|
Lecturer(s)
|
-
Stránský Michal, Mgr. PhD.
|
|
Course content
|
- Basic concepts - argument, premises, conclusion, indicators. - Recognizing arguments - Deduction, induction and argument properties. - Extended arguments and their structure. - Evaluation of deductive and inductive arguments. - Logical fallacies - relevance - Logical fallacies - weak induction. - Logical fallacies - presumtpion, ambiguity, grammatical analogy.
|
|
Learning activities and teaching methods
|
Lecturing, Dialogic (Discussion, conversation, brainstorming), Methods for working with texts (Textbook, book)
- Preparation for examination
- 45 hours per semester
- Home preparation for classes
- 45 hours per semester
- Participation in classes
- 28 hours per semester
|
| prerequisite |
|---|
| Knowledge |
|---|
| Ability to understand and to give a speech or presentation in the English language. Logical and analytical thinking. |
| Ability to understand and to give a speech or presentation in the English language. Logical and analytical thinking. |
| learning outcomes |
|---|
| Argumentation structure |
| Argumentation structure |
| Pragma-dialectics |
| Pragma-dialectics |
| Fallacies |
| Fallacies |
| Visual argumentation |
| Visual argumentation |
| Dialectical objectives - demands of the audience |
| Dialectical objectives - demands of the audience |
| Skills |
|---|
| The student is able to recognize argumentative statements in communication. |
| The student is able to recognize argumentative statements in communication. |
| The student is able to extract arguments from the text, express them clearly, reveal their structure and hidden assumptions. |
| The student is able to extract arguments from the text, express them clearly, reveal their structure and hidden assumptions. |
| The student is able to identify basic logical fallacies and manipulative practices used in everyday communication. |
| The student is able to identify basic logical fallacies and manipulative practices used in everyday communication. |
| The student is able to evaluate argumentation from the point of view of pragma-dialectical objectives and apply means of strategic maneuvering in relation to the opponent/audience. |
| The student is able to evaluate argumentation from the point of view of pragma-dialectical objectives and apply means of strategic maneuvering in relation to the opponent/audience. |
| The student is able to interpret visual argumentation. |
| The student is able to interpret visual argumentation. |
| teaching methods |
|---|
| Knowledge |
|---|
| Lecturing |
| Lecturing |
| Dialogic (Discussion, conversation, brainstorming) |
| Dialogic (Discussion, conversation, brainstorming) |
| Methods for working with texts (Textbook, book) |
| Methods for working with texts (Textbook, book) |
| assessment methods |
|---|
| Systematic observation of the student |
| Systematic observation of the student |
| Written examination |
| Written examination |
| Essay |
| Essay |
|
Recommended literature
|
-
Eemeren, F. H. Grootendorst, R. Henkemans, A. F. S. Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. London, 2002.
-
Hurley, P., J. A Consise Introduction to Logic. California, 1994.
-
Rottenberg, A., T. The Structure of Argument. St. Martin, 2006.
-
Weston, A., A. A Rulebook for arguments. Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
|