Week 3 — Readings & Resources

Your primary reading is Chapter 3 (in this module). Everything below is the optional, go-deeper layer — pick what helps, skip the rest.

How to use this page

This page has 10 items (4 readings and 6 videos). Allow 69–84 minutes for everything. Each group points back to the matching chapter section and class-session segment, so use the full menu when you want more, or take the quick path below.

Every video here has captions: turn them on with the CC button in the player. The chapter covers the same ideas in text.

Pick-one quick path (18–22 min total)

• CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments — Wireless Philosophy
• When Strong Isn't Enough: What Makes an Argument Cogent? — Let's Get Logical
• Arguments and Inference: Deductive and Inductive Inferences — Philosophy Pages

① Telling a guarantee from a good bet

Chapter 3, Section “Sort the promise: deductive versus inductive” · Session 1, Segment 1, “Deductive versus inductive” · Remember: a deductive argument is meant to guarantee its conclusion, and an inductive argument is meant only to make it probable.

• CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments — Wireless Philosophy — an animated explainer on how a good deductive argument gives a reason to believe its conclusion; this builds on Week 2's work with standard form, so pause on each example and say which premise line would have to be false for the conclusion to fail. (video, 6 min) (captions: creator)
• How to Argue - Induction & Abduction: Crash Course Philosophy #3 — CrashCourse — a fast tour of reasoning that makes a conclusion likely rather than certain; focus on the part about induction, and notice how often the host's examples could still turn out wrong. (video, 10 min) (captions: creator)
• Arguments and Inference: Deductive and Inductive Inferences — Philosophy Pages — a plain-language page section on arguments that claim to guarantee their conclusions and arguments that claim only to make them likely; read the sections on deductive and inductive inferences and try its test of whether new information could change how likely the conclusion seems. (reading, 8–12 min)

② Valid, sound, and the difference from true

Chapter 3, Section “Test the guarantee: validity and soundness” · Session 1, Segment 2, “Validity and soundness” · Remember: validity checks only the link from premises to conclusion, and soundness checks the link and the truth of every premise.

• CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Truth and Validity — Wireless Philosophy — an animated walk through the combinations of true or false premises with valid or invalid links; before each combination is revealed, predict whether the conclusion has to be true. (video, 7 min) (captions: creator)
• When Valid Isn't Enough: What Makes An Argument Sound? — Let's Get Logical — a three-minute explainer on why a valid argument still needs true premises to be sound; afterward, say in one sentence why the chapter's bus-route argument is valid but not sound. Use it while working through the Week-3 module overview. (video, 3 min) (captions: creator)
• Validity and Soundness — WritePhilosophy Guide — a philosophy-writing guide that tests short arguments for validity by asking whether the premises could be true while the conclusion is false; read the sections on validity and soundness, and skip the later section on tautologies. (reading, 10–15 min)

③ Strength in degrees

Chapter 3, Section “Rate the chance: strength and cogency” · Session 1, Segment 3, “Strength and cogency” · Remember: inductive strength comes in degrees, and a cogent argument is strong with every premise true yet can still miss.

• When Strong Isn't Enough: What Makes an Argument Cogent? — Let's Get Logical — a short explainer on why a strong inductive argument also needs true premises to be cogent; compare its examples with the chapter's missing-package case. (video, 4 min) (captions: creator)
• What Is the Meaning of PoP? — National Weather Service — a weather office's short answer to what a forecast's chance of rain means; read it and decide what a forecast promises and what it does not, then connect that to strength in degrees. (reading, 3–5 min)

④ Breaking a pattern with one case

Chapter 3, Section “Break the pattern: the counterexample method” · Session 2, Segment 4, “The counterexample method” · Remember: one case with every premise true and the conclusion false shows that an argument's form is invalid.

• Counterexamples (Intro to Logic) — Philologick — a recorded walk-through of building counterexamples to test whether an argument's pattern is invalid; pause before each counterexample appears and try to build your own first. (video, 10 min) (captions: automatic)

Optional one-stop reference (free online reference)

• Validity and Soundness — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — a short reference entry that defines valid, invalid, sound, and unsound deductive arguments with examples; read its opening definitions and its examples of valid but unsound arguments, and treat its part on logical form as a second look at this week's counterexample method. (reading, 8–12 min)

Heads-up (links rot): these point to outside sites that occasionally move or rename pages. If a link ever fails, tell your instructor and use the reference above in the meantime.

Provenance: Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com