Guided comparison
Read the core selections, try the task and test an alternative.
This selection introduces a field; it cannot represent every tradition or settle every disagreement.
Finding the next step…
piatra . institutepathwayspiatra . institutepathwaysFinding the next step…
Reconstruct an argument, check its evidence and respond to an objection.
No philosophy or formal logic required. Bring a short claim you want to examine.
A revised argument with an evidence trail and an honest account of its limits.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Opening definitions and examples
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Statements, connectives and examples
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 1.1 What Is Philosophy?. Turn a broad interest into a question that can be argued about.
Introduction to Philosophy: 5.2 Logical Statements. Rewrite a sentence as a claim that can be true or false.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Premises, conclusions, validity and soundness
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Types of inference and examples
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 5.3 Arguments. Number the premises and identify what the conclusion adds.
Introduction to Philosophy: 5.4 Types of Inferences. Compare deduction, induction and an inference to the best explanation.
Consider: all cats are mammals; all mammals can fly; therefore all cats can fly. Is the argument valid? Is it sound? Explain the difference.
Test whether the conclusion would follow if both premises were true, then check the premises themselves.
The form is valid: if both premises were true, the conclusion would follow. It is not sound, because the premise that all mammals can fly is false. Soundness requires a valid argument with true premises. A valid form does not repair a false premise.
What to look for
Common mistake: Calling any argument with a false conclusion invalid without checking its form.
Start this pathway to keep your answers in My learning.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Source evaluation and evidence
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Knowledge in everyday and social settings
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence. Trace a claim to its evidence and distinguish expertise from popularity.
Introduction to Philosophy: 7.5 Applied Epistemology. Apply a source check to a claim encountered outside a classroom.
An invented headline claims “90% of learners prefer our app.” You have not seen the study. What would you check before using this claim as a premise?
Find the evidence behind the headline rather than deciding from its confident wording.
Locate the original study, its date, sample, recruitment method, question wording and comparison. Determine who the percentage describes and whether preference was measured as claimed. Check funding or conflicts as context, not automatic proof of falsehood, and compare an independent source where available. Until then, qualify the premise.
What to look for
Common mistake: Accepting a headline at face value or dismissing a claim solely because of its sponsor.
Start this pathway to keep your answers in My learning.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
One worked example per fallacy
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Biases and critical reflection
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 5.5 Informal Fallacies. Explain why an inference fails instead of using a fallacy label as a dismissal.
Introduction to Philosophy: 2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection. Identify a bias in your own reasoning and design a check for it.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Structure of a philosophy paper
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers. Draft a claim, an objection and a reply before writing a full essay.
Your argument says, “Everyone in my class recommends this book, so it is the best book for every beginner.” Revise the conclusion and describe a useful objection.
Keep the conclusion within the reach of the evidence and define what “best” would mean.
A defensible revision is: the book is a candidate worth examining for beginners with goals and background similar to this class. An objection is that the classmates may share preferences or already know prerequisites that other beginners lack. Compare the book’s demands with the learner’s goals and consider an alternative before making a stronger recommendation.
What to look for
Common mistake: Replacing an unsupported universal claim with another universal claim.
Start this pathway to keep your answers in My learning.
Editorial perspectives based on selected works, rather than author-endorsed reading lists.
Read the core selections, try the task and test an alternative.
This selection introduces a field; it cannot represent every tradition or settle every disagreement.
Focus on premises, inference and counterexamples.
A valid form still needs defensible premises.
Focus on the evidence behind the premises and the limits of the method.
Source evaluation cannot settle a disagreement about values by itself.
Focus on intellectual habits and ways to test your own belief.
Recognising a bias does not by itself show a particular conclusion is false.
Background, different viewpoints, and further reading.
Turn a broad interest into a question that can be argued about.
Opening definitions and examples
Rewrite a sentence as a claim that can be true or false.
Statements, connectives and examples
Number the premises and identify what the conclusion adds.
Premises, conclusions, validity and soundness
Compare deduction, induction and an inference to the best explanation.
Types of inference and examples
Trace a claim to its evidence and distinguish expertise from popularity.
Source evaluation and evidence
Explain why an inference fails instead of using a fallacy label as a dismissal.
One worked example per fallacy
Identify a bias in your own reasoning and design a check for it.
Biases and critical reflection
Choose one habit that makes disagreement more productive.
Habits of mind
Separate a passage’s conclusion, reasons and objections.
Reading an argument
Draft a claim, an objection and a reply before writing a full essay.
Structure of a philosophy paper
Compare a reasoned argument with an appeal to authority.
Methods and reasons for accepting a claim
Track how a question exposes an unstated assumption.
Socratic questioning
Use a counterexample to test a proposed definition.
Thought experiments and counterexamples
Distinguish a question about knowledge from a question about what exists.
The scope of epistemology
Test a proposed definition of knowledge against a counterexample.
Knowledge and its conditions
State what would justify a belief and what would defeat that justification.
Reasons and justification
Compare practical doubt with a radical skeptical challenge.
Skeptical arguments and responses
Apply a source check to a claim encountered outside a classroom.
Knowledge in everyday and social settings
Describe an inference you make before you have checked the evidence.
Inference and interpretation
Locate your question among the main branches of philosophy.
Overview of philosophical fields
Turn a focused claim, traceable evidence and a serious objection into a supported essay.
Separate factual premises from value judgments and give competing reasons a fair hearing.
Reconstruct an argument and its assumptions before examining an intervention claim.
Practise reconstructing a short argument before comparing difficult passages about existence and time.
Separate premises, examples and objections when comparing accounts of representation.
Practise logical arguments and counterexamples before explaining a reduction proof.
Use recall and explanation checks while reconstructing and revising an argument.