A Clear Logical Argument Guaranteed
4.5 (8 ratings)
Instead of using a simple lifetime average, Udemy calculates a course's star rating by considering a number of different factors such as the number of ratings, the age of ratings, and the likelihood of fraudulent ratings.
95 students enrolled
Wishlisted Wishlist

Please confirm that you want to add A Clear Logical Argument Guaranteed to your Wishlist.

Add to Wishlist

A Clear Logical Argument Guaranteed

learn a universal fail-safe logical reasoning template for critical thinking, arguments, debate, persuasion, and writing
4.5 (8 ratings)
Instead of using a simple lifetime average, Udemy calculates a course's star rating by considering a number of different factors such as the number of ratings, the age of ratings, and the likelihood of fraudulent ratings.
95 students enrolled
Created by Joseph A. Laronge
Last updated 2/2014
English
Price: $50
30-Day Money-Back Guarantee
Includes:
  • 4.5 hours on-demand video
  • 1 Supplemental Resource
  • Full lifetime access
  • Access on mobile and TV
  • Certificate of Completion
What Will I Learn?
  • After engaging the lectures, asking your questions, and following the carefully designed practice process, you should be able construct clear logical reasoning based on your facts in support of any claim with ease, confidence, and rigor. To reach this goal you will learn the five steps to constructing clear logical arguments using a universally applicable logical template and the process to mastery of this skill.
  • 3.75 MCLE General or Practical Skills credits approved with the Oregon State Bar.
View Curriculum
Requirements
  • If you are reading this course description, you have everything that you need.
Description

Welcome!

As a trial and appellate attorney for nearly 40 years, my livelihood depends on constructing practical real-world winning arguments. Whether simple or complex, those arguments must be both logical and clear to my audience. And as an adjunct law professor for advanced argumentation, teaching students how to quickly and easily make such quality arguments is my mission.

In this course, I would like to share with you how to use or teach the same simple natural language logic template that I rely upon in court to ensure that any argument is both logical and clear.

I just fit the sentences of my reasoning within that logic template and out comes a logical and clear argument every time. It’s fail-safe, rigorous, robust, and nearly automatic. The type, complexity, or subject matter of the reasoning does not matter—the logic template is universal. And if the reasoning cannot be made to fit within the structure, you know that the reasoning is not logical.

Fortunately, you will NOT need to learn or teach about the typical long list of logical argument and reasoning curriculum topics. Just scratch them off your list of “need-to-know” to construct logical and clear arguments. There are just five simple steps to follow to complete the logic template.

It is academically sound as an extension of the seminal work of Professors Fred Sommers and George Englebretsen in the natural language New Syllogistic and peer-reviewed (Oxford Journal articles). And it has been field tested for years in actual litigation.

Of course, like improving any expertise, you will need to practice. But you only need to practice the same five simple steps for any argument.

To the contrary, based on traditional curriculum, studies have shown that practical logical reasoning “is often ill understood and poorly deployed even among those in the upper tiers of our educational systems.”(van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.)

Hasn’t the time come for learning and teaching how to make logical and clear arguments to stop being so complex and difficult? We have all been working at it harder than is really needed! The right tool makes all the difference.

The focus of this course is narrow—how to easily construct practical clear logical arguments every time whether supporting your own position or attacking another position. That’s it!

While there is certainly more to critical thinking than constructing logical and clear arguments, without real competence in this one skill, the other important areas of critical thinking cannot overcome its absence.

QUESTIONS ALWAYS WELCOME!

Joseph

Who is the target audience?
  • This course is appropriate and accessible for students from high school through graduate school, teachers of critical thinking and analytical writing at any level, business people, intelligence analysts, scientists, lawyers, politicians, journalists, and anyone else who needs to quickly learn to construct clearer and more convincing logical arguments. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no prerequisite knowledge or skills. Only a willingness to thoughtfully engage learning a new way of thinking about reasoning is required.
  • For attorneys there are 3.75 MCLE General or Practical Skills credits approved with the Oregon State Bar.
Students Who Viewed This Course Also Viewed
Curriculum For This Course
Expand All 32 Lectures Collapse All 32 Lectures 04:33:42
+
Welcome to the Course
1 Lecture 01:27

A short introduction to the course is provided.

Preview 01:27
+
A Universal Argument Structure
8 Lectures 48:15

You will first be introduced to a few basic terms (conclusion, reason, premise, and argument). Then the two elements of a "good" argument will be discussed. Finally, the nature of a correct logical structure will be explored.

Preview 08:45

You will first be introduced to the Logic-bridge universally applicable argument structure. Then the five steps to constructing a clear logical argument with the Logic-bridge are introduced.

The Logic-bridge
02:49

The first of the five steps to constructing a clear logical argument with the Logic-bridge template is introduced. This step is forming categorical sentences (subject/predicate). (Any proposition can be regimented into a categorical form.)

Sentence Structure
06:30

"Start" and "Finish" are the second and third steps of the Logic-bridge. This segment explains how the line of reasoning begins with the Subject (phrase) of the conclusion and ends with the Predicate (phrase) of the conclusion.

Start and Finish
04:03

"Linkage" is the fourth of the five steps of the Logic-bridge. This segment explains how one premise is linked to the next premise in the line of reasoning.

Linking Premises
07:15

This segment explains how the amount of certainty (e.g., believability, acceptability, probability of being true) associated with a premise is an individual subjective decision. And the concept of the weakest link in the line of reasoning is introduced.

Amount of Certainty
08:32

This segment illustrates the importance of considering the use of qualifiers in an effort to maximize the amount of certainty that is associated with any premise or assumption.

Qualifiers
04:30

This segment explains how to add assumptions. This is the fifth and last step to constructing clear logical arguments. And this segment explains the difference between assumptions and inferentially linked premises in a line of reasoning.

Assumptions
05:51
+
Assumption Sets
1 Lecture 14:12

The concepts of "Assumption Sets" is introduced. These sets include Reliability (witness, expert, and instrument), Analogy, and Sample Generalization.

Assumption Sets
14:12
+
Structure Variations
6 Lectures 37:08

This segment illustrates how a line of reasoning can consist of more than one linkage between the premises.

Multiple Links
04:13

The concepts of inference "gaps" and the risks of "inference upon inference" leading to the concern of speculation are explored.

Multiple Linkage Effects
08:16

The structure of multiple lines of reasoning (parallel and branching) is explored with examples.

Multiple Lines
06:50

Multi-level structures of argument are explored. And the use of the Outline Logic-bridge template for such structures is introduced.

Multi-Level
09:59

Examples of argument structures with missing premises are explored.

Missing Premises
05:01

Examples of the impact of arguments with missing assumptions is explored.

Missing Assumptions
02:49
+
Argument Dialogue
2 Lectures 23:13

An example of an argument dialogue using the Logic-bridge is explored.

Dialogue
13:25

The limitations of the Toulmin Model of Argument are explored.

Toulmin Model of Argument
09:48
+
Objections
3 Lectures 11:53

The first of the three types of objection (Opposing) is discussed.

Opposing Attack
03:39

The second type of objection (diverting) is discussed.

Diverting Attack
03:33

The third type of objection (obstructing) is discussed.

Obstructing Attack
04:41
+
Flow of Certainty
1 Lecture 13:30

The changes in levels of certainty during an argument dialogue are illustrated.

Flow of Certainty Overview
13:30
+
Practice Resources
1 Lecture 15:38

The process for effective practice in constructing clear logical arguments is illustrated.

Argument Construction Practice Protocol
15:38
+
Argument Reconstruction
7 Lectures 01:02:17

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 1
09:33

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 2
08:56

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 3
07:18

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 4
09:21

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 5
08:59

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 6
09:18

An example of the process of argument reconstruction is explored.

Argument Reconstruction Example 7
08:52
+
Inference Mode
1 Lecture 00:00

The theoretical foundation of the Logic-bridge is explained. OPTIONAL LECTURE

Logic-bridge Mode of Inference OPTIONAL
5 pages
1 More Section
About the Instructor
Joseph A. Laronge
4.5 Average rating
8 Reviews
95 Students
1 Course
Trial / Appellate Attorney and Adjunct Law School Professor

Joseph has been a trial and appellate attorney for nearly 40 years. His trials have included complex valuation cases involving companies such as Delta Airlines, Union Pacific Railroad, Hewlett-Packard, and other large transportation companies, utilities, and major industrial corporations. He has also practiced in the areas of law enforcement, criminal defense, and general practice.

Periodically, he balances his litigation work teaching Advanced Argumentation and Legal Research & Writing as an Adjunct Law School Professor (Lewis & Clark Law School and Willamette University Law School).

He has also been an Associate of Austhink (see: www.austhinkconsulting.com), specialists in the use of argument mapping and other techniques of visual deliberation to improve reasoning.

Finally, he is a published author in two peer-reviewed Oxford Journals (The Journal of Logic & Computation and Law, Probability & Risk) and presented a paper for the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Law (ICAIL 2011) AI & Evidential Inference Workshop.

In his mission to develop new tools and theoretical concepts for making and learning to construct clear logical practical arguments easier and fail-safe, he has enormously benefited from the support and encouragement of leaders in the Argumentation field such as Professors Tim van Gelder, Peter Tillers, Douglas Walton, David Hitchcock, and John Woods.