Buah Review: Mastering Logical Fallacies (Michael Withey)

Introductory Terminology:

Argument: A set of premises that lead to a conclusion

Inductive Reasoning & Deductive Reasoning:

https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

https://study.com/academy/lesson/inductive-and-deductive-reasoning.html

Some examples of logical fallacies:

Ad Hominem: Abusive

Person A makes claim P; person B states that A has a bad character; therefore, P is false.

- Attacking a speaker's argument by insulting the speaker

- E.g: 'You say the earth goes around the sun, but you're a drunk and a womanizer!'

Ad Hominem: Circumstantial

Person A claims P. The circumstances of A discredit his assertion that P. Hence, we should disbelieve P.

- Undermining the credibility of an argument by appealing to some facts about its proponent, where these facts are inconsistent with the proponent's advocacy of the argument, or where they undermine the proponent's credibility in putting forward the argument. 

- In other words, impugning the motives of an argument's proponent; undermining the argument based on the proponent's motive/vested interest. 

- E.g: 'The CEO of oil America claims that drilling in Alakas will have a negligible environmental effect. But we shouldn't believe him: he's juts saying that to get permission to drill.'

Ad Hominem: Guilt by association

Attacking an argument by casting aspersions on people or organisations associated with eitehr its proponent or the argument itself.

2 forms, depending on whether it's the speaker or the argument that is presumed guilty by association.

1) Opponent A argues that P. But a third party B also argues P. B is unsavory. Hence, we should disbelieve P. (Implicit premise: If B is unsavory, we shjould reject everything they say).

- E.g: You support arg(X). But bullshitter Bill supports arg(X) as well, hence we should disbelieve arg(X).

2) The proponent of argument P associates with B. But B is unsavory. Hence, we should disbelieve P.

- E.g: You support arg(X). You  also support arg(Y). Since/if arg(Y) is invalid, we should disbelieve arg(X) based on the fact that you supported both arg(X) and arg(Y).

Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque

Undermining an argument against a certain behavior or action on the grounds that the proponent himself engages in the very same behavior or action. Yes, this person is hypocritical, but shouldn't you be more inclined to believe him since he has the experience? 

- Proponent makes an arg(X) against a certain behavior or act(Q); but the proponent himself engages in act(Q). Hence, we should disbelieve arg(X).

- E.g. 'My dad always warns me against taking up smoking, but he himself gets through an entire pack every day! Why should I listen to his warnings?'

Affirming the consequent

P => Q means that if P is true, Q is true. However, if the consequent Q is true, it may or may not mean that the precedent/antecedent P is also true.

Ambiguity

An argument in which there is a term common to the premises and conclusion, or to more than one of the premises, but the term carries a different sense in each instance which cannot be equated.

- E.g.'Peter is a short professional basketball player. Therefore, he is a professional basketball player, and he is short.' To counter this argument, we need to examine how it is formulated. The statement 'Peter is short' equivocates between the attributive and predicative uses of the term 'short'. 'Peter is a short basketballer' means 'Peter is below the average height of professional basketballers', but 'Peter is short' means 'Peter is below mean/median height'. These meanings cannot be equated. 

- E.g. 'You say you have a dog, and he has puppies, Therefore, since he is yours and he is a father, he is your father, and the puppies are your brothers.' 

- Ambiguity embraces equivocation, where the same word has different meanings. Equivocation, specifically and strictly speaking, is a semantic ambiguity: the ambiguity arises because the same word may refer to different things. (Ambiguity, on the other hand, may also arise because of a syntax of a sentence, endowing the same word witha  different meaning in the context of different sentences. So, in the basketball example, 'short' has a different meaning when qualified by the term 'basketballer'.) 

- Syntax ambiguity is frequently a source of humor, as illustrated by the classic quip: 'I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know', or 'French push bottles up German rear'.

Anonymous authority

An argument's proponent justifies argument by appealing to an unindentified authority. 

- Arg(X) is justified by appealing to an authoriy(A), who the argument's proponent does not or cannot name. 

- E.g. 'Experts say..., therefore ...'

- While this means that their appeal to credentials cannot verified, and the appeal is illegitimate, it does not imply the argument is outright false.

Conclusion

Overall, a good book for understanding the various logical fallacies, but it also seems to proceed in a dictionary fashion, which isn't really all that captivating. The stories/examples provided are interesting, but may accentuates the author's biases on subjects like social, economic, or political issues. 

Buah Review: Crucial Conversation

Summary
A Crucial Conversation is defined as a tough discussion where stakes are high, opinions vary, and when emotions are strong.

Book elaborates on subtle usage of dialogue to draw out information, which may be useful for the resolution. Silence leads to failure. Don't assume you have the fools' dilemma: 1) Suffer silently, or 2) Speak up and risk turning bosses into sworn enemies.

Like Harvard Business review's article, we should support our organisation's decision wholeheartedly even if we dislike the decision. Most of the time, this may be through discussion, as this may allow us to learn the costs and benefits and rationale behind certain decisions that we may have been uninformed about or blinded to. This may even switch our choice from denying/opposing an idea to accepting/supporting or even embracing it.

While reading Crucial Conversations, I read about how groups have 4 methods to make decisions. By ‘command’, ‘consult’, ‘voting’, and ‘consensus’.

Summary
While the book definitely teaches you some techniques in handling conversation, not all can be learnt through a book; it requires external practice in real life. The book does offer a partial solution for that: offering scenarios of crucial conversation, such as negotiating with the boss or with a spouse over certain crucial topics.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to gain a transcending awareness on dialogue, as it helps one to understand the process of conversation itself. After all, we will all likely be thrown into a crucial conversation against our volition multiple times in our lives.

Buah Review: 101 Dilemmas for the Armchair Philosopher

Summary

Introduction

Approaches to ethical judgements:

1) Virtue Ethics: Examines character and intent of moral agent

2) Deontological Ethics: Assesses action in terms of adherence to set of rules

3) Consequentialist Ethics: Evaluates morality of action from its consequences

The book has 11 chapters, contains numerous facets of private and public life. Not a in-depth outline to moral philosophy, simply a beginning of an examination of ethics and social responsibility. 

Chapter 1: Manners & Liberty 

The only laws that could be imposed on free citizens by force were those that prevent harm to others (e.g. murder, theft, rape). Breaches to manners (e.g. indecency, indecent acts) does not necessarily constitute harm to others, even if the behavior is censurable. 

Q: What would you do if you saw a couple behaving indecently? Contact authority, or keep mum? 

Chapter 2: A moral duty to reduce poverty and alleviate its impact

If a small sacrifice could save a life , then isn't it morally indefensible to not assist people who are dying from poverty? 

Q: Will you buy a pill to save a child's life? Will you save a drowning child if you're wearing an expensive suit and the water is filthy? 

Chapter 3: Private Acts, Public Harm, 'Victimless' crimes

Getting drunk alone is not a fit subject for legislative interference, but if the drunkenness excites to do harm to others, it is a crime against others. Is legalisation or banning of certain substances beneficial or detrimental? 

Private actions, even criminal actions, that do not involve the public realm are 'victimless crimes'. Are these actions (e.g. homosexual acts in Singapore) morally wrong if they don't cause harm to a third party? 

Q: If you sell food, and someone chokes on it, is it your fault? If you grow drugs, and someone gets convulsions, is it your fault? 

Chapter 4: Fair Trade or Free Trade? Heart strings or purse strings? \

Compromising own economic interests to make a difference for a better has always been a debatable issue. Is it faulty ethical reason by the party or is it an ethical choice based on the intent of the moral agent? Actually, is any trade fair if we interfere in it?

Chapter 5: Deadly choices - Euthanasia

Is suicide/assisted suicide morally right to avoid personal pain (physical, psychological, etc.)?What if it doesn't qualify for exemptions? What if it harms an innocent bystander in the process? What if the individual botches the attempt and ends up in an incapacitated state, thereby becoming a societal burden? Is suicide an exercise of freedom, or a self-contradiction: a free act that, by destroying life, removes freedom? /

Q: Should people get the right to decide when/how to die? If people do get the rights, is it morally right? Is individual's right to die equal to individual's right to practise birth control?  

Chapter 6: Are we morally culpable for situations outside our control? 'Moral Luck' concept

Two men were driving along a road, one behind the other. Suddenly, their brakes fail to function, and they go through the red light. The one in front unfortunately hits and kills a pedestrian, while the one behind hits the back of the front car. The front driver is arrested on a charge of reckless driving and is indicted for manslaughter, the back driver is issued only with a infringement for passing through the red light. 

Both drivers had the same situation by sheer coincidence, resulting in the passing through of the red light. But if the two men are found negligent, the front driver is significantly more morally culpable than the back driver, even though it is only down to 'moral luck' that they were in such an order. 

'Moral luck' is an oxymoron, as we believe 'moral' to be decisions made with our ability to choose, but luck is not within the realms of our control. For example, Gaugin's gamble: Gaugin abandons his home and family in a bid to become a world-famous artist. He either succeeds or fails abysmally. But our moral assessment of him will depend on the outcome, and we will only give them moral credit if the outcome is the former. 

Chapter 7: Chasing happiness, but is there happiness in being miserable? The pleasure paradox

Q: Does being miserable give us meaning and purpose? 

Chapter 8: Polished deceit - White lies

Santa? Tooth fairy? Moral because they provide immense happiness albeit the lying, since the consequences had already been calculated?

Vocabulary Section

savant: person of profound or extensive learning; a scholar 

abstruse: hard to understand; recondite; esoteric

cavil: to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault unnecessarily; a trivial and annoying objection

culpability: guilt or blame that is deserved

indictment: charge

oxymoron: refers to a conjunction of two contradictory terms that would usually render both meaningless

plaintive: expressing sorrow or melancholy; mournful

placid: pleasantly calm or peaceful; unruffled; tranquil; serenely quiet or undisturbed

litany: a prolonged or tedious account; a recitation or recital; a ceremonial or liturgical form of prayer consisting of a series of invocations or supplications with responses that are the same for a number in succession

invocations: calling in the presence of a deity/supplication


Conclusion
Overall, it was a great read. Should attempted murder have the same consequences as real murder? Should 'moral luck' be taken into account when analysing and handing out sentences to similar cases? Some questions are hard to be answered, and understandably so. If it was so easy, we wouldn't need a book about it! 

About auditing

Using this video 'Audit Report' as a brief introduction, audit reports are assessments of the validity and reliability of an institute's financial statements, based on the auditor's opinion.

There are four types of audit reports:

• Unqualified Opinion
  'An unqualified opinion is an independent auditor's judgment that a company's financial records and statements are fairly and appropriately presented, and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). An unqualified opinion is the most common type of auditor's report.'

• Qualified Opinion
  In situations when a company’s financial records have not been maintained in accordance with GAAP but no misrepresentations are identified, an auditor will issue a qualified opinion. The writing of a qualified opinion is extremely similar to that of an unqualified opinion. A qualified opinion, however, will include an additional paragraph that highlights the reason why the audit report is not unqualified.
• Adverse Opinion
  The worst type of financial report that can be issued to a business is an adverse opinion. This indicates that the firm’s financial records do not conform to GAAP. In addition, the financial records provided by the business have been grossly misrepresented. Although this may occur by error, it is often an indication of fraud. When this type of report is issued, a company must correct its financial statement and have it re-audited, as investors, lenders and other requesting parties will generally not accept it.
• Disclaimer of Opinion
  On some occasions, an auditor is unable to complete an accurate audit report. This may occur for a variety of reasons, such as an absence of appropriate financial records. When this happens, the auditor issues a disclaimer of opinion, stating that an opinion of the firm’s financial status could not be determined.
  The 4 general reasons for a disclaimer of opinion are:
  1) Lack of independence or a conflict of interest between the auditor and auditee
  2) Significant scope limitations, whether intentional or not, that hinder auditor's work in obtaining evidence and performing procedures
  3) Substantial doubt about auditee's ability to continue operating
  4) Significant concerns with/within the auditee

Components of a typical 'unqualified' audit report would include:

1. Report Title
2. Address of auditor/auditor's firm
3. Introductory Paragraph
4. Scope Paragraph
5. Opinion Paragraph
6. Name & Signature of Auditor
7. Date of Report

The 'Introductory Paragraph', 'Scope Paragraph', and 'Opinion Paragraph' are the bulk of the content, and reflect the quality of an auditor.

Introductory Paragraph should state:

• list of financial statements covered by report 
• statements are the responsibility of the management
• auditor has responsibility to express an opinion

Scope Paragraph should state:

• content of audit
• audit provides only reasonable assurance that financial statements contain no material mistatements
• audit involves examination of evidence on a text basis

Opinion Paragraph should state




The conditions required to issue a standard unqualified audit report are:

1. All financial statements are included 
2. The three general standards have been adhered to in all respects on the engagement 
3. Sufficient evidence has been gathered and presented to conclude that the three standards of field work have been met
4. Financial statements presented are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
5. There are no circumstances requiring the addition of an explanatory paragraph or modification of the wording of the report 

How do I start? 6 Step Audit Process

Online sample template:
Sample Template

Online sample reports:
Sample Report 1
Sample Report 2