Jan 05, 2017 · HU2000 Week 3 TEST: Question 1 2.5 out of 2.5 points _____is the big picture approach. But successful arguments are also tactical. Selected Answer: Strate gy Question 2 2.5 out of 2.5 points What is another way of referring to an argument’s claim? Selected Answer: Conclusi on Question 3 0 out of 2.5 points What shape does an abandoned line of reasoning …
Oct 25, 2016 · Question 19 2.5 out of 2.5 points In mapping an argument, there are times when a claim becomes a reason for another claim. ... Selected Answer: Chain of reasoning. Question 20 2.5 out of 2.5 points What shape does an abandoned line of reasoning take in an argument map? Selected Answer: Hexagon. Share this link with a friend: ... Course Hero ...
Psy 304 Module 2 Quiz an abandoned line of reasoning a counterargument Question 3 1 / 1 pts In colleges and universities there are many different disciplinary language communities. When a professor from one discipline uses the same technical term as a professor from another discipline, it can be confusing to undergraduates who may not realize that the same word may …
View HU2000_WK3_TEST_ANSWERS from HU 2000 at Ultimate Medical Academy, Clearwater. Course HU2000: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving (2-06-2017) Section 11 Question 1 2.5 out of 2.5 points Which
Validity is the attribute of deductive arguments that denotes logical strength. Validity is about the strength of the inference, or reasoning, between the premises and the conclusion. A deductive argument is valid when you have the following: If all its premises were true, then its conclusion must be true, by necessity .
False premises, true conclusion. Valid arguments can never have: True premises, false conclusion. In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. It is important to keep in mind that just because an argument does have a possibly valid combination of premise-conclusion truth values ...
1.2 Arguments – Types of Reasoning. The two main types of reasoning involved in the discipline of Logic are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is an inferential process that supports a conclusion with certainty. Inductive reasoning is an inferential process providing support strong enough to offer high probability ...
Deductive reasoning is an inferential process that supports a conclusion with certainty. Inductive reasoning is an inferential process providing support strong enough to offer high probability (but not absolute certainty) for the conclusion.
To determine if an argument is valid or invalid (not valid): First assume that the premises are true, even if they are not; pretend that they are true. Then ask yourself whether the conclusion would need to be true, assuming/pretending that the premises are true. Here is an example: Premise 1: All dogs are snakes.
Valid arguments may have: True premises, true conclusion. False premises, false conclusion. False premises, true conclusion. Valid arguments can never have: True premises, false conclusion. In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
If those premises were true, the conclusion would necessarily follow . Even if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, it does not mean that the reasoning is valid. Here is an example of an argument with true premise and a true conclusion, but the strength of the connection, the reasoning, from the premises to the conclusion is not valid.
The case began in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1957 when police demanded entry into 34-year-old Dollree Mapp's home. Although they believed Mapp was hiding a suspected bomber, the police had no search warrant. After calling her lawyer for advice on what to do, Mapp refused to let them in.
In 1961, Mapp's case reached the Supreme Court, then led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The majority opinion for the 6-3 decision was written by Justice Tom C. Clark. The six justices in the majority declared that any evidence obtained in a search conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment cannot be ...
And in 1961, a crucial case ensured that police must follow the Constitution when gathering evidence. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is ...
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." Seen as a fundamental right, this Amendment grew directly from what colonists experienced under British rule. Using what were known as "writs of assistance," British officers could enter anyone's home to search for evidence of a crime.
Using what were known as "writs of assistance," British officers could enter anyone's home to search for evidence of a crime. By adding the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Framers created enhanced protection from such practices.
In the broadest sense, the "exclusionary rule" prohibits the government from using evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution. Created by the Supreme Court in 1914, the exclusionary rule made Fourth Amendment protections more effective for criminal defendants.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. The exclusionary rule can also extend to chains of evidence, through a doctrine known as "fruit of the poisonous tree.". This describes the idea that evidence collected based on other, illegally obtained evidence is also not admissible.
Argument maps are box-and-line diagrams that lay out visually reasoning and evidence for and against a statement or claim. A good map clarifies and organizes thinking by showing the logical relationships between thoughts that are expressed simply and precisely.
Different kinds of map are defined by the nature of the relationships they depict – what the boxes and lines mean. What kind of map something is depends on: