An argument seems incomplete
You want to identify which reason is missing or which inference needs checking.
Test whether a conclusion follows from its reasons.
Separate the reasons from the conclusion, then look for a case where the reasons hold but the conclusion fails. Check the facts as well as the logic. The receipt example below lets you try this before choosing a personal learning goal in Cadence.
Want new features first?
A starting goal
I want to reason more clearly and spot weak arguments, including my own. Teach me the basics of logical thinking through everyday examples rather than formal notation.
Change any word so it fits your situation. The course is built from what you type and a few setup questions.
Start today
Useful on their own. The course is for when you want the whole skill, not just the first move.
Try our example: every approved expense has a receipt; this expense has a receipt; therefore it is approved. The first two statements are premises. The last is the conclusion. Before reading on, ask whether both premises could be true while the conclusion is false.
An expense could have a receipt and still be awaiting approval. That possibility fits both premises, so the conclusion does not follow. This is called affirming the consequent. It does not prove the expense is unapproved either; the receipt alone cannot settle that question.
A valid version is: every approved expense has a receipt; this expense is approved; therefore it has a receipt. If those premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In a real decision, check the policy and approval record too. Valid reasoning does not make an unverified premise true.
Sources: OpenStax: premises, conclusions and truth versus logic; OpenStax: valid deductions and counterexamples. Practical examples are starting points, not promised results.
Before the course is built
Lesson 1 opens on the moment you describe, and the examples use your role. For this request, expect questions like these.
Right for now
You want to identify which reason is missing or which inference needs checking.
Lay out the reasons and test them without assuming your own position is right.
Use the same questions for an argument you agree with and one you doubt.
Course arc
Cadence writes the lessons for you, so the exact path follows your answers. This is the ground a course built from this sentence covers.
01 / 06Premises, conclusions and the difference between valid reasoning and true premises.
Inspect a mistaken inference through an original example.
Ask how much a reason supports the particular conclusion.
Identify an unstated premise and check whether it is justified.
Apply the same checks to a conclusion you initially support.
Compare the reasons, acknowledge corrections and state what remains uncertain.
What changes
Identify claims, reasons and the links between them.
Use a counterexample to test whether a conclusion follows from its premises.
Apply the same scrutiny to your conclusions as to other people's.
Logic is a tool for checking reasoning. It says nothing about how much you feel.
It means reaching sound conclusions, including the ones that go against you.
Course questions
Separate the reasons from the conclusion. Try our example: every approved expense has a receipt; this expense has a receipt; therefore it is approved. The first two statements are premises. The last is the conclusion. Before reading on, ask whether both premises could be true while the conclusion is false. Find a counterexample. An expense could have a receipt and still be awaiting approval. That possibility fits both premises, so the conclusion does not follow. This is called affirming the consequent. It does not prove the expense is unapproved either; the receipt alone cannot settle that question. Check the logic, then check the facts. A valid version is: every approved expense has a receipt; this expense is approved; therefore it has a receipt. If those premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In a real decision, check the policy and approval record too. Valid reasoning does not make an unverified premise true.
No. Cadence builds the course when you type the sentence and answer a few setup questions, so the lessons follow your situation. This page describes what a course built from this request covers. You see the whole path before Lesson 1.
Separate the reasons from the conclusion, then look for a case where the reasons hold but the conclusion fails. Check the facts as well as the logic. The receipt example below lets you try this before choosing a personal learning goal in Cadence. It sits under Decision-making in the Work & ambitions part of the library.
No. Setup asks what you already know and where you want to use it, and the course starts from there. Bring a real situation if you have one; the examples are built around it.
Most courses run 7 to 30 lessons. The course length is sized to what you asked for. You set the pace: one lesson at a time, as often as you like. Lessons can be read or played as audio.
No. Cadence is for practical self-learning and does not award accredited degrees or professional certification.
Start today
A starting goal
I want to reason more clearly and spot weak arguments, including my own. Teach me the basics of logical thinking through everyday examples rather than formal notation.
Want new features first?