills,
       *   paraphrasing
       *   finding MISSING premises and conclusions

paraphrasing
------------
*   paraphrase: a detailed restatement of a passage
    using different words and phrases

*   a GOOD paraphrase is:
    *   accurate
    *   clear
    *   concise
    *   charitable

    *   accurate? ...an accurate paraphrase should be
        faithful to an author's intended meaning,
	reproducing that meaning fairly, and without
	bias or distortion

    *   clear? ...it can be a good thing to translate
        needlessly wordy or confusing language
	into language that is easier to understand
	(without sacrificing accuracy)

    *   concise? ...you can remove irrelevant or unimportant
        details, unnecessary phrases, etc.,   
        to put the key points clearly and in a nutshell;
	(but still accurate!)
  
        (but don't let a drive for conciseness trump
        the need for clarity and accuracy...)

    *   charitable? ...when a passage might be interpreted
        in more than one way,
	the principle of charity requires that we interpret
	the passage as charitably as the evidence 
        reasonably permits

       ...in paraphrasing, try to express the author's
       intent in a way that makes the argument stronger
       or less easy to attack;

finding missing premises and conclusions
----------------------------------------
*   in real arguments, from real people,
    parts of arguments may be left unstated --
    these may be premises OR conclusions

    *   sometimes the missing statement is
        so obvious/familiar that it isn't
	considered necessary to state

    *   sometimes the missing statement is
        left deliberately unstated because
	the arguer wishes to conceal a weak
	or questionable step in his/her argument;

FUN NEW WORD of the DAY:
------------------------
an argument with a missing premise or conclusion
is called an enthymeme

2 basic rules for filling in missing steps in
an enthymeme:
1. faithfully interpret the arguer's intentions
2. be charitable

summarizing longer arguments
by writing them in standard logical form:
------------------------------------------
what do we mean by standard logical form?
An argument is said to be in this form when:
*   each step/statement in the paraphrased argument
    is numbered consecutively.
1.  Blah
2.  Blah 
...

*   premises are stated above the conclusions
    they are claimed to support -- for example,
1. Premise
2. Conclusion

*   justifications are provided for each conclusion
    in the argument, and at least conclusion is
    included 

*   for each conclusion or subconclusion, indicate in
    parentheses which previous parts of the argument
    the conclusion or subconclusion is claimed to
    follow from

3. Blah, blah (1, 2)

*   in summarizing an argument in standard logical
    form, you can and should paraphrase, omit
    nonstatements and irrelevant statements, and
    provide missing premises and conclusions;