term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
fallacies of presumption:
include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence.
these fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to prove.
fallacies of ambiguity:
include equivocation and amphiboly
these fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both).
fallacies of illicit transference:
include composition and division
arguments that commit these fallacies involve the incorrect transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole, or from the whole onto the parts.
begging the question
(petitio principii, "request for the source")
committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.
complex question
committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them.
leading question
a question in which the answer is in some way suggested in the question.
false dichotomy
also called "false bifurcation" and the "either-or fallacy"
committed when a disjunctive ("either ... or ...") premise presents two unlikely alternative as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
*such an argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive premise is false, or at least probably false, the argument is typically unsound.
supppressed evidence
committed when an inductive argument ignores some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.
equivocation
occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.
*such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound.
amphiboly
occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
*the original statement is usually asserted by someone other than the arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation---a missing comma, a dangling modifier, and ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words.
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!