← Philosophy syllabus

ScotlandPhilosophy

Arguments in Action

6 dot points across 6 inquiry questions. Click any dot point for a focused answer with worked past exam questions where available.

What makes a deductive argument valid, and how does validity differ from soundness and from the truth of the premises?

Deductive validity and soundness: the meaning of validity (the conclusion must follow if the premises are true), the meaning of soundness (valid plus all premises actually true), and why a valid argument can have a false conclusion and a true conclusion can come from an invalid argument.
How SQA Higher Philosophy defines deductive validity and soundness: validity as a guarantee that true premises force a true conclusion, soundness as validity plus true premises, and why truth and validity are separate ideas you must not confuse.
11 min answer →

How do you evaluate a whole argument using acceptability, relevance and sufficiency, and what role does the principle of charity play?

Evaluating arguments: judging the premises for acceptability, judging the premises for relevance to the conclusion, judging whether the premises are sufficient to support the conclusion, and applying the principle of charity when interpreting an argument.
How to evaluate an argument in SQA Higher Philosophy using the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency, how these criteria connect to validity and soundness, and why the principle of charity matters when interpreting an argument.
11 min answer →

What are the formal and informal fallacies you must recognise, and how do you show that an argument commits one?

Fallacies: the formal fallacies (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent) and the common informal fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, begging the question, hasty generalisation and others), with how to identify and explain each.
The fallacies SQA Higher Philosophy expects you to recognise: the formal fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, and the common informal fallacies such as ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, begging the question and hasty generalisation.
12 min answer →

How do inductive arguments differ from deductive ones, and what makes an inductive argument reliable rather than weak?

Inductive arguments and reliability: how induction differs from deduction, the main inductive patterns (generalisation from a sample, argument from analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and the criteria that make an inductive argument reliable or weak.
How SQA Higher Philosophy treats inductive reasoning: the difference between induction and deduction, the main inductive forms (generalisation, analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and what makes an inductive argument reliable rather than weak.
11 min answer →

How do you recognise an argument, tell it apart from other kinds of writing, and set it out in standard form?

Statements, arguments and standard form: distinguishing arguments from explanations, descriptions and assertions, identifying premises and conclusions using indicator words, and rewriting an argument in standard form.
How to recognise an argument in SQA Higher Philosophy, tell it apart from explanations and descriptions, identify the premises and the conclusion using indicator words, and rewrite the argument in standard form ready for analysis.
11 min answer →

Which standard argument forms are valid, which are invalid, and how do you use the counterexample method to tell them apart?

Valid and invalid argument forms: modus ponens, modus tollens, the disjunctive and hypothetical syllogisms; the formal fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent; and using the counterexample method to expose an invalid form.
The standard valid argument forms in SQA Higher Philosophy (modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive and hypothetical syllogism) and the invalid forms (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent), with the counterexample method for proving an argument invalid.
12 min answer →