1 Chapter 3 Pages 93 105 135 137 Read Exercise 4 on page 113 Types of Evidence Thoughts and ideas can be expressed in different ways Central to analysis is assessing the evidence Facts Or Factual Judgments Facts like flagstones on a path giving us something firm to stand on If a claim of fact were assumed to be false it would conflict with evidence known to be true That would create a contradiction which means that the claim of fact must actually be true prevail Testimony Testimony can take a variety of forms ranging from confessionals or personal anecdotes to eyewitness testimony to expert testimony Often we see personal anecdotes in news reports when family members share their response to a child killed by a stray bullet or hit by a train After tragic events we hear from eyewitnesses Lawyers call on expert testimony to try to convince the judge that their side should All testimony must be evaluated not as fact but as factual claims informed opinion or ones personal opinion on an issue Involves examining the details and assertions made along with the credibility of the one offering the testimonial Scope of a Claim We need to be able to assess a body of evidence Be attentive to the scope of a claim what the claim is meant to cover Ex Not all drivers are on cell phones means that at least some are not using cell hones while driving All means more than some and vague generalities mean less than specific detailed claims Contest I also important as there may be details about the specifics of the case that shape its interpretation Credible Sources Credible Sources can play an important role in arguments Can sway if not carry an argument Assessing the credibility of witnesses and other sources is important Outcome of a trial may turn due to the credibility of witnesses Credible sources can be a individual or government agency Important thing is that the information this source provides be viewed as factually correct or at least highly likely Only strong evidence to the contrary can detract from a credible source 2 Sizing up credibility is not always easy which may account for the role of gut reactions on the part of jurors Assessing credibility in other aspects of our lives similarly requires us to look carefully at the various factors that weight into the decision Not all experts should carry much weight o Ex Athletes and actors Look also trials where both sides bring in experts to bolster their cases Value Claims May be used as evidence but they should be handled carefully May relate to character references and issues of credibility Value Claim asserts a judgment based on a system of values beliefs or personal preference It usually takes one of three forms 1 May be a judgment of taste 2 An aesthetic judgment 3 Moral Judgment Personal values can shape a decision so they warrant examination Moral values can weigh heavily in laws and public policies as well Value claims are just about everywhere Statistical Evidence Can be very effective particularly when the studies are current Key concerns in assessing statistical studies are the sic diversity and date of the study Sample size should be adequate and have sufficient diversity the group sampled needs to be representative of the target population being studied If the sample size is not large enough it may result in hasty generalization fallacious reasoning that occurs when a sample of a stuffy is insufficient in terms of size lending us to draw an incorrect conclusion If studies fail to be diverse enough the result may be biased statistics fallacious reasoning that occurs when a sample study is not diverse enough and fails to be representative Circumstantial Evidence Is any evidence not obtained from an eyewitness or direct participants o Ex fingerprints DNA and other physical evidence and business records Circumstantial evidence has been strong enough to convince people of murder Conditional Claims An if then claim Have two parts 1 Antecedent first or conditional part acting as a catalyst to seething else 2 Consequent second or resulting part said to follow from a prior condition a Antecedent lies between the or and the then and the consequent follows the then 3 and everyday problem solving effects might logically follow effects Hypotheses are often used in scientific research statistical studies legal reasoning We may start with a hypothetical condition a what if and then see what possible Or we may start with the hypothetical condition and predict specific consequences or We then see how that fits and what is already known For any given conditional claim the antecedent is not necessarily true The lack of certainty in establishing the antecedent means that the consequent cannot be assumed Analogies Instead of giving evidence an argument may offer an analogy metaphor or comparison as evidence Analogy is a comparison asserting that something true of one of the terms of the comparison will therefore be true of the second term Often have persuasive power so they warrant a detailed study The strength of the analogy rests on the strength of the relevant similarities of the two things being compared The stronger the relevant similarities the stronger the analogy But if there are significant differences in what is being compared the analogy is weakened something else first Cause and Effect Reasoning Occurs when someone asserts that something either causes or is an effect of A causal claim may have merit but it is critical that alternative causes be dismissed Once they can be eliminated a causal claim has more force We see cause and effect reasoning behind arguments for censorship of film and TV