Subscribe to our email list and receive a 50% DISCOUNT on ALL the tutorial courses listed below, including all NEW courses as they become available!
This offer will never expire as long as you are subscribed to the email list.
I promise I will only use the email list to send information about new tutorial courses as they become available. Check out the FAQ ("What other courses are you planning?") to see a list of future tutorial courses.
Note that I'm using "double opt-in" for this list (better for security), which means you'll get an email asking you to confirm your subscription by clicking a link, and then you'll get a second email with the discount code.
This offer will never expire as long as you are subscribed to the email list.
I promise I will only use the email list to send information about new tutorial courses as they become available. Check out the FAQ ("What other courses are you planning?") to see a list of future tutorial courses.
Note that I'm using "double opt-in" for this list (better for security), which means you'll get an email asking you to confirm your subscription by clicking a link, and then you'll get a second email with the discount code.
Click the link below to see a video preview
of the payment process.
PURCHASE DEMO
Click the link below for a video tour of one our digital download products.
PRODUCT DEMO
Basic Concepts in Logic and Argumentation
Video Tutorial Bundle
This course bundle includes the full set of video tutorials for the following four courses, over 4 hours of video:
- Basic Concepts in Logic and Argumentation
- Basic Concepts in Propositional Logic
- Common Valid and Invalid Argument Forms
- Fallacies
$39.95
Click to see the full list of tutorials included in this course. Click again to close the list.
1. Basic Concepts in Logic and Argumentation
This course introduces basic concepts that are essential for logic and argument analysis. Later courses will assume that you're familiar with the difference between valid, strong and weak arguments, and the distinction between properties of arguments that turn on the truth or plausibility of the premises, and properties of arguments that turn on the logical relationship between premises and conclusions. The last section discusses deductive versus inductive arguments and how these terms relate to the concepts of valid, strong and weak arguments introduced earlier, and the relationship between inductive reasoning and scientific reasoning.
Part 1: What is an Argument?
1.1 Definition of an argument
1.2 Definition of a claim, or statement
1.3 Definition of a good argument (I)
1.4 Identifying premises and conclusions
Part 2: What is a Good Argument?
2.1 The truth condition
2.2 The logic condition
2.3 Valid vs invalid arguments
2.4 Strong vs weak arguments
2.5 Definition of a good argument (II)
Part 3: Deductive versus Inductive Arguments
3.1 Deduction and valid reasoning
3.2 Induction and invalid reasoning
3.3 Induction and scientific reasoning
This course introduces basic concepts that are essential for logic and argument analysis. Later courses will assume that you're familiar with the difference between valid, strong and weak arguments, and the distinction between properties of arguments that turn on the truth or plausibility of the premises, and properties of arguments that turn on the logical relationship between premises and conclusions. The last section discusses deductive versus inductive arguments and how these terms relate to the concepts of valid, strong and weak arguments introduced earlier, and the relationship between inductive reasoning and scientific reasoning.
Part 1: What is an Argument?
1.1 Definition of an argument
1.2 Definition of a claim, or statement
1.3 Definition of a good argument (I)
1.4 Identifying premises and conclusions
Part 2: What is a Good Argument?
2.1 The truth condition
2.2 The logic condition
2.3 Valid vs invalid arguments
2.4 Strong vs weak arguments
2.5 Definition of a good argument (II)
Part 3: Deductive versus Inductive Arguments
3.1 Deduction and valid reasoning
3.2 Induction and invalid reasoning
3.3 Induction and scientific reasoning
2. Basic Concepts in Propositional Logic
You can't get very far in argument analysis without learning some basic concepts of propositional logic. Propositional logic deals with logical relationships between statements that depend only on their truth-values (whether they're true or false). It is here where we introduce the concepts of contradiction and consistency, which are fundamental to logic. We also look at the semantics of compound claims, and we spend a lot of time on so-called conditional claims -- claims of the form "If A then B". Being able to understand and reason with conditional claims is a vital skill in logic. If there is one skill that is essential to master for the LSAT (the Law School Admission Test), it's the ability to reason with conditionals.
Introduction
Part 1: Compound Claims
1.1 Conjunctions (A and B)
1.2 Disjunctions (A or B)
1.3 Conditionals (If A then B)
Part 2: Contradiction and Consistency
2.1 Contradictories (not-A)
2.2 Contradictories vs. contraries
2.3 Contradictions (A and not-A)
2.4 Consistent vs. inconsistent sets of claims
Part 3: Contradictories of Compound Claims
3.1 not-(not-A)
3.2 not-(A and B)
3.3 not-(A or B)
3.4 not-(If A then B)
Part 4: Ways of Saying "If A then B"
4.1 A if B
4.2 A only if B
4.3 A if and only if B
4.4 A unless B
4.5 The contrapositive: If not-B then not-A
4.6 (not-A) or B
4.7 Necessary and sufficient
Appendix: Categorical Claims and Their Contradictories
1. Categorical vs propositional logic
2. All A are B
3. Some A are B
4. Only A are B
5. Square of Opposition
You can't get very far in argument analysis without learning some basic concepts of propositional logic. Propositional logic deals with logical relationships between statements that depend only on their truth-values (whether they're true or false). It is here where we introduce the concepts of contradiction and consistency, which are fundamental to logic. We also look at the semantics of compound claims, and we spend a lot of time on so-called conditional claims -- claims of the form "If A then B". Being able to understand and reason with conditional claims is a vital skill in logic. If there is one skill that is essential to master for the LSAT (the Law School Admission Test), it's the ability to reason with conditionals.
Introduction
Part 1: Compound Claims
1.1 Conjunctions (A and B)
1.2 Disjunctions (A or B)
1.3 Conditionals (If A then B)
Part 2: Contradiction and Consistency
2.1 Contradictories (not-A)
2.2 Contradictories vs. contraries
2.3 Contradictions (A and not-A)
2.4 Consistent vs. inconsistent sets of claims
Part 3: Contradictories of Compound Claims
3.1 not-(not-A)
3.2 not-(A and B)
3.3 not-(A or B)
3.4 not-(If A then B)
Part 4: Ways of Saying "If A then B"
4.1 A if B
4.2 A only if B
4.3 A if and only if B
4.4 A unless B
4.5 The contrapositive: If not-B then not-A
4.6 (not-A) or B
4.7 Necessary and sufficient
Appendix: Categorical Claims and Their Contradictories
1. Categorical vs propositional logic
2. All A are B
3. Some A are B
4. Only A are B
5. Square of Opposition
3. Common Valid and Invalid Argument Forms
This course introduces some of the most common argument forms that use "A or B", "If A then B", "All A are B" and "Some A are B". The goal is to be able to recognize these forms when they appear in ordinary language, and know which forms are valid and invalid. These forms have been studied and taught for centuries, which explains the prevalence of latin names (like "modus ponens") in this literature.
Part 1: Argument Forms Using Disjunctions (A or B)
1.1 Valid forms using "OR"
1.2 Invalid forms using "OR"
Part 2: Argument Forms Using Conditionals (If A then B)
2.1 Modus ponens
2.2 Modus tollens
2.3 Hypothetical syllogism
2.4 Affirming the consequent
2.5 Denying the antecedent
Part 3: Argument Forms Using Generalizations
3.1 Valid and invalid forms using "All"
3.2 Valid and invalid forms using "Some"
This course introduces some of the most common argument forms that use "A or B", "If A then B", "All A are B" and "Some A are B". The goal is to be able to recognize these forms when they appear in ordinary language, and know which forms are valid and invalid. These forms have been studied and taught for centuries, which explains the prevalence of latin names (like "modus ponens") in this literature.
Part 1: Argument Forms Using Disjunctions (A or B)
1.1 Valid forms using "OR"
1.2 Invalid forms using "OR"
Part 2: Argument Forms Using Conditionals (If A then B)
2.1 Modus ponens
2.2 Modus tollens
2.3 Hypothetical syllogism
2.4 Affirming the consequent
2.5 Denying the antecedent
Part 3: Argument Forms Using Generalizations
3.1 Valid and invalid forms using "All"
3.2 Valid and invalid forms using "Some"
4. Fallacies
There is a small industry devoted to identifying and classifying fallacies of reasoning. A comprehensive list of fallacies would run into the hundreds. This course introduces the concept of a fallacy and discusses some common fallacy types, but it in no way aims to be comprehensive. Instead the focus is on how any given fallacy can be understood using the basic concepts of argument analysis introduced in earlier courses. The only classification used distinguishes logical or formal fallacies (see course 3), fallacies that arise from false or implausible premises (see Part 2), and fallacies that are best understood as violations of one of the necessary conditions for having a rational argument at all (Part 3).
Part 1: Introduction
1.1 What is a fallacy?
1.2 Categorizing fallacies: pros and cons
1.3 The rules of rational argumentation
Part 2: Some Important Content Fallacies
2.1 Ad hominem (abusive)
2.2 Ad hominem (guilt by association)
2.3 Appeal to hypocrisy (tu quoque))
2.4 Appeal to popular belief (or practice)
2.5 Appeal to authority
2.6 False dilemma
2.7 Slippery slope
Part 3: Fallacies that Violate the Rules of Rational Argumentation
3.1 Straw figure
3.2 Red herring
3.3 Begging the question (narrow sense)
3.4 Begging the question (broad sense)
There is a small industry devoted to identifying and classifying fallacies of reasoning. A comprehensive list of fallacies would run into the hundreds. This course introduces the concept of a fallacy and discusses some common fallacy types, but it in no way aims to be comprehensive. Instead the focus is on how any given fallacy can be understood using the basic concepts of argument analysis introduced in earlier courses. The only classification used distinguishes logical or formal fallacies (see course 3), fallacies that arise from false or implausible premises (see Part 2), and fallacies that are best understood as violations of one of the necessary conditions for having a rational argument at all (Part 3).
Part 1: Introduction
1.1 What is a fallacy?
1.2 Categorizing fallacies: pros and cons
1.3 The rules of rational argumentation
Part 2: Some Important Content Fallacies
2.1 Ad hominem (abusive)
2.2 Ad hominem (guilt by association)
2.3 Appeal to hypocrisy (tu quoque))
2.4 Appeal to popular belief (or practice)
2.5 Appeal to authority
2.6 False dilemma
2.7 Slippery slope
Part 3: Fallacies that Violate the Rules of Rational Argumentation
3.1 Straw figure
3.2 Red herring
3.3 Begging the question (narrow sense)
3.4 Begging the question (broad sense)
How to Write a Good Argumentative Esssay
In this tutorial course you'll learn the key concepts of argumentative essay writing that I teach my own philosophy students.
These tutorials make use of concepts and techniques developed in the "Basic Concepts in Logic and Argumentation" course, and I recommend that they be viewed after exposure to that material, but they can also be profitably viewed on their own.
This tutorial course includes over one hour of video.
$9.95
Click to see the full list of tutorials included in this course. Click again to close the list.
How To Write a Good Argumentative Essay
Introduction
Part 1: Guidelines for Structuring an Argumentative Essay
1.1 A Minimal Five-Part Structure
1.2 Writing the Introduction
1.3 Writing the Conclusion
Part 2: A Sample Essay with Some Problems (and Strategies for Fixing Them)
2.1 The Essay: "Should Teachers Be Allowed to Ban Laptops in Classrooms?"
2.2 Analysis: The Introduction
2.3 Analysis: The Main Body: First Argument
2.4 Analysis: The Main Body: Second Argument
2.5 Analysis: The Main Body: Third Argument
2.6 Analysis: The Main Body: Evaluation and Recommendations
2.7 Analysis: The Conclusion
2.8 The Essay: Improved Version
2.9 The Essay: Improved Version with Commentary
Introduction
Part 1: Guidelines for Structuring an Argumentative Essay
1.1 A Minimal Five-Part Structure
1.2 Writing the Introduction
1.3 Writing the Conclusion
Part 2: A Sample Essay with Some Problems (and Strategies for Fixing Them)
2.1 The Essay: "Should Teachers Be Allowed to Ban Laptops in Classrooms?"
2.2 Analysis: The Introduction
2.3 Analysis: The Main Body: First Argument
2.4 Analysis: The Main Body: Second Argument
2.5 Analysis: The Main Body: Third Argument
2.6 Analysis: The Main Body: Evaluation and Recommendations
2.7 Analysis: The Conclusion
2.8 The Essay: Improved Version
2.9 The Essay: Improved Version with Commentary
