* * * * *

Introduction

In philosophy, an argument consists of the presentation of evidence, the assertion of a conclusion (thesis statement), and explanations of how the evidence logically supports the conclusion. If the explanations are successful, then the logic of the argument is said to be "strong" — if not successful, then "weak." An argument that is strong, and relies on factually correct evidence is said to be "cogent." In this course you will learn to analyze the cogency of arguments, and learn to produce cogent arguments. 

The course is organized in four parts with an essay assignment at the end of each part (see the table of contents above). In the beginning of each part we will do some study of the concepts and techniques of critical thinking. This work will be facilitated by Anthony Weston's textbook A Rulebook for Arguments. As you will see Weston's examples are convenient, but rather artificial. Weston typically takes real-world arguments, but adapts them in order to precisely and obviously fit each lesson. At the end of each part of the course you will read some unadultrated real-world examples, and criticize them with an essay. This will give you an opportunity to apply the concepts and techniques of critical thinking to more challenging material, and in the process learn to develop cogent arguments of your own. 

Essay 1 Group

At the beginning of the term, you will be assigned to a group. This will be your "essay 1 group." You will stay with this group until essay 1 is submitted. After that you will be assigned to your essay 2 group; after that to your essay 3 group; after that essay 4 group.

If you are at all confused regarding the course content, or assignments, try to get your questions answered within your group. Usually working with your group will clarify everything. But if your group can't figure it out, then let me know. 

There will be a good number of group exercises. For each exercise, only one submission is required for the entire group. 

Typically, over the past few years — since COVID — there are many students that do not fully participate in the group activities. That is okay. If you are a conscientious participant, just move forward with whomever is actually participating. The exercises are valuable, and will significantly contribute to the quality of your essays. If someone is not taking advantage of this valuable preparation, that's their problem. They will be graded on the quality of their own participation, and on the quality of their own essays. Stay focused on completing the exercises on schedule with the diligent members of your group. For the assignments related to the Weston textbook, feel free to work ahead of schedule, if that works for your group. But for the essay preparation exercises, do those exactly on schedule so that everyone has the opportunity to get help right before each essay is due. 

PART 1: SHORT ARGUMENTS AND DEFINITIONS

Weston Chapter 1: Short Arguments — Some General Rules

Read the first chapter of Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments.  

An expanded version of the Weston textbook is David R. Morrow and Anthony Weston, A Workbook for Arguments: A Complete Course in Critical Thinking (available online as of June 2, 2025). For each exercise below, first complete exercise problem 1, and immediately compare your answer with the sample answer provided in part 2 of the book. Make any needed adjustments to your answer. After that, complete problem 3, and compare your answer with the back of the book, making adjustments. Your answers do not have to be precisely the same as the sample answers. They should just be largely in agreement. Follow this same procedure for all future "Morrow and Weston exercise sets."

Exercises

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 1.1: Distinguishing Premises from Conclusions

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 1.2: Outlining Arguments in Premise-and-Conclusion Form

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 1.4: Identifying Reliable and Unreliable Premises

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 1.5: Decomplexifying Artificially Abstruse Quotations

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 1.6: Diagnosing Loaded Language 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 1.7: Evaluating Letters to the Editor

Weston Appendix 2: Definitions

Read appendix 2 from the Weston text, and complete the following exercises. 

Exercises

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 12.1: Making Definitions More Precise

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 12.2: Starting from Clear Cases

Essay 1: Apartheid, Antisemitism and Neo-Nazis

In September of 2022, when congressmember Rashida Tlaib described Israel as an "apartheid" state, fellow congressmember Debbie Wasserman Schultz condemned Tlaib's description as "antisemitic." And several years earlier, in September of 2015, Wasserman Schultz criticized congressmember Steve Scalise for associating with "neo-Nazis" many years earlier in his career. From a philosophical perspective, a number of questions come to mind: What is the substance of Wasserman Schultz's claims? What is their historical context? Is she right? A lot depends on the definitions of the terms "apartheid," "antisemitic," and "neo-Nazis" (references for Wasserman Schultz's claims found under "Assigned Works" below).  

Essay Assignment

Main Question

Does Israel fit the legal definition of an "apartheid" state, does criticism of Israel fit the definition of "antisemitism," or does the Azov Brigade fit the definition of a "neo-Nazi" organization? 

Prompt 

There are three questions within the "main question": (1) Is Israel an "apartheid" state? — (2) Is criticism of the way Israel treats Palestinians "antisemitic?" — and (3) Is the Azov Brigade a "neo-Nazi" military force? In your essay, you can address just one of the questions, two, or all three. Just make sure that you stay within the word count range assigned below, that you stay focused on a unifying main thesis of your own, and that the majority of what you are doing is cogent argumentation.  

Make sure that you explicitly define the relevant terms in your essay. Then argue from the definition to your thesis using factual evidence. Keep in mind the rules from the Weston textbook. For the definition of "apartheid" simply use the legal definition given by the United Nations, condensing it to what is relevant to your thesis. But for the definition of "antisemitism," and "neo-Nazi" you will have to formulate your own understanding of the terms, because there is not universal agreement on those — which will become obvious through a perusal of the assigned readings. Argue for the legitimacy of your definition(s) using clear cases and perhaps some borderline cases. Be sure to take care in any formulation of a defintion for "antisemitism." Make sure that it is logically distinct from criticism of Israel's treatment of its Palestinian subjects. A conveniently queer definition is not an argument. 

Try to be as definitive in your thesis as you can. But if you truly can't decide, describe why you are logically conflicted. There is no philosophical value in forcing a conclusion. This is not a debate club. Nonetheless, if you are conflicted, don't be wishy-washy. Be definitive in explaining why a conflicted view is the only appropriate logical outcome (for someone of your peer group; see "General Guidelines for Essays"). 

Word Count: 250 - 750 Words

500 words is approximately one page, but we are interested in an exact word count. Count the words in the body of the essay. The title, footnotes and the like are not part of the word count. The minimum word count is just for your guidance. The maximum word count, however, is a hard cutoff. You will have points deducted if you go over the maximum. 

Minimum Number of Quotes: 2

This minimum number of quotes needs to come from the assigned works listed below. You can include additional quotes from other sources, but your minimum number of quotes must come from the assigned works. This will minimally ensure that your essay is relevant to the course content — something to keep in mind for all or your courses. Also, cite all sources, even when summarizing or paraphrasing.

Rubric

Follow the Rubric. 

Follow Weston's Rules

Follow the rules that we have covered in Morrow and Weston. Those rules are very good advice, and will help you get a better grade on the essay. 

Assigned Works

The following documents are the assigned works for your first essay. As you read them, pay attention to the role played by the definitions of key terms. You don't have to read everything. Focus your reading in relation to the the angle you're interested in, based on the essay assignment above. Also, brainstorm, and share ideas with your group. 

The readings are arranged chronologically for the most part. Note the dates. 

United Nations, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, November 1973

The Nobel Prize, "Desmond Tutu: Facts," 1984 

John Maddox, "The Boycott of South Africa," May 1987

Hilliard Festenstein, John Sacks, Bob Hepple, and Sydney Shall, "Boycott of South Africa ," August 1987

Andy Beckett, "'It's Water on Stone — In the End the Stone Wears Out'," December 2002

Mouin Rabbani interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan González, "Hamas Wins Sweeping Victory in Palestinian Parliamentary Elections," January 2006 

Noam Chomsky, "'Exterminate all the Brutes': Gaza 2009," January 2009

Jonathan Zimmerman, "Nelson Mandela, a True Believer in Sanctions," December 2013 

Thomas Morton, "Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel," April 2014

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan González, "'A Hideous Atrocity': Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza and U.S. Support for the Occupation," August 2014 

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan González, "Israel’s Actions in Palestine Are 'Much Worse than Apartheid' in South Africa," August 2014

Al Jazeera, "Thousands March for Gaza in Cape Town," August 2014

Desmond Tutu, "This Is My Plea to the People of Israel," August 2014  

Anti-Defamation League, "Sonnenrad" in Hate on Display Hate Symbols Database, no date

Reporting Radicalism, "Black Sun," no date

Reporting Radicalism, "Wolfsangel," no date

Shaun Walker, "Azov Fighters Are Ukraine's Greatest Weapon and May Be Its Greatest Threat," September 2014 

Anthony Man, "Wasserman Schultz Chastises Republican Leader," January 2015

Robert Parry, "US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine," June 2015

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Ukraine," March 2016

Rebecca Kheel, "Congress Bans Arms to Ukraine Militia Linked to Neo-Nazis," March 2018

Ramah Kudaimi interviewed by Amy Goodman, "Gaza: Palestinians Continue 'Great March of Return' Protests for Third Straight Week," April 2018

Raji Sourani and Orly Noy interviewed by Amy Goodman, "'We Want Real Dignity and Freedom': Gazans Welcome Ceasefire but Demand End of Siege and Occupation," May 2021

Anton Troianovski, "Why Vladimir Putin Invokes Nazis to Justify His Invasion of Ukraine," March 2022

Issam Adwan interviewed by Amy Goodman, "'Horrifying': Gaza Assault Kills 44 Palestinians, 15 Children. Will Ceasefire End Bloodshed?," August 2022

Alasdair McCallum, "Much Azov about Nothing: How the 'Ukrainian Neo-Nazis' Canard Fooled the World," August 2022

Mychael Schnell, "House Democrat Slams Tlaib for 'Antisemitic' Remarks on Israel," September 2022 

Katie Halper, "This is What Got Katie Halper Censored & Canceled By The Hill: Israel Is An Apartheid State," September 2022

Moss Robeson, "'Now, All of You Are Azov': Ukrainian 'Neo-Nazis' Tour U.S.," October 2022 

Katie Halper interviewed by Ryan Grim, joined by Branko Marcetic, "The Journalist Censored for Defending Rashida Tlaib," October 2022 

Lev Golinkin, "The Western Media Is Whitewashing the Azov Battalion," June 2023

Jaroslav Lukiv, "US Lifts Weapons Ban on Ukraine's Azov Brigade," June 2024 

International Court of Justice, "Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem," an advisory opinion, July 2024

Nawaf Salam, "Declaration of President Salam" appended to the Internation Court of Justice advisory opinion above, July 2024  

DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE ACCUSATION OF APARTHEID AGAINST ISRAEL

On Friday, July 19, 2024 – the Internation Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.” This advisory opinion is in response to questions formulated in resolution 77/247 of the United Nations General Assembly on December 30, 2022 (more than 10 months before Operation Al-Aqsa Flood undertaken by Hamas on October 7, 2023). The press release accompanying the opinion of the Court states the following: 

"The Court has found that Israel's policies and practices … are in breach of international law. The maintenance of these policies and practices is an unlawful act of a continuing character entailing Israel's international responsibility.

"The Court has also found … that the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal. The Court therefore addresses the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices … together with those arising from the illegality of Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory … for Israel, for other States and for the United Nations."

In the actual opinion of the entire court, there is no claim that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid specifically. However, in his "Declaration" appended to the opinion of the court, President Nawaf Salam argues that the reasoning of the court logically implies the following conclusion: 

"Israel's commission of inhumane acts against the Palestinians as part of an institutionalized régime of systematic oppression and domination, and its intention to maintain that régime, are undeniably the expression of a policy that is tantamount to apartheid." 

President Salam qualifies his accusation with the word "tantamount" to allow for argument about the precise definition of "apartheid" — but his argument strongly argues that Israel is guilty of the crime of "apartheid" as he defines it in his declaration. 

The relevant documents are found at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186. 

Essay Preparation Exercises

Individual Exercises

Read the "General Guidelines for Essays." 

Study the concept of "Cogency." 

Complete the "Rubric Upload" exercise. 

Create a "Chicago Manual of Style Template Document." 

Group Exercises

Share Theses

Share Evidence 

PART 2: COGENCY AND EXTENDED ARGUMENTS

Essay 2 Group

You should now be assigned to your essay 2 group.

What Is Cogency?

At this point in the course, it is obvious that cogency is imporatant to critical thinking. But most students will still not have a clear notion of what "cogency" truly means. I want to correct that. In order to do so, we need to first study "formal" reasoning, and the concept of "soundness." Then, in reference to "soundness," you will be able to get a genuinely firm grasp of the concept of "cogency."  

Weston Chapter 6: Deductive Arguments, Part 1

Read Weston chapter 6, rules 22 through 26. 

Exercises

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 6.1: Identifying Deductive Argument Forms

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 6.2: Identifying Deductive Arguments in More Complex Passages

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 6.3: Drawing Conclusions with Deductive Arguments

What is Form?

When working through rules 22 through 26 of Morrow and Weston, you should have had an intuitive sense that the forms are valid. But you probably are not entirely clear on what "form" means. And it is only once you have a grasp of the meaning of "form" that you can truly grasp what it means for an argument to be "valid." 

Magic 8 Ball Arguments

I have created some exercises inovling the novelty item known as the "Magic 8 Ball." These exercises will give you some insight into what we mean by the "form" of an argument. 

Please read the Magic 8 Ball Arguments page, 

Exercises

Complete the following exercises with your group. 

Magic 8 Ball Questions 

Magic 8 Ball Propositions 

Magic 8 Ball Arguments 

Criticizing the Soundness of a Deductive Argument     

Deductive Reasoning

We have spent some time investigating deductive arguments, because deductive reasoning serves as a model for all types of reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a "model" in two difference senses of the word "model." 

First, deductive reasoning is a model, because it is simpler, and easier to comprehend, than general reasoning in all its complexity. Deductive reasoning is a model for all real-world reasoning in a way that is analogous to the way a (toy) model of an airplane is simpler, and easier to work with, than a real-world airplane. The model can help to understand aerodynamic principles that apply to both the model and the real-world airplane. But there are significant aerodynamic properties of the real-world airplane that are not captured by the model. The model provides a simplified example that is invaluable for a comprehensive understanding of aerodynamics. 

Second, deductive reasoning is a model, because it provides an ideal that we strive for in all forms of reasoning. This is analogous to a haute couture dress handcrafted by the designer that then serves as a model for mass production of the versions of the dress found in the store. 

Formal Inference

All reasoning involves logical inference. Logical inference is the act of accepting the truth of a conclusion based upon the assumption of the truth of some set of premises. Logical inference is the act of accepting an argument as legitimate. In a deductive argument the inference is simplified, because the inference is purely formal in character. The complexities introduced by the content of the propositions are not relevant. The inference can be conducted and evaluated with reference only to the form of the argument. 

The distinguishing feature of deductive reasoning is that it involves only formal inference. 

Validity

A deductive inference is "valid" if it is impossible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion to nevertheless be false. If we assume (maybe counterfactually) that the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Validity is the paramount criterion upon which a deductive argument is evaluated, because it is an evaluation of the distinguishing feature of a deductive argument — the inference from the form of the premises to the form of the conclusion. 

Formal Logic

The study of formal logical inferences comprises a whole field of inquiry. Because we typically use variables and other symbols to represent logical forms, formal logic is often referred to as "symbolic" logic. For a thorough exploration of elementary formal symbolic logic, see my course Logic 0. 

Soundness

Validity is the most important criterion of a good deductive argument, but it is not the only criterion. If an argument is formally valid, then we must logically accept the truth of the conclusion, assuming that the premises are all true. But what if the premises aren't all true? 

Example

For example, the following deductive argument is a formally valid. 

Premise 1: If I can put Miguel's house to better use than Miguel does, then I should kill Miguel, run off his family, and take possession of Miguel's house. 

Premise 2: I can put Miguel's house to better use than Miguel does. 

Conclusion: Therefore, I should kill Miguel, run off his family, and take possession of Miguel's house. 

The argument is valid, because it follows the Modus Ponens form. The Modus Ponens form is:

Premise 1: If P, then Q.

Premise 2: P

Conclusion: Therefore, Q.

Let: 

P = I can put Miguel's house to better use than Miguel does. 

Q = I should kill Miguel, run off his family, and take possession of Miguel's house. 

With these equivalencies, we see that the arguement follows the Modus Ponens form. 

The Modus Ponens form is valid. So, does that mean that the conclusion must then be accepted? No — not if either of the premises is false. Hopefully you can see that Premise 1 is false. Although Miguel would probably think Premise 2 is false, there might be some debate on that. But Premise 1 is definitely false. The argument is still valid, but it is not sound. 

An argument is "sound" if it is both valid, and has premises that are all true. Ultimately, in evaluating a deductive argument, we want it to be sound. 

Soundness Not Always Purely Formal

Note that in the above example, our evaluation that Premise 1 is false was not a matter of formal reasoning. We had to consider the content of the proposition, and rely upon experience of the world that goes well beyond that content. Premise 1 violates broadly accepted norms of fairness and legality that we adopt through the experience of being socialized over many years of childhood and adolescence. To see that Premise 1 is false, we have to draw upon this experience. And note that not all societies share our norms of fairness and legality. For example, in Israeli society it is relatively common for Israeli citizens to run off entire Palestinian families from their homes, and even kill some members of the household. This is done as part of a strategy of Israeli settlers occupying Palestinian land. It is often carried out under the supervision of Israeli military police as broad swaths of Israeli society cheer it on (Amnesty International, "State-Backed Deadly Rampage by Israeli Settlers Underscores Urgent Need to Dismantle Apartheid"). What we would see as clearly unfair and illegal within American society is perfectly legal and arguably fair within Israeli society. Depending on the details, Premise 1 might be true within Israeli society. Its truth depends on one's experience of socialization. 

Soundness Can Be Purely Formal

What makes deductive reasoning a model for all reasoning is that the soundness of a deductive argument can be entirely a matter of formal inferences. It is possible to construct premises that do not rely on experience of society and the world in general. 

Example 

Premise 1: If it is not the case that 2 = 3, then it is not the case that 1 + 2 = 1 + 3. 

Premise 2: It is not the case that 2 = 3.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is not the case that 1 + 2 = 1 + 3. 

As with the previous example, this argument is valid, because it follows the Modus Ponens form. It takes two semesters of work in formal logic, but we can also prove the truth of both premises through logic, using  inferences that are (by and large) only formal in character. No experience of the world is needed — just some painstaking exercises in purely formal reasoning. 

It is this sort of deductive argument that we hold up as a model for all human reasoning. It provides an ideal, because it is purely objective — not relying on opinions and subjective evaluations of the world — and because it is perfectly sound. There is no question about the validity of the form, and there is no question about the truth of the premises. However, it is also something of a toy model. Human reasoning, of course, is most important when applied to issues that are not as simple as basic arithmetic. 

Two Possible Criticisms of Soundness

Soundness is what makes a good deductive argument. And in order to be sound, an argument must have both a valid form, and premises that are all true. Thus, there are two ways to criticize the soundness of a deductive argument. You can criticize the validity of its form, or you can criticize the truth of its premises. Furthermore, there are no other criteria relevant to the definition of soundness. So, there are no other lines of attack — just these two: (1) criticize the validity of its form, or (2) criticize the truth of its premises. 

Informal Reasoning

Deductive reasoning can be conducted so maticulously as to present an ideal type of reasoning that involves only formal inferences. But that ideal type has it's limits. Most critical thinking is not formal — that is, it is "informal." Even when evaluating the soundness of a deductive argument we usually have to resort to informal reasoning to evaluate the truth of the premises. So, informal reasoing is very important. And it is informal reasoning that we are most interested in for our course of study in critical thinking. But keep in mind that we use deductive reasoning as a model. 

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is all reasoning that is not deductive. This is a "negative" definition, because it defines our subject in terms of what it is "not." 

Because we are adopting a negative definition, the notion of "inductive reasoning" takes the form of what Immanuel Kant calls an "infinite judgment," making it rife with philosophical difficulties. 

There have been many attempts to define induction "positively" in terms of what it "is" — rather than in terms of what it is "not." But those attempts have not been satisfactorily successful. Interestingly, because we will rely heavily on John Stuart Mill later in the course, one of the most ambitious attempts to positively define induction was carried out by Mill in his work A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. 

To avoid all the inherent philosophical difficulties indicated, we will stick with the simple negative definition. Inductive reasoning is all that we would call "reasoning," but that does not fit the definition of "deductive" reasoning. So, we are always comparing inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning — where deductive reasoning serves as a model. 

Informal Inference

The distinguishing characteristic of inductive reasoning is the presence of an "informal inference." An "informal inference" is the act of accepting a conclusion on the assumption of some set of premises — on analogy with deductive inference — but the inference does not rely exclusive on the form of the propositions involved. There is something else at work. Again we have a negative definition. 

Strength

Since the informal inference of induction does not rely entirely upon form, the concept of "validity" does not apply. So, we appeal to the analogous concept of "strength." 

An inductive argument is "strong" if it is not likely that the premises are true, while the conclusion is false. In other words, an argument is "strong" if when we assume the premises to true, we should be inclined to believe the conclusion. If it is not legitmate to be so inclined, then the argument is "weak." 

Note that unlike validity, the determination is not definitive, or entirely precise. Strength is a matter of degree. An inductive argument is more or less strong — not absolutely so, or not. 

A word of caution is in order here. In describing strength, logicians often appeal to "probability." This can lead to confusion. If "probability" is taken to mean something akin to "more or less likely," that is fine (following in the tradition of David Hume). But in contemporary society "probability" is apt to mislead if you start to import ideas from mathematical statistics. The theorems of mathematical statistics are derived deductively. And mathematical probabilities are calculated deductively. This is precisely what is not taking place with inductive reasoning. 

Strength is the most important criterion upon which an inductive argument is evaluated, because it is an evaluation of the distinguishing feature of the inductive argument — the informal inference from the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion. 

Cogency

But strength is not the only criterion of a good inductive argument. We also want the premises to be true. We are asked to accept the truth of the conclusion based on the assumption that the premises are true. So, the premises better be true. 

An argument is "cogent" if it is both strong, and has true premises. The truth of the premises of an inductive argument is typically rooted in facts about the world.  

We want our inductive arguments to cogent. As indicated at the beginning of this course, we are learning to evaluate the cogency arguments, and to produce cogent arguments. Cogency is the key concept of the course. 

Two Possible Criticisms of Cogency

Since the notion of cogency has been developed on the model of soundness — cogency, like soundness, can only be criticized in two ways: (1) you can criticize the strength of an argument, or (2) you can criticize the truth of its premises. 

Soundness is what makes a good deductive argument. And in order to be sound, an argument must have both a valid form, and premises that are all true. Thus, there are two ways to criticize the soundness of a deductive argument. You can criticize the validity of its form, or you can criticize the truth of its premises. Furthermore, there are no other criteria relevant to the definition of soundness. So, there are no other lines of attack — just these two: (1) criticize the validity of its form, or (2) criticize the truth of its premises. 

Strength Only Vaguely Analogous to Validity

Because validity is purely a matter of form, a deductive argument is either absolutely valid, or absolutely invalid — with no ambiguity. Since an inductive inference is informal, it is absolutely invalid. So, when we use validity as a model of strength, we can do so only vaguely. Strength versus weakness is inherently ambiguous. Strength is a matter of degrees, and distinguishing between strength and weakness is not as precise as we would like it to be — since we are taking validity as an ideal. The evaluation of strength is always subjective — depending on context and the diverse experiences of people involved. But using validity as an ideal does help to make the estimation of strength somewhat more objective. 

Inductive Premises Only Vaguely Analogous to Deductive Premises 

Since validity is purely a matter of form, the premises of a valid deductive argument must have precise formal features. This is not the case with a strong inductive argument. Since strength is not purely a matter of form, the premises of a strong inductive argument do not have to have any specific formal features. This, of course, means that inductive premises are only vaguely analogous to deductive premises. 

Inductive Premises Difficult to Identify

But there is something more at issue than just the bare vagueness of the analogy between deductive premises and inductive premises. Because the stregth of an inductive inference involves more than just form, the act of identifying the premises of an inductive argument is inherently more challenging than with deductive arguments. Much of the value of the Morrow and Weston exercises is in the practice they offer in identifying premises.  

The Rubric, Cogency, Strength and Truth of Premises

It is now time to revisit the Rubric for Essays. I use this same rubric for all of my courses that require the writing of essays. So, in the rubric, since it most typically gives guidance to students who are not studying critical thinking, I have used terminology and organization that is more intuitive for a general audience. I use terminology that leverages student experiences in English composition courses. Instead of referring to "premises," I list "evidence." And instead of "conclusion," I have "thesis." Also, there is much overlap among the various criteria listed. 

If I were to be super rigorous in the design of the rubric, I could reduce much of it to two criteria: "strength," and "truth of premises" — because those are the two ways that an inductive argument can be criticized. But that wouldn't be very informative for the vast majority of students. It wouldn't even have been informative for you when writing your first essay in this course. 

Now, however, you should be able to see how the rubric is designed to coach students into focusing their efforts on "strength" and "truth of premises." And from here on out, I want you to be intently focused on these two concepts as you write your remaining essays. Keep in mind that cogency has two key components: strength, and truth of premises. 

Making Premises More Explicit

Note that in the rubric I have "thesis" as a separate criterion under "cogency." This is because students generally need to be encouraged to clearly and explicitly state their thesis. That one piece of guidance does wonders to help students present more cogent arguments (wihout having to go into all the details of what cogency is). In an analogous way, I want to now encourage you to likewise make the premises of your arguments more explicit. Just like the way clearly stating your thesis naturally contributes to the strength of an argument, so too does clearly stating your premises. There is certainly a limit to how precisely stated the premises can be. This is part of the nature of inductive argumentation. But we want to hold out deductive inference as an unattainably ideal guide for our inductive argumentation. In a naturally vague way, strive to make your inductive arguments as similar to deductively valid arguments as is reasonable and practical. 

Leveraging Deduction within an Inductive Argument

For our essays in this course, and generally for most philosophical essays, the main inference of the argument will be inductive. If something is a matter of deduction, it typically does not require an argument — at least not among those committed to philosophical inquiry. The questions of philosophical interest are typically those that escape the formulation of a deductive argument. That challenging aspect is part of what makes them important philosophical questions. 

So, you should not expect to be able to structure a philosophical essay around a main deductive inference. But it is often possible to include deductive sub-arguments to establish some of the premises of your main inductive inference. This won't always be possible, but where it is, you should definitely take the opportunity to integrate some deductive argumentation within the larger framework of an inductive argument. Elegant inclusion of deduction within your argument will greatly contribute to the strength of the overall line of reasoning. (Inelegant shoehorning of deductive concepts might get you some points for effort, but not so much.) 

Also, every so often, it is possible to creatively structure an argument so that the main inference is deductive. This is rare. But if you can do it, that makes for a very nice essay. 

Just keep this in mind. Wherever you can introduce deduction into your arguments, do it. That always helps. However, don't force it. As I've said, most philosophical questions naturally evade deduction. The resistance to deductive analysis is a big part of what makes them intriguing. So, if deduction is not going to work, we just have to deal with it — and approach analysis through induction. If you see an opportunity to employ deduction, then go for it. But be wary of an approach that is too good to be true. You should creatively leverage deduction wherever appropriate — but only as rationally appropriate. 

Summary Figure

The following figure elegantly summarizes the key concepts involved in the comparison of formal and informal logic. 

Figure: Argument Terminology 

It is a good idea to revisit this figure as you are writing each essay. 

Two Possible Criticisms of Cogency

Similar to soundness, there are just two avenues for the criticism of the cogency of an informal argument: (1) you can criticize its strength, or (2) you can criticize the truth of its premises. And this is not exclusive; you can do both. 

Keep this in mind when writing your essays. For the essays, you will be asked to criticize the cogency of arguments. Identify premises and conclusions. Criticize the factuality of the premises. If any premise is false, then the cogency of the argument is undermined to the degree that it relies on that premise. Where the premises are likely true, or undeniable, criticize the strength of the logical inference from the premises to the conclusion. That's it. 

Weston Chapter 6: Deductive Arguments, Part 2

Read Weston chapter 6, rules 27 and 28. 

Exercises

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 6.4: Working with Reductio ad Absurdum

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 6.5: Identifying Deductive Arguments in Several Steps

Weston Chapter 7: Extended Arguments, Part 1

Start reading Weston chapter 7. 

Exercises

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.1: Identifying Possible Positions 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.2: Exploring Issues of Your Choice 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.3: Sketching Arguments for and against Positions

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.4: Sketching Arguments about Your Own Topic 

Essay 2: John Stuart Mill on the Ethics of Freedom of Expression

Assigned Works

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 

Essay Assignment

Main Question

How cogent is Mill's argument for the liberty of opinion?

Prompt

First, briefly describe Mill's argument for the liberty of opinion. Include an accurate description of the "harm principle" as Mill defines it. He explicitly states the harm principle in the introduction, saying: 

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection [of society]. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" (page 17). 

Make sure that you accurately relate what Mill himself means by "harm to others." He elaborates his meaning throughout the essay, countering misconceptions along the way (see especially chapter 2, "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion," including pages 61-62, pages 144-147 and page 158). Mill argues that suppression of opinion always does harm — moreso to society at large than to any individual whose opinion is being suppressed. And he argues that the broad harm done by censorship far outweighs any discomfort the expression of opinion might bring to certain members of society who want to seize control of opinions that don't belong to them. 

Mill argues that the harm principle applies to expression of opinion very rarely — such as in cases where an act of speach is likely to lead to imminent physical violence. He gives the following example: 

"An opinion that corn-dealers [grain-dealers] are starvers of the poor [as during the controversy regarding the "Corn Laws"], or that private property is robbery [as with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What Is Property?: An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government], ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard" (page 104). 

This is just one example of where the harm principle might come into play. There might be many more similar applications. But, nonetheless, the relevant cases are few and far between. 

Again, briefly describe all of this. Do it briefly, and in a way that one of your fellow students would easily grasp. Using ordinary language, explain how Mill logically gets to the that the harm principle rarely applies to acts of speach. Do this very succintly. 

After very briefly describing Mill's argument, then give an analysis of the cogency of his argument. Assuming that the harm principle is true, does the logic of the argument work? In other words, is Mill's argument strong? And also, Is the harm principle true in the first place? Is his premise true? Remember that cogency comes down to (1) strength, and (2) truth of premises. 

Word Count: 500 - 1,500 Words

Make sure the word count is within the range — not too low, and not too high. 

Minimum Number of Quotes: 3

This minimum number of quotes needs to come from the assigned works listed above. You can include additional quotes from other sources, but your minimum number of quotes must come from the assigned works. Cite all sources, even when summarizing or paraphrasing.

Rubric

Follow the Rubric. 

Follow Weston's Rules

Follow the good advice that Weston gives. 

Essay Preparation Exercises

Group Exercises

Feedback List 

Share Theses 

Share Evidence 

Feedback Check 

Find Markup 

Individual Exercises

Rough Draft

Feedback for a Fellow Student  

Read Markup of Previous Essay

PART 3: IMPROVING YOUR ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS

Essay 3 Group

You should now be assigned to your essay 3 group.

The Intellectual Boycott of South Africa

Re-read John Maddox, "The Boycott of South Africa;" and Hilliard Festenstein, John Sacks, Bob Hepple, and Sydney Shall, "Boycott of South Africa" — taking note of the relationships of the arguments to that of Mill. 

Weston Chapter 7: Extended Arguments, Part 2

Read Weston chapter 7. 

Exercises

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.1: Identifying Possible Positions 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.2: Exploring Issues of Your Choice 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.3: Sketching Arguments for and against Positions

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.4: Sketching Arguments about Your Own Topic 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.5: Developing Arguments in More Detail 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.6: Developing Your Own Arguments 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.7: Working Out Objections 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.8: Working Out Objections to Your Own Arguments

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.9: Brainstorming Alternatives 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 7.10: Considering Alternatives to Your Own Conclusions

Weston Chapter 8: Argumentative Essays

Read Weston chapter 8. 

Exercises

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 8.1: Writing Good Leads 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 8.2: Making Definite Claims and Proposals

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 8.3: Writing Out Your Arguments 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 8.4: Detailing and Meeting Objections 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 8.5: Considering Objections to Your Own Arguments 

Essay 3: The Twitter Files and the Ethics of Freedom of Expression

Assigned Works

United States of America, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

The French People, Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, August 26, 1789

United States of America, Bill of Rights, September 25, 1789  

United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948 

Steven Aftergood, "The Clapper 'Lie,' and the Senate Intelligence Committee," January 6, 2014

Marissa Lang, "2016 Presidential Election Circus: Is Social Media the Cause?" April 5, 2016

Peter L. Francia et al., "Abstract," in "Free Media and Twitter in the 2016 Presidential Election: The Unconventional Campaign of Donald Trump," September 27, 2017

Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, "Smoking-Gun Email Reveals How Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad," October 14, 2020

Jim Clapper et al., "Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails," October 19, 2020

Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Michael Shellenberger, Lee Fang, David Zweig, and Alex Berenson, The Twitter Files Archive, December 2, 2022 through January 27, 2023

Essay Assignment

Main Question

Is there a cogent argument to justify the suppression of opinion revealed in the Twitter Files? 

Prompt

Essentially this essay is the application of Mill's argument for the liberty of expression to a set of contemporary examples. If Mill's argument is cogent, then the censorship revealed in the Twitter Files is clearly unjustified. But if Twitter's supression of free speech was justified, then Mill's argument must be uncogent. 

Interestingly, Mill is one of the prime representatives of liberal thought. He was a chief intellect of the Liberal party in the British Parliament of his day. So, those who attempt to justify Twitter's censorship of thought are concocting arguments that are illiberal — maybe even anti-liberal, or authoritarian. Most of those arguments are not cogent (if for no other reason than that they tend to be rhetorically framed as not arguing for an illiberal thesis). I want you to do a little research and self-reflection to see if you can find, or create a cogent argument that successfully defends the illiberality of Twitter. Identify the most cogent argument you can rustle up, and analyze that argument with reference to Mill's argument.

Think about the social harm that was done by Twitter. The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story arguably was an act of election interference, especially given the involvement of the "intelligence community" with their "Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails," and with their working secretly hand in glove with Twitter executives. The signatories of that open letter are by and large professional liars. Jim Clapper, the chief signatory, lied bigtime to members of the public who were foolish enough to believe him back in 2013. So, logically you wouldn't think that the interference would be as successful as it was. But there is some reason why they are able to make a profession of it. Part of their success likely has something to do with the way that their speech is widely publicized, while they simultaneously conspire to suppress the expression of competing opinions. 

Also take into account the Bill of Rights, and universal human rights. The "First Amendment" of the Constitution only restricts what the US government is legally allowed to do. So, it doesn't limit the behavior of a private business corporation like Twitter. But as the Twitter Files demonstrate, Twitter was colluding with, and at times being directed by the executive and legislative branches of the government. The "First Amendment" applies to the extent that Twitter was carrying out government policy. And beyond this there are universal human rights — primary among those rights being the right to free speech. International law obligates states and national peoples to uphold and promote these human rights. It isn't just about limiting, or forbidding behavior. It is about positively promoting the realization of human rights. International human society was harmed by the actions of Twitter — on Mill's argument. 

There is a subtle aspect of the social context that you have to include as key evidence. As the Twitter Files document, Twitter perfidiously deluded people into thinking its platform was a free speech medium. After the Twitter Files we all know that social media posts "go viral" not because of anything the users do freely. A trending post is promoted by the programming controlling the behavior of the users. And dud posts are often so because the algorithm is supressing certain opinions. It is all in the hands of the social media engineers socially engineering the users. We know this now. But before the Twitter Files this wasn't so widely known. Twitter actively worked to deceive the public about the manipulations. The corporate business executives made a profession of lying — as they are want to do. They duped people into thinking they were engaging in free speech when that was far from the truth. Users could have used their time engaged in actual free speech, if they had known. This is important context when considering the social harm that Twitter caused. 

From Mill's perspective, Twitter committed a great abuse against the people of the United States, and against the people of the entire world. But let's consider if Mill might be wrong. Come up with the best argument to justify Twitter's behavior, and see if it proves Mill wrong. Perhaps society ought to be illiberal when it comes to expression of opinions — maybe even authoritarian. 

Focus on the two aspects of cogency: (1) strength, and (2) truth of premises. 

Word Count: 750 - 2,000 Words

Make sure you don't exceed the word count maximum.  

Minimum Number of Quotes: 4

The minimum number of quotes needs to come from the assigned works. You can include additional quotes from other sources. Cite all sources, even when summarizing or paraphrasing.

Rubric

Follow the Rubric. 

Follow Weston's Rules

Follow Weston's rules. 

Essay Preparation Exercises

Group Exercises

Feedback List 

Share Theses 

Share Evidence 

Feedback Check

Individual Exercises

Rough Draft

Feedback for a Fellow Student  

Read Markup of Previous Essay

PART 4: FALLACIES

Essay 4 Group

You should now be assigned to your essay 4 group.

Weston Appendix 1: Some Common Fallacies

Read Weston appendix 1.

Exercises 

Complete problems 1 and 3 for each exercise set.

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 11.1: Identifying Fallacies (Part 1)

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 11.2: Reinterpreting and Revising Fallacious Arguments (Part 1)

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 11.3: Identifying Fallacies (Part 2) 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 11.4: Reinterpreting and Revising Fallacious Arguments (Part 2) 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 11.5: Two Deductive Fallacies 

Morrow and Weston Exercise Set 11.6: Constructing Fallacious Arguments

Use and Misuse of Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. And when making a philosophical argument, you want to persuade the reader of your thesis. So, it may seem that philosophical argumentation is a type of rhetoric. But that is not correct. In its extreme application, rhetoric is the enemy of philosophy — because rhetoric can be used without cogency (for a full analysis of the antagonism between rhetoric and philosophy, see Plato, Gorgias). 

Although the rhetoric devoid of cogency is unacceptable to the philosopher, there is there is no need to do away with rhetoric entirely. When used properly, rhetorical flurrishes in an argument are appropriate and appreciated. You want to keep your reader engaged. You want to highlight, and drive home, key points. The misuse of rhetoric is where persuasive language is used instead of genuine evidence, and strong argumentation. 

If you have a cogent argument, then it is fine to do some rhetorical zhuzhing up. But beware of overembelishment. The cogency of an argument can be obscured or undermined by heavy-handed rhetoric. 

Principle of Charity

When analyzing an argument make sure that you practice the "principle of charity." Critical reasoning demands that you give the most charitable interpretation possible to an argument. If an argument can possibly be interpreted as cogent, then that is the correct interpretation. So, if evidence could be implicit, then it is. And if the argumentation could easily and obviously be strengthened, then let that be implicit as well. 

The principle of charity excludes nitpicking about rhetoric. Just because an author uses heavy-handed rhetoric, that does not necissarily mean they are employing some logical fallacy. The use of emotional language, for example, does not necessarily amount to the fallacy of "loaded language." The use of emotional language is only a fallacy when it is used in the abscence evidence or strong argumentation. It may be bad style. But as a philosopher you must charitably overlook bad style, and take a reading that makes the argument as cogent as possible. 

Only once to have attempted a charitable reading that sees an argument as cogent, and failed at doing so, can you criticize the argument as being uncogent. And then on the basis of the most charitable reading possible, you can give an analysis that gets to the substance of the matter — strength of argumentation, and truth of premises. 

More Comprehensive Listings of Fallacies

In appendix 1, Weston describes the most notable fallacies. However, there are many more. The following are some resources that will make you aware of the vast number. Use these along with Weston in the coming exercises. 

Bo Bennett, Logically Fallacious 

Gary N. Curtis, "Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies" 

Wikipedia, "List of Fallacies" 

Nixon's "Checkers" Speech

Go to the Richard Nixon's "Checkers" Speech page, read the speech, and complete the exercises found there. 

Leading to War: A Now Uncontrovertial Case Study in Fallacious Reasoning

Leading to War is a feature-length film that documents — largely in their own words — the Bush administration's propaganda strategy to fallaciously "justify" the unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003. The website for the film has several pages that highlight aspects of the argument of the film. For our purposes, there are four that are particularly relevant. 

The page "Rhetoric and Spin" highlights the use of logical fallacies, which is obviously relevant to the topic of critical thinking. We'll take a closer look at this page in an exercise below. 

There are two others that are not as obviously related to critical thinking, but will be crucial for a proper analysis of the Twitter Files, which you will be asked to do in the coming essay. The page "Abuses and Misuses of Intelligence" provides key examples of the way that the Wight House and the intelligence community regularly concoct false "evidence." (For further evidence of the long-standing and bipartisan nature of this, see First Run Features, "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers - Official Trailer" and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections). 

The Leading to War webpage entitled "The Importance of September 8, 2002" additionally documents a particularly agregious example of the way that journalists can be manipulated by the Wight House and the intelligence community in the concoction of false "evidence." On September 8, 2002, in the Sunday morning edition of the New York Times, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller authored an article that uncritically related a false narrative provided to them by "Bush adiminstration officials." The story was that Iraq was in the act of obtaining aluminum tubes for the purpose enriching weapons-grade uranium. It was entirely made-up. Later that same day Vice President Dick Cheney — himself a Bush administration official — was interviewed by Tim Russert on the television show Meet the Press. In the interview, Cheney cited the Gordon and Miller story as supposed "evidence" that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. The White House provided the false story to Gordon and Miller, they then dutifully broadcasted the story under the imprimatur of the New York Times, and then the White House cited the supposedly "authoritative" New York Times as evidence for its argument for war. (There are some indications that Judith Miller consciously participated in the false narrative, and the incident remains notoriously relevant to suspected similar concoction.) The White House, intelligence community, and the New York Times often mislead public opinion. Like all sources, they must be critically examined. 

The fourth Leading to War page that I want to draw attention to is "A Mythic Reality." It documents the extraordinary degree to which the White House's argument included almost no evidence. This was apparent at the time, and should have been a clear indication of the fallacious reasoning that was being peddled. Nonetheless the public by and large went along with the line that they were being fed. And the public was done a disservice by the press. The journalistic community did not properly draw attention to the obvious fact that the propaganda lacked genuine evidence. 

While the White House administration was proffering a blatantly fallacious argument for war, it was also openly belittling any critical examination that was taking place. A White House aide told reporter Ron Suskind at the time that Suskind was "in what we [the Administration] call the reality-based community," those who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." The aide went on to say, 

"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

How could an administration that was saying such things be trusted? Yet they somehow were. George W. Bush went on to win re-election in 2004 — after Suskind made the above quotes public. 

Disparagement of the Bush administration's war propaganda is not controversial now. But at the time it was difficult to question the White House's obviously faulty argument. Critics were socially stigmatized, as I myself was. Breathless comparisons of Saddam Hussein with Adolf Hitler were accompanied by characterizations of simple logical questions as "conspiracy theory." It was genuinely absurd. This historical episode serves as a particularly salient case study in fallacious reasoning. But don't think that similar examples are not present today. The narratives have shifted, but the hysterical social stigma against critical examination has continued true to form and uninterupted. —Thus, the importance of the now uncontroversial farce. 

Unkown Unknowns

For an early indication of the ludicrous thinking coming out of the White House in 2002 see a February press conference held by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: "CC UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS - Donald Rumsfeld" 

Essay 4: The Twitter Files and Fallacious Reasoning

Suggested Reading

Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger questioned by House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, "Hearing on Twitter Documents About Content Moderation Decisions," March 9, 2023 

Matt Taibbi interviewed by Medhi Hassan, "Mehdi Debates Matt Taibbi on the 'Twitter Files' and Elon Musk," April 6, 2023 

Matt Taibbi, "Lee Fang vs. Mehdi Hasan, Round 2," April 18, 2023 

Essay Assignment

Main Question

What are some key examples of fallcious reasoning found in The Twitter Files themselves, or in the criticisms of The Twitter Files? 

Prompt

The suggested readings include some interesting examples of fallacious reasoning. However, the readings are only suggested. You do not have to use them, and you are free to do your own research to find relevant examples. Just make sure that your examples really address the main question above. 

Please avoid falling into logical fallacies with your own argumentation. This topic is rife with pitfalls. For example, Lee Fang has demonstrated that Virgin Islands delegate to the House of Representatives Stacey Plaskett maintained political funding ties to notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein well after his crimes became widely known, and very directly lied about it ("House Democrat Worked for Epstein's Tax and Political Fixer," June 27, 2023; Lee Fang interviewed by Robby Soave, "Dem Stacey Plaskett Misled Public on Epstein Ties, Worked for Disgraced Pedophile's Fixer"). This certainly calls into question her commitment to speaking the truth, and her commitment ethical conduct. But that does not mean that her arguments during the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government were fallacious. Such an inference would be itself fallacious, commiting the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation. Be careful.  

Apply the principle of charity to all arguments. If an error of fact or reasoning does not alter the prevailing substance of an argument, then that argument is not a great example. Medhi Hassan and Matt Taibbi get into some back-and-forth over this issue. And that exchange certainly could be used as a good example in your essay. Either Taibbi, or Hassan is making an error in their reasoning. But you, being a critical thinker, are compelled to avoid a similar error. 

Try your best to identify a particular logical fallacy with its traditional name, using the more comprehensive listings of fallacies. However, don't get too wrapped up in this identification. The Wikipedia listing gives a simplified taxonomy. And keep in mind relevance. It isn't logically important the name by which you call a fallacy. The important thing is to demonstrate the uncogency involved. 

Be sure to quote and engage with the authors and works assigned earlier in the course. Unless you have an alternative approach that focuses on other assigned works from the course, you should quote directly from the Twitter Files. 

Word Count: 750 - 2,000 Words

Minimum Number of Quotes: 4

Rubric

Follow Weston's Rules

Follow the good advice that Weston provides. 

Essay 4 Preparation

For the final essay, I will not assign all the preparation exercises. But if you have time, and can coordinate it, I do encourage you to critique each other's rough drafts and give each other feedback.

GROUP EXERCISES

Share Theses

Share Evidence 

INDIVIDUAL EXERCISES

Rough Draft

Read Markup of Previous Essay