DOCSLIB.ORG

Sample Solutions to Homework 1 2. Answer the Questions in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sample Solutions to Homework 1 2. Answer the Questions in The Sample Solutions to Homework 1 2. Answer the questions in the following examples regarding logical fallacies. (a) During their argument, Anthony tells Marie that he hates her and wished that she would get hit by a car. Later that evening, Anthony receives a call from a friend who tells him that Marie is in the hospital because she was struck by a car. Anthony immediately blames himself and reasons that if he hadn’t made that comment during their fight, Marie would not have been hit. What logical fallacy has Anthony committed? Faulty cause/effect (questionable cause) (b) Louise is running for class president. In her campaign speech she says, “My opponent does not deserve to win. She is a smoker and she cheated on her boyfriend last year.” What fallacy has Louise committed? appeal to motive, or ad hominem. (Fallacies of relevance) (c) Bill: “I think capital punishment is wrong.” Adam: “No it isn’t. If it was wrong, it wouldn’t be legal.” Of which fallacy is this an example? Begging the question (Improper premise) (d) Ricky is watching television when he sees a commercial for foot cream. The commercial announcer says, “This is the best foot cream on the market because no other foot cream makers have been able to prove otherwise!” What fallacy has the announcer committed? Appeal to ignorance (e) Maria has been working at her current job for more than 30 years at the same wage. She desperately wants a raise so she approaches her boss to ask for one. She says, “You are one of the kindest people I know. You are smart and good-looking and I really love your shoes.” What type of fallacy is this? Appeal to emotion. 3. Let A = {0, 1}. P(A) = ? P(P(A)) = ? 푃(퐴) = {휙, {0}, {1}, {0, 1}} 푃(푃(퐴)) = {휙, {휙}, {{0}}, {{1}}, {{0, 1}}, {휙, {0}}, {{1}, 휙}, {{1}, {0}}, {{1}, {0}, 휙} , {{0, 1}, 휙} , {{0, 1}, {0}}, {{0, 1}, {0}, 휙}, {{0, 1}, {1}}, {{0,1}, {1}, 휙 }, {{0,1}, {1}, {0}}, {{0, 1}, {1}, {0}, 휙}} Solution: Let 푆(푥, 푦) denotes the relation that “푥 shaves 푦,” and 푏 be the only barber, 퐴 = {푥 |푠(푏, 푥)} be the people shaved by b, 퐵 = {푥|푠(푥, 푥) = 푓푎푙푠푒} be the set of the people who don’t shave themselves. From assumption, A=B: assume 푏 ∈ 퐵 ⇒ 푠(푏, 푏) = 푓푎푙푠푒 and 퐴 = 퐵 ⇒ 푏 ∈ 퐴 ⇒ 푠(푏, 푏) = 푡푟푢푒 thus reaches a contradiction. Assume 푏 ∉ 퐵 ⇒ 푠(푏, 푏) = 푡푟푢푒 푎푛푑 퐴 = 퐵 ⇒ 푏 ∉ 퐴 ⇒ 푠(푏, 푏) = 푓푎푙푠푒 thus reaches a contradiction. Proof: The set in the question is a product of two countable sets. Since the product of two countable sets is countable, this result implies the set in the question is countable. If we cannot use the result, a direct proof goes as follows: To find a function 푓: 푁 × {푎, 푏, 푐} ↦ 푁 that is injective, then 푁 × {푎, 푏, 푐} is countable. 0 푥 = 푎 Let 푔: 푁 × {0, 1, 2} ↦ 푁, and ℎ: {푎, 푏, 푐} ↦ {0, 1, 2}, ℎ(푥) = {1 푥 = 푏 thus 푓(푛, 푙) = 2 푥 = 푐 푔(푛, ℎ(푙)), thus if it is shown a function 푔(푛, ℎ) is injective, and ℎ is apparently a injective function, then 푓 is injective. Let 푔(푛, ℎ) = (푛 − 1) ∗ 3 + ℎ it would satisfy the injective condition: 1. 푖푛푗푒푐푡푖푣푒: ∀푥1∀푥2 (푥1 ≠ 푥2 → 푓(푥1) ≠ 푓(푥2)) ∀푥1∀푥2 (푥1 ≠ 푥2 → 푓(푥1) ≠ 푓(푥2)) ⟷ ∀푥1∀푥2 (푓(푥1) = 푓(푥2) → 푥1 = 푥2) Let 푔(푛1, ℎ1) = 푔(푛2, ℎ2) ⇒ (푛1 − 1) ∗ 3 + ℎ1 = (푛2 − 1) ∗ 3 + ℎ2 ⇒ 3푛1 + ℎ1 = 3푛2 + ℎ2 ⇒ 3(푛1 − 푛2) = ℎ2 − ℎ1 ⇒ −2 ≤ 3(푛1 − 푛2) ≤ 2 2 2 ⇒ − ≤ (푛 − 푛 ) ≤ since 푛 , 푛 푎푟푒 푛푎푡푢푟푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟푠, thus 푛 − 푛 is an integer. 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 ⇒ 푛1 − 푛2 = 0 ⇒ 푛1 = 푛2 ⇒ ℎ1 = ℎ2, i.e. ∀푥1∀푥2 (푓(푥1) = 푓(푥2) → 푥1 = 푥2) is true, i.e. 푔(푛, ℎ) is injective. The function 푓(푛, ℎ(푙)) is injective, where 푛 ∈ 푁, 푙 ∈ {푎, 푏, 푐}, and set 푁 × {푎, 푏, 푐} is countable. Proof: ∀푘 ∈ ℕ(ℕ푘 푖푠 푐표푢푛푡푎푏푙푒). Prove with induction: When 푘 = 1: 푁푘 = 푁 , and 푁 is countable, so is for 푁푘. Assume 푁푘 is countable where 푘 > 1, to show 푁푘+1 = 푁푘 × 푁 is countable, since 푁푘 and 푁 both are countable, thus 푁푘+1 = 푁푘 × 푁 is countable. Proof: Solution 1: Let want to show is countable: 푎0 푥 = 0 st : define as 푓(푥) = { , then express as (푎0, 푎1) where the 1 element in tuple is 푎1 푥 = 1 nd 푓(0), and 2 element is 푓(1), thus F = {(푎0, 푎1)| 푎0 ∈ ℕ, 푎1 ∈ ℕ} = ℕ × ℕ thus is countable. Solution 2: Let want to show is countable: 푎 푥 = 0 : define as 푓(푥) = { 0 , then express as where the 1st element in 푎1 푥 = 1 tuple is input, and 2nd element in tuple is the output, thus thus is countable. Proof: if A and B are countable, then there exists 푓퐴 ∶ 퐴 ↦ ℕ , 푓퐵 ∶ 퐵 ↦ ℕ , and 푓퐴, 푓퐵 are injective define 푓: 퐴 ∪ 퐵 ↦ ℕ as 2푓퐴(푥) 푤ℎ푒푟푒 푥 ∈ 퐴 푓(푥) = { 2푓퐵(푥) + 1 푤ℎ푒푟푒 푥 ∈ 퐵\퐴 Want to show 푓(푥) is injective: ∀푥1∀푥2 (푓(푥1) = 푓(푥2) → 푥1 = 푥2) If 푓(푥1) = 푓(푥2) 푖푠 푎푛 푒푣푒푛 푛푢푚푏푒푟 ⇒ 2푓퐴(푥1) = 2푓퐴(푥2) ⇒ 푓퐴(푥1) = 푓퐴(푥2) ⇒ 푥1 = 푥2 If 푓(푥1) = 푓(푥2) 푖푠 푎푛 표푑푑 푛푢푚푏푒푟 ⇒ 2푓퐵(푥1) + 1 = 2푓퐵(푥2) + 1 ⇒ 푓퐵(푥1) = 푓퐵(푥2) ⇒ 푥1 = 푥2 For both cases, we have shown ∀푥1∀푥2 (푓(푥1) = 푓(푥2) → 푥1 = 푥2) is true, i.e. 푓(푥) 푖푠 푖푛푗푒푐푡푖푣푒. 1 푥 = 푎 Proof: let ℎ: {푎, 푏, 푐} ↦ {1, 2, 3} such that ℎ(푥) = {2 푥 = 푏, then define 푓: {푎, 푏, 푐}∗ ↦ ℕ such 3 푥 = 푐 0 푦 = 휀 that 푓(푦) = { 푘 푖 where 푦 = 푥1 ∘ 푥2 … ∘ 푥푘, this function is ∑푖=1 ℎ(푥푖) ∗ 10 표푡ℎ푒푟푤푖푠푒 ∗ ∗ injective from {푎, 푏, 푐} ↦ ℕ , since ∀푦1 ∀푦2 (푓(푦1) = 푓(푦2) → 푦1 = 푦2) . thus {푎, 푏, 푐} is a countable set. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Justice Academy Journal Law and Justice Executive Series Special Edition
    The Justice Academy Journal Law and Justice Executive Series Special Edition Critical Thinking, Common Fallacies, and Leadership One of my all-time favorite movies was Tom Clancy’s, Hunt for Red October. Within that movie there is a scene that I found fascinating within my capacity as a university professor teaching logic and statistics. The scene involves a JusticeAcademy.org meeting of top level decision makers who are gathered around a table in the basement of the Whitehouse, and after a briefing given by Jack Ryan pertain- he Justice Academy serves as a national repository ing to the design, construction, and launch of a new Russian submarine, the and portal for instructional programs and special- ized training materials that are produced by law National Security Advisor who is chairing the meeting asks Admiral Greer enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the (the character played by James Earl Jones) what conclusions he has made. courts and makes these educational assets availa- ble to the general law enforcement community, at The Admiral responded, “Sir, the data support no conclusions as of yet”. I no charge. thought this statement was one of the more profound expressions that I had JusticeAcademy.org also sponsors comprehensive research into a variety of issues relative to the law ever heard in any movie. What an astonishing and refreshing response I and justice professions, as well as authoring and thought to myself. He was exactly right that it was premature, given the lim- advancing national strategic initiatives that deal with specific challenges. The intention of this ited information available at the time, to base any decision about the Rus- service is to support professional development, sian’s intent, mission, or objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Poverty and Eros in Plato's Symposium Lorelle D
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Love's Lack: The Relationship between Poverty and Eros in Plato's Symposium Lorelle D. Lamascus Marquette University Recommended Citation Lamascus, Lorelle D., "Love's Lack: The Relationship between Poverty and Eros in Plato's Symposium" (2010). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 71. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/71 LOVE’S LACK: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND EROS IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM By Lorelle D. Lamascus A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2010 ABSTRACT LOVE’S LACK: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EROS AND POVERTY IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM Lorelle D. Lamascus Marquette University, 2010 This dissertation responds to a long-standing debate among scholars regarding the nature of Platonic Eros and its relation to lack. The more prominent account of Platonic Eros presents the lack of Eros as a deficiency or need experienced by the lover with respect to the object needed, lacked, or desired, so that the nature of Eros is construed as self-interested or acquisitive, subsisting only so long as the lover lacks the beloved object. This dissertation argues that such an interpretation neglects the different senses of lack present in the Symposium and presents an alternative interpretation of Eros based on the Symposium ’s presentation of Eros as the child of Poverty and Resource. Chapter one examines the origin and development of the position that Platonic Eros is acquisitive or egocentric and the influence this has had on subsequent interpretations of Plato’s thought.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2016 M S King
    © 2016 M S KING Preface by Aesop & Edward Gibbon Aesop’s Fable of the Man and the Lion A man and a Lion traveled together through the forest. They began to boast of their respective superiority to each other in strength and prowess. As they were disputing, they passed a statue carved in stone, which depicted a Lion strangled by a Man. The man pointed to it and said: "See there! How strong we are, and how we prevail over the king of beasts." The Lion replied: "This statue was made by one of you men. If we Lions erected statues, you would see the Man placed under the paw of the Lion." The Lesson: One story is good, till another is told. "History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." Edward Gibbon, English historian (1737-1794) From: "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" 2 About the Author M. S. King is a private investigative journalist and researcher based in the New York City area. A 1987 graduate of Rutgers University, King's subsequent 30 year career in Marketing & Advertising has equipped him with a unique perspective when it comes to understanding how "public opinion" is indeed scientifically manufactured. Madison Ave marketing acumen combines with 'City Boy' instincts to make M.S. King one of the most tenacious detectors of "things that don’t add up" in the world today. Says King of his admitted quirks, irreverent disdain for "conventional wisdom", and uncanny ability to ferret out and weave together important data points that others miss: "Had Sherlock Holmes been an actual
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Study of Informal Fallacies in Some Socio-Political Discourse in Ghana
    A CRITICAL STUDY OF INFORMAL FALLACIES IN SOME SOCIO-POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN GHANA BY RICHARD ANSAH submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD) in the subject PHILOSOPHY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: Dr Ezekiel SN Mkhwanazi CO-SUPERVISOR: Prof MLJ Koenane 2019 1 DECLARATION Name: RICHARD ANSAH Student number: 58556893 Degree: DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PHILOSOPHY) Exact wording of the title of the thesis as appearing on the electronic copy submitted for examination: A CRITICAL STUDY OF INFORMAL FALLACIES IN SOME SOCIO-POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN GHANA I declare that the above thesis is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. I further declare that I submitted the thesis to originality checking software and that it falls within the accepted requirements for originality. I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for examination at Unisa for another qualification or at any other higher education institution. (The thesis will not be examined unless this statement has been submitted.) ________________________ February 10, 2020 SIGNATURE DATE 2 DEDICATION To my late mother, Agnes Obo and my late mother-in-law, Elizabeth Agyapong 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My profound gratitude goes to the Almighty God for strength to complete this work. Again, I wish to express my warmest gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors, Dr. Ezekiel SN Mkhwanazi and Professor Koenane Mojalefa for their patience, very important suggestions and inputs which aided in the successful completion of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Conflict
    Climate Conflict: Players and Tactics in the Greenhouse Game A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY From UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG By PATRICK RICHARD HODDER Bachelor of Arts (Honours) University of Wollongong 2007 SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION 2011 Certification I, Patrick Richard Hodder, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work, unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution. ………………………………………….. Patrick Richard Hodder 14 June 2011 i Publications in support of this thesis Hodder, PR, ‗Australian climate change politics under the Howard and Rudd governments‘, Revised and resubmitted. Hodder, PR, ‗Credibility games: climate change critics in the Australian quality press‘, submitted for review. Hodder, PR 2010, ‗Lobby groups and front groups: Industry tactics in the climate change debate‘, Melbourne Journal of Politics, vol. 34, pp. 45-81. Hodder, PR 2009, ‗The hidden dangers of an emissions trading scheme‘, Social Alternatives, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 49-53. Hodder, PR and Martin, B 2009, ‗Climate Crisis? The politics of emergency framing‘, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 36, pp. 53-60. Hodder, PR 2008, ‗Carbon pollution: Reduction scheme or soft option?‘, Australian Review of Public Affairs, available online, http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/09/hodder.html Text from the first four papers and ideas from all six are used in this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • So You Say: Demonstrated Facts V. Unsupported Assertions
    So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Prepared by: Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and W. Michael Gillette, Associate Justice (retired) Oregon Supreme Court Shareholder: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Prepared for: 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Copyright © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications Wilsonville, Oregon So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Page 1 So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) W. Michael Gillette, Association Justice, Oregon Supreme Court (retired) I. Burdens of Proof A. “Burden of Proof” Defined: 1. Duty placed upon a party to a civil or criminal action to prove or disprove a disputed fact. 2. “Burden of Proof” is also used as a synonym for “Burden of Persuasion” which is the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed fact. B. Preponderance of the Evidence Defined: 1. Evidence, as a whole, shows fact to be proved is more probable than not. 2. The existence of the fact at issue is more likely than not. 3. The greater weight of the credible evidence. 4. More evidence or more credible evidence than evidence offered in opposition to it. C. Clear and Convincing Evidence Defined: The existence of a particular fact is highly probable or reasonably certain. This standard may be used in some jurisdictions when the issue is whether a person was guilty of deceit or fraud—a matter that had to be proved at common law by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 a Great Big List of Fallacies
    Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense Appendix 1 A Great Big List of Fallacies To avoid falling for the "Intrinsic Value of Senseless Hard Work Fallacy" (see also "Reinventing the Wheel"), I began with Wikipedia's helpful divisions, list, and descriptions as a base (since Wikipedia articles aren't subject to copyright restrictions), but felt free to add new fallacies, and tweak a bit here and there if I felt further explanation was needed. If you don't understand a fallacy from the brief description below, consider Googling the name of the fallacy, or finding an article dedicated to the fallacy in Wikipedia. Consider the list representative rather than exhaustive. Informal fallacies These arguments are fallacious for reasons other than their structure or form (formal = the "form" of the argument). Thus, informal fallacies typically require an examination of the argument's content. • Argument from (personal) incredulity (aka - divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false. • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed so extensively that nobody cares to discuss it anymore. • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. • Argumentum verbosium – See proof by verbosity, below. • (Shifting the) burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with (or assumes) what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Eisen's Angry, Hypocrisy Drenched Assault on Informed
    Michael Eisen's Angry, Hypocrisy Drenched Assault on Informed Consent using Massive Fallacious Reasoning while Ironically Brandishing the Banner of "Science" (c) Copyright 2012 David Dilworth (Eisen may have set a New World Record by committing Six Logical Fallacies with a Single Sentence.) The Genetically modified (GMO) food conflict surfaced in California where Food Safety proponents have put GMO food labeling on the November 2012 ballot so consumers can make an informed choice. GMO manufacturing corporations including Monsanto oppose labeling. Though I'd written a letter to a British researcher about iti the GMO campaign hadn't really caught my attention until I ran across an article, or more accurately found an article that ran over me and rational discourse. Entitled "The anti-GMO campaign's dangerous war on science"ii it is written by a genetic researcher in California named Michael Eisen claiming to support Open Science. The article caught my attention because I've been helping work for good science for a few decades, I'm aware of real attacks on science philosophy and credibility and I am a bit familiar with environmental impacts iii - so sounds good right ? Wow, was I ever in for a disturbing surprise. With deeply profound irony an "infuriated" Eisen claims he's fighting to defend science ("My vested interest here is science, and what I write here, I write to defend it"). Instead his article assaults and batters science reasoning and logic so relentlessly I had to set it aside for a few days to recover from my shocked dismay. "Well I'm angry, making sense gets in the way." "Coupling" British TV seriesiv If I'd found so much as one valid electronic breath defending science methodology, reasoning or logic in the article I wouldn't have written this.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies Philosophical Logic
    8/25/2020 Logic in computer Science Logical Fallacies 1 Philosophical logic • It is the investigation, critical analysis and intellectual reflection on issues arising in logic and is the branch of studying questions about reference, predication, identity, truth, quantification, existence, entailment, modality, and necessity. 2 1 8/25/2020 Logical Fallacies Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that lead to faulty, illogical statements. They are unreasonable argumentative tactics named for what has gone wrong during the reasoning process. 3 Two Types of Fallacies • Formal Fallacy, also called deductive fallacy, logical fallacy, non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”). – Sequitur: the conclusion of an inference – This is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure. – Example: • Premise: My car is some car. • Premise: Some cars are red. • Conclusion: My car is red. • Informal Fallacy, the error cannot be expressed in a formal logic. 4 2 8/25/2020 Formal Fallacies Five types of Formal Fallacies: • Affirming the consequent. • Denying the antecedent. • Affirming a disjunct. • Denying a conjunct. • Undistributed middle. 5 Formal Fallacies • Affirming the consequent. Any argument with the invalid structure of: If A then B. B is true, therefore A is true. – Example. If I get a B on the test, then I will get the degree. I got the degree, so it follows that I must have received a B. In fact, I got an A. 6 3 8/25/2020 Formal Fallacies • Affirming the consequent. • Denying the antecedent. Any argument with the invalid structure of: If A then B. A is false, therefore B is false.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepted Manuscript1.0
    Nonlinear World – Journal of Interdisciplinary Nature Published by GVP – Prof. V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies and GVP College of Engineering (A) About Journal: Nonlinear World is published in association with International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts (IFNA), which promotes collaboration among various disciplines in the world community of nonlinear analysts. The journal welcomes all experimental, computational and/or theoretical advances in nonlinear phenomena, in any discipline – especially those that further our ability to analyse and solve the nonlinear problems that confront our complex world. Nonlinear World will feature papers which demonstrate multidisciplinary nature, preferably those presented in such a way that other nonlinear analysts can at least grasp the main results, techniques, and their potential applications. In addition to survey papers of an expository nature, the contributions will be original papers demonstrating the relevance of nonlinear techniques. Manuscripts should be submitted to: Dr. J Vasundhara Devi, Associate Director, GVP-LIAS, GVP College of Engineering (A), Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam – 530048 Email: [email protected] Subscription Information 2017: Volume 1 (1 Issue) USA, India Online Registration at www.nonlinearworld.com will be made available soon. c Copyright 2017 GVP-Prof. V. Lakshmikantham Insitute of Advanced Studies ISSN 0942-5608 Printed in India by GVP – Prof. V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies, India Contributions should be prepared in accordance with the ‘‘ Instructions for Authors} 1 Nonlinear World Honorary Editors Dr. Chris Tsokos President of IFNA, Executive Director of USOP, Editor in Chief, GJMS, IJMSM, IJES, IJMSBF Dr. S K Sen Director, GVP-LIAS, India Editor in Chief Dr. J Vasundhara Devi Dept. of Mathematics, GVPCE(A) and Associate Director, GVP-LIAS, India Editorial Board Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Media and Information Literacy in Adult Education
    MEDIA AND INFORMATION LITERACY IN ADULT EDUCATION Project no 2018-1-FR01-KA204-048213 Table of contents INTERACTIVE CONTENT Click and go to the page WORKSHOP Introduction 3 29 Fake News WORKSHOP Media and Information Literacy 4 30 Assemblage Non-formal education system WORKSHOP 5 and benefits 32 Headline Basket WORKSHOP Presentation of the Toolkit Target Audience 6 and group dynamics 35 Deconstruction Instructions for Media Bingo 7 38 Newspaper Analysis CARD GAME EXEMPLAR 8 Tell your Story 41 Newspaper Analysis CARD GAME Instructions for Comparative 9 More Than One Story 42 Newspaper Analysis EXEMPLAR Puzzle 10 48 Comparative Analysis WORKSHOP Top 10 Logical Critical thinking, social representations 11 50 Fallacies in Politics and the portrayal of the reality WORKSHOP Printable Critical Thinking Cards 13 Media Literacy: Bias in Media 57 WORKSHOP WORKSHOP Terminology: global 16 Social media channels 65 and EU perspectives WORKSHOP WORKSHOP 24 Visuals on social media 68 ETA CARD GAME Activities and materials 25 Percipio 74 to address radicalisation issue WORKSHOP PROJECT PARTNERS 26 First Impression 81 NB It's a link icon. If you see it, click it. Introduction “Media and information literacy in adult education” is an Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships project for four partners from France, Croatia, Estonia and Spain. The coordinator of this project is Mitra France non-governmental organisation from France. The project is funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission. The general objective of this project was to exchange good practices and test innovative methods in media and information literacy that were collected in this Toolkit. The activities of this project increased the ability of participants to think critically about the content they receive through social media.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fallacies
    List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion.
    [Show full text]