Logical Reasoning & Argumentation Course

Lesson 1 • What Logic and Reasoning Mean

Defines logic, reasoning, and their relationship to everyday decision-making. Establishes the conceptual baseline for all subsequent chapters.

Lesson 2 • Validity, Soundness, and Strength

Contrasts deductive validity with inductive strength and adds soundness as a truth-based standard. Provides criteria for evaluating any argument.

Lesson 3 • Identifying Claims and Statements

Distinguishes claims from questions, commands, and expressions. Recognises assertable content as the raw material of arguments.

Lesson 4 • Truth, Belief, and Evidence

Separates objective truth from personal belief and introduces evidence as the bridge between them. Grounds the course in epistemic responsibility.

Lesson 1 • Key Deductive Argument Forms

Examines modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism. Students recognise and apply each form in natural language.

Lesson 2 • Categorical Logic and Syllogisms

Introduces categorical propositions and the syllogistic form. Students test syllogisms for validity using distribution rules.

Lesson 3 • Translating Arguments into Symbols

Converts natural-language arguments into symbolic notation for precise analysis. Bridges informal reasoning and formal logical evaluation.

Lesson 4 • Counterexamples and Refutation

Uses counterexamples to expose invalid deductive arguments. Develops the skill of targeted refutation without attacking irrelevant points.

Lesson 1 • Abductive Reasoning and Best Explanation

Introduces inference to the best explanation as a distinct reasoning mode. Students select amongst competing hypotheses using parsimony and explanatory power.

Lesson 2 • Nature of Inductive Arguments

Contrasts inductive with deductive reasoning and explains why inductive conclusions remain defeasible. Sets expectations for probabilistic inference.

Lesson 3 • Generalization and Statistical Reasoning

Covers inductive generalization from samples and the statistical concepts that govern reliability. Students evaluate sample quality and scope of conclusions.

Lesson 4 • Causal Reasoning and Inference

Introduces criteria for establishing causation versus correlation. Students apply Mill's methods to identify causal relationships in evidence.

Lesson 1 • Formal Fallacies in Deduction

Covers affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, and undistributed middle. Students distinguish these from valid argument forms.

Lesson 2 • Fallacies of Relevance

Examines ad hominem, appeal to authority, straw man, and red herring. Students learn why these premises fail to support their conclusions.

Lesson 3 • Fallacies of Presumption

Covers begging the question, false dichotomy, slippery slope, and complex question. Students expose hidden unwarranted assumptions.

Lesson 4 • Fallacies of Ambiguity

Addresses equivocation, amphiboly, and composition and division errors. Students trace how language imprecision creates invalid inferences.

Lesson 1 • Evaluating Argument Strength Holistically

Combines validity, soundness, and fallacy checks into a unified evaluation protocol. Students produce written assessments of complete arguments.

Lesson 2 • Reconstructing Arguments from Text

Teaches charitable reconstruction and the principle of interpretive charity. Students extract and restate arguments in standard form from dense prose.

Lesson 3 • Serial and Divergent Arguments

Covers chain arguments where conclusions become premises and arguments with multiple sub-conclusions. Students trace inference paths through complex texts.

Lesson 4 • Argument Mapping Tools and Notation

Introduces visual mapping conventions and digital tools for argument visualization. Students produce maps that communicate structure to a professional audience.

Lesson 1 • Formulating a Clear Thesis

Guides students from a topic to a precise, arguable thesis statement. A strong thesis anchors every subsequent premise and prevents scope drift.

Lesson 2 • Selecting and Ordering Premises

Covers criteria for choosing relevant, true, and sufficient premises. Students sequence premises for maximum logical and rhetorical impact.

Lesson 3 • Argument Revision and Quality Control

Applies a systematic revision process to detect and fix logical weaknesses. Students use peer feedback and self-evaluation rubrics to finalise arguments.

Lesson 4 • Anticipating and Addressing Objections

Teaches proactive objection identification and pre-emptive rebuttal. Students strengthen arguments by engaging the strongest counterarguments.

Lesson 1 • Evaluating Policy and Advocacy Claims

Examines how policy proposals embed causal and normative arguments. Students assess the logical structure of advocacy documents and position papers.

Lesson 2 • Writing a Formal Argument Critique

Synthesises all evaluation skills into a structured written critique format. Students produce a professional-grade analysis of a complex real-world argument.

Lesson 3 • Analyzing Media and News Arguments

Deconstructs editorial, opinion, and news framing as argumentative acts. Students identify implicit premises and evaluate evidence quality in journalism.

Lesson 4 • Scientific and Statistical Claims

Covers how to read research summaries and statistical claims critically. Students apply inductive standards to evaluate empirical arguments in professional contexts.

Lesson 1 • Constructing Extended Argumentative Texts

Guides students through planning and writing a multi-section argumentative document. Students integrate all course skills into a coherent, defensible extended argument.

Lesson 2 • Argumentation in Negotiation Contexts

Applies logical argumentation to negotiation and conflict resolution scenarios. Students balance persuasion with collaborative problem-solving.

Lesson 3 • Framing, Reframing, and Narrative

Examines how framing shapes argument reception and how reframing shifts debate terms. Students reframe opposing arguments without committing straw man errors.

Lesson 4 • Burden of Proof and Presumption

Explains who bears the burden of proof and how presumption allocates it. Students use burden-shifting as a strategic argumentative tool.