Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
46 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
formal fallacy's place
|
deductive arguments
|
|
formal fallacy's form
|
All A are B
All C are B =All A are C |
|
Formal fallacy definition
|
examine form of the argument
|
|
Fallacy
|
defect in an argument, other than just false premises
|
|
"Non Sequitur", It does not follow
|
fallacy that involves a mistake in reasoning
|
|
Informal Fallacy definition
|
examine the content of the argument
|
|
5 Groups of Informal Fallacies
|
Relevance, Weak Induction, Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy
|
|
Fallacy of Relevance
|
connection between premises and conclusion is emotional
8 Types |
|
Appeal to the Force (relevance)
|
Argumentum ad Baculum
Involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader |
|
Appeal to Pity (relevance)
|
Argumentum ad Misericordiam
Arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity. |
|
Appeal to the People (relevance)
|
Argumentum ad Populum
Uses desires (to be loved, admired, recognized), you have to accept XYZ as true Has Direct and Indirect Approach |
|
Direct Approach
Indirect Approach |
Appeal to the People
Direct-arouse a mob mentality. Want to share in camaraderie, excitement. Indirect- focuses on individuals, relationship to the crowd. 3 types. |
|
Bandwagon Argument
|
Indirect Approach for Appeal to the People
You'll be left out of a group if you do not do something. |
|
Appeal to Vanity
|
Indirect Approach for Appeal to the People
Associates product with someone who is admired so you'll think you will be admired too. |
|
Appeal to Snobbery
|
indirect approach for appeal to the people
says not everyone can have one |
|
Argument against the Person (relevance)
|
Argumentum ad Hominem
Second arguer directs his argument NOT to the first argument but to the person himself. 3 Forms |
|
Ad Hominem Abusive
|
Second person responds to first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person.
"he's nothing but trash" |
|
Ad Hominem Circumstantial
|
Alludes to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
"she just said that because she wants this" |
|
Tu Quoque (YOU TOO)
|
Makes the first arguer look like a hypocrite
"why should I stop, you did it too!" |
|
Accident (Relevance)
|
General rule is applied to specific case it was not intended to cover.
Ex. Freedom of speech and starting a riot |
|
Straw Man (relevance)
|
arguer distorts argument then destroys the distorted argument, making it look like he destroyed the actual one.
|
|
Missing the Point (relevance)
|
Ignoratio Elenchi
Premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion. Ex. crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion should be to reinstate the death penalty. *Wrong because better way (provide increased police protection) and because not a capital crime.* |
|
Red Herring (relevance)
|
Arguer diverts attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a subtly related one.
OR changes topic to flashy, eye-catching topic |
|
Weak Induction
|
Connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough.
6 types |
|
Appeal to Unqualified Authority (weak induction)
|
Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Person might lack expertise, might be biased, have a motive to lie, or lack memory. |
|
Appeal to Ignorance (weak induction)
|
Argumentum ad Ignoratiam
Involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved. Ex. People have tried to disprove the claims of astrology and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that the claims of astrology are true. |
|
Ignoratio Elenchi (ignorance of the proof)
|
Missing the Point.
|
|
Hasty Generalization (weak induction)
|
Converse Accident
Fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. Sample is too small or not randomly selected. |
|
False Cause (weak induction)
|
Link between premises and conclusion depend on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
*4 types |
|
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therfore on account of this)
|
one event precedes another event the first event has to have caused the second
(false cause) |
|
Non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause)
|
Mistaking the cause for the effect.
(false cause) |
|
Oversimplified cause
|
Multitude of causes is responsible but arguer selects one case and presents it as sole cause
(false cause) |
|
Gambler's fallacy
|
conclusion depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are related.
(false cause) |
|
Slippery Slope (weak induction)
|
Variety of the false cause fallacy. Alleged conclusion rests upon an alleged chain reaction.
|
|
Weak Analogy (weak induction)
|
committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z. Entity B has attributes a, b, and c Therefore, entity B probably has attributes z also. 1) Identify the attributes a, b, c that the two entities have in common 2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c. |
|
Fallacies of Presumption
|
Include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence.
Premises presume what they purport to prove. |
|
Begging the Question (presumption)
|
Petitio Principii (request for the source)
Leaving out a possibly false key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle. 1) Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong. *How do you know abortion is murder? 2) Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts. 3) Ford produces the finest cars in the U.S. We know they produce the best because they have the best engineers. This is true because they can afford to pay them a lot because they have the finest cars in the U.S. |
|
Complex Question (presumption)
|
two or more questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is given to both of them. Presumes existence of a certain condition.
|
|
False Dichotomy (presumption)
|
when a disjunctive (either...or...) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
Ex. Either you let me go to this or I'll be miserable the rest of my life. |
|
Suppressed Evidence (presumption)
|
ignores important information
by this product and you'll have fun! fun does not come packaged. |
|
Fallacies of Ambiguity
|
include equivocation and amphiboly.
Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement. |
|
Fallacies of grammatical analogy
|
include composition and division
grammatically wrong |
|
Equivocation (ambiguity)
|
conclusion of argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two different ways in the argument.
Ex. Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are obtuse. |
|
Amphiboly (ambiguity)
|
Draws a conclusion based on faulty interpretation.
|
|
Composition (grammatical analogy)
|
Because parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too.
Ex. Maria likes anchovies. She also likes chocolate ice cream. She probably likes them together. |
|
Division (grammatical analogy)
|
Whole to parts.
Ex. Jigsaw puzzle is circular, so each piece is too. **Division may be mistaken for accident. If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy committed is accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy is division. Ex. of Division Stanley Steamers have almost disappeared. This car is a Stanley Steamer. This car has almost disappeared. |