Argumentation Flashcards

Front 1

Ad baculum

Back 1

Appeal to fear in premises or argument from fear; conclusion must be accepted or bad things will happen

Example: "You had better accept our religion or you will burn forever in hell."

Front 2

Ad hominem

Back 2

Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

Abusive: attacking personal traits of arguer

Circumstantial: attacking circumstance of arguer

Front 3

Modus Ponens

Back 3

Type of Deductively Valid Argument; Conditional Statement

Affirming the antecedent:

P1: If P, then Q.

P2: P

P3: Q

Front 4

Modus Tollens

Back 4

Type of Deductively Valid Argument; Conditional Statement

Denying the consequent

P1: If P, then Q

P2: Not Q

P3: Therefore, not P

Front 5

Hypothetical Syllogism

Back 5

Type of Deductively Valid Argument

P1: If P, then Q.

P2: If Q, then R.

C3: Therefore, if P, then R.

Front 6

Disjunctive Syllogism

Back 6

Type of Deductively Valid Argument

P1: P or Q.

P2: Not P

P3: Therefore, Q.

Front 7

a priori

Back 7

Analytic statement; derived from and confirmed through reason alone; known prior to experience

Ex.

P1: All bachelors are unmarried men.

P2: Jeff is a bachelor.

C3: Therefore, Jeff is an unmarried man.

- necessarily true: denying an a priori proposition is incoherent

- always an acceptable statement

Front 8

a posteriori

Back 8

Synthetic statement; derived from or confirmed through experience (descriptive, contingent); REQUIRES further evidence/experience

- nothing contradictory about denying an a posteriori truth

Front 9

Fallacy of Equivocation

Back 9

Same term used in two different contexts between two different premises

Front 10

Ad misericordiam

Back 10

Appeal to pity/emotions

Front 11

Ad ignoratium

Back 11

Premises describe ignorance, lack of confirmation, lack of proof, or uncertainty regarding statement S

Conclusion is drawn about truth or falsity or probability or improbability of S, or further statement inferred simply on the basis of this ignorance

Front 12

Tu quoque

Back 12

Type of ad hominem; appeal to hypocrisy

Assertion that because arguer is bad in a relevant area, their argument is not acceptable

Front 13

Burden of Proof

Back 13

A claim is made, and the arguer is obligated to defend it with further evidence.

A fallacy when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side.

Appeal to ignorance is an example of the Burden of Proof fallacy.

Front 14

Ad populum

Back 14

Appeal to popularity/tradition

Front 15

Guilt/Virtue by Association

Back 15

Exactly what it sounds like.

Front 16

Red Herring

Back 16

Attacking something not relevant to the conclusion in an attempt to disprove the conclusion.

E.g. picking on a politician's fashion choice to show that they are a bad politician.

Front 17

Straw Man

Back 17

Taking a twisted version of statement X by Arguer A, statement Y, that is easier to disprove in an attempt to refute the claim.

Front 18

A statement

Back 18

Universal affirmation: All C are O.

Front 19

E statement

Back 19

Universal negation: No C are O.

Front 20

I statement

Back 20

Particular affirmation: Some S are P.

Front 21

O statement

Back 21

Particular negation: Some S are not P.

Front 22

Conversion

Back 22

Switch subject and predicate.

E and I are logically equivalent.

Front 23

Contraposition

Back 23

Switch subject & predicate and add "non" to each category.

A and O are logically equivalent.

Front 24

Obversion

Back 24

Add "non" to the predicate category and switch affirmative to negative or vice versa.

All four categorical statements are logically equivalent following this operation.

Front 25

Fallacy of False Dichotomy

Back 25

The failure to make the distinction between contrary and complementary predicates; the presumption that there are no intermediate states when predicates are contraries

Front 26

Contrary Predicates

Back 26

Happy vs. Unhappy

A thing must not be either happy or unhappy.

Front 27

Complementary Predicates

Back 27

Happy vs. Non-happy

A thing must necessarily be either happy or non-happy.

Front 28

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

Back 28

In categorical syllogism, occurs when the middle term is not distributed in at least one premise.

Front 29

Enthymeme

Back 29

Syllogistic arguments in which a premise or conclusion is unstated.

Front 30

Sorites

Back 30

Derived form Greek word for "heap": sequence of categorical propositions which can be combined to yield intermediate conclusions and then a final conclusion (at least three premises)/

Syllogistic sorites arguments:

1. All A are B.

2. All B are C.

3. All C are D.

4. All D are E.

5. All E are F.

Therefore,

6. All A are F.

Front 31

Necessary Condition

Back 31

Condition that is needed or required.

Eg. oxygen is a necessary condition for human life, but it is not sufficient.

For human beings, having oxygen isa ncessary condition of being alive.

H: Human beings are alive

O: Human beings have oxygen

H -> O

Front 32

Sufficient Condition

Back 32

Condition that is enough to ensure a result.

3000 calories per day in a balanced diet is sufficient for adequate human nutrition but isn't necessary.

Striking a match in a well-ventilated room full of gasoline is a sufficient condition for igniting a fire.

S - someone strikes a match in a well-ventilated room full of gasoline

L - fire ignited in a well-ventilated room ful of gasoline

S -> L

Front 33

Fallacy of Faulty Analogy

Back 33

A fallacious argument in which the analogy is s loose and remote that there is virtually no support for the conclusion

Front 34

Two-wrongs Fallacy

Back 34

Mistake of inferring that because two wrong things are similar and one is tolerated, the other should be tolerated as well

Misuse of appeal to consistency

Front 35

Fallacy of Slippery Assimilation

Back 35

Arguments based on the logical error of assuming that because cases can be arranged in a series where the difference between successive members of the series is small, the cases should be assimilated

Misuse of appeal to consistency

(Speeding example)

Little difference = no meaningful difference

Also referred to as the sorites or paradox of the heap

Front 36

Fallacy of Slippery Precedent

Back 36

Arguments based on claim that an action, though good, should not be permitted because it will set a precedent for further similar actions that are bad

Ignorance of meaningful differences (e.g. granting super sick kid an extension)

A good action cannot be relevantly similar to a bad action

Front 37

Rule of Total Evidence

Back 37

Requirement to consider an individual/subgroup within the reference class most relevant to the question at hand

Front 38

Law of Identity

Back 38

Similar things have similar characteristics.

E.g. 65+ male diabetic more likely to suffer strokes and heart attacks

Jim is 67-year-old diabetic --> stronger argument due to law of identity

Front 39

Pseudoprecision

Back 39

Claim that appears to be precise due to use of numbers but actually cannot be due to impossibility of obtaining knowledge with this level of exactness

Front 40

Hasty Generalization

Back 40

Sample is hopefully inadequate; inference is thus unreliable

Exceedingly small sample of cases, limited experience

Front 41

Anecdotal Arguments

Back 41

Argument in which premises describe only a single episode or a few episodes (G condition is not satisfied)

Front 42

Fallacy of composition

Back 42

Conclusion about a whole or group reached on the basis of premises about its parts

Similar to inductive generalization

Front 43

Fallacy of division

Back 43

Conclusion about a part or member, reached on the basis of premises about the whole, or group

E.g. Table salt is safe to eat. Hence, sodium and chlorine are safe to eat.

Front 44

Fallacy of Confusing Correlation and Cause

Back 44

Occurs when we infer that A causes B just because A and B are positively correlated or assume that A prevents B just because A and B are negatively correlated.

Front 45

Post Hoc Fallacy

Back 45

A person commits this fallacy when they reason from the fact that A came before B the conclusion that A was the CAUSE of B.

Front 46

Fallacy of Objectionable Cause

Back 46

Someone argues for a causal interpretation on the basis of limited evidence and makes no attempt to rule out alternative explanations of the event

Also questionable cause and false cause

E.g. Jim smokes in bed --> causes house fires. His house burned down, so smoking in bed must have been the cause.

Matter of ignorance; just because it makes sense doesn't mean it is valid until you test it.

Front 47

Fallacy of slippery slope

Back 47

Occurs when one argues without reference to any plausible supporting evidence

Front 48

Fallacy of begging the question

Back 48

Assume that what they are arguing is already true

Front 49

Retrodiction

Back 49

Argument that something happened or prob happened in the past based on evidence about what is happening in the present

Front 50

Method of Agreement

Back 50

(Mill's Methods)

Effort to find a single factor C that is present in all cases in which E occurs.

C is a necessary condition

Front 51

Method of Difference

Back 51

(Mill's Methods)

Effort to find a single factor C that is absent in all cases where E is absent

C is a sufficient cause

Front 52

Method of Agreement and Difference

Back 52

(Mill's Methods)

Both Method of Difference and Method of Agreement used together

Sort between two cases: where E is present and E is absent --> look for cause C that is present where E is and absent where E is absent

Necessary condition AND sufficient cause

Front 53

Ockham's Razor

Back 53

Among competing hypotheses that are equally likely to have occurred and which explain the same amount of evidence, the one we should prefer is the one with

- Fewest elements

- Fewest assumptions

Front 54

Causal Slippery Slope Fallacy

Back 54

Argument in which it is asserted that a particular action, often acceptable in itself, is unacceptable because it will set off a whole series of other actions.

Series as a result is not backed by evidence and typically implausible.

Front 55

help

Back 55

help