← Knowledge & Inquiry syllabus

SingaporeKnowledge & Inquiry

Reasoning and Argument

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 the truth of the premises and from soundness?

Explain deductive validity and soundness, distinguish them from the truth of the premises, and apply the concepts to assess given arguments
A focused answer on deductive arguments. What validity is (truth-preserving form), why it differs from the truth of the premises, what soundness adds, and how to test a deductive argument for both.
10 min answer →

Given an argument, how do we judge it fairly and systematically, and how do we assess the sources its premises rest on?

Apply a systematic method for evaluating an argument and assessing the reliability, relevance and bias of the sources its premises depend on
A focused answer on the systematic evaluation of arguments and sources. The two-question method (does it follow, are the premises true), assessing source reliability and bias, weighing counter-considerations, and reaching a justified verdict.
11 min answer →

What are the recurring patterns of bad reasoning, and how do we name and diagnose them in real arguments?

Identify and explain common formal and informal fallacies and diagnose them in given arguments without committing the fallacy-fallacy
A focused answer on fallacies. The difference between formal and informal fallacies, a working catalogue (affirming the consequent, ad hominem, straw man, false dichotomy, slippery slope, equivocation, appeal to authority and others), and how to diagnose them fairly.
11 min answer →

How do we lay bare the structure of an argument, separating what is being claimed from the reasons offered for it?

Identify the conclusion, premises and unstated assumptions of an argument and represent its structure, distinguishing argument from non-argument
A focused answer on argument reconstruction. Finding the conclusion and premises, spotting indicator words, surfacing unstated assumptions, distinguishing arguments from explanations and assertions, and mapping argument structure.
10 min answer →

How do we evaluate arguments whose conclusions are only made probable, rather than guaranteed, by their premises?

Distinguish inductive from deductive reasoning and assess inductive strength across generalisation, analogy and inference to the best explanation
A focused answer on inductive reasoning. How induction differs from deduction, what makes an inductive argument strong or weak, and the main forms: enumerative generalisation, analogy, and inference to the best explanation.
10 min answer →

What is the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition, and why does confusing them wreck so many arguments?

Distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions, relate them to conditional statements, and use them to analyse definitions and detect conditional fallacies
A focused answer on necessary and sufficient conditions. How they map onto if-then statements, the difference between them, their role in definitions and the tripartite analysis, and the conditional fallacies that follow from confusing them.
9 min answer →