Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
173 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
|
Argument
|
a set of statements in which a claim is made, support is offered for it, and there is an attempt to influence someone in a context of disagreement.
|
|
|
|
Not simply a contradiction
|
|
|
|
|
Not “it just is, because I said so”
|
|
|
|
|
needs potential for disagreement
|
|
|
|
|
Argument context
|
grow out of the confluence of arguer, question or need, and audience.
|
|
|
|
Argument Fields
|
sociological contexts for arguments and are marked by patterns of communication that participants in argumentative disputes can recognize.
|
|
|
|
Argument Spheres
|
social constructs that guide how arguments are produced and evaluated.
|
|
|
|
Technical Sphere
|
arguments that adhere to rules that are more formalized and rigorous, and tend to be generated by particular groups
ex. legal, medical, academic, scientific, religious |
|
|
|
Personal Sphere
|
relatively informal and among people in casual settings
ex. family, friends, relationships |
|
|
|
Public Sphere
|
intended for public/ general arguments
ex. political, PR, media, advertising, documentaries **spheres can overlap |
|
|
|
Argumentation
|
process of making arguments intend to justify beliefs, attitudes, and values so as to influence others > needs critical thought
|
|
|
|
Assumptions
|
presuppositions and viewpoints we take for granted.
|
|
|
|
Claim
|
is an expressed opinion or a conclusion that the arguer wants accepted.
|
|
|
|
Concepts
|
theories, definitions, rules, and laws that govern how we think and act.
|
|
|
|
Critical thinking
|
process whereby ordinary people apply the scientific method to the ordinary world.
|
|
|
|
An investigation whose purpose is to explore a situation, phenomenon, question, or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion about it that integrates all available information and therefor can be convincingly justified.
|
|
|
|
|
requires pause / time
|
|
|
|
|
requires support & evidence with relevant facts, opinions, and reasons
|
|
|
|
|
Cycle of Critical Thought
1. assess |
identify problem/issue and discover relevant info > what is the reason/need?
2. explore |
look carefully at assumptions, biases and various points of view > concepts involved? assumptions made?
3. evaluate |
|
|
Barriers to Effective Critical Thinking
|
|
|
|
|
“right answer” assumption > there is likely more than 1 solution
|
|
|
|
|
Confirmation Bias > selective exposure > choosing sources that confirm/validate pre existing beliefs/values
|
|
|
|
|
accepting authority w/o question > assuming expertise
|
|
|
|
|
rules and logic must be followed > while necessary, they can impose restriction / be out dated
|
|
|
|
|
being practical is best > consider what should be done VS what can be done
|
|
|
|
|
avoiding ambiguity > uncertainty is scary but can sometimes allow innovation / creativity
|
|
|
|
|
being wrong is bad > we learn from our mistakes
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence
|
consists of facts / conditions that are objectively observable, beliefs or statements generally accepted as true by the recipients, or the conclusions previously established.
|
|
|
|
must be accepted and viewed as relevant and true to all parties in dispute (or audiences)
|
|
|
|
|
Field-Dependent Standards
|
rules, norms, and prescriptions guiding the production of arguments in a particular field
|
|
|
|
Field- Invariant Standards
|
apply generally, regardless of the field of argument
|
|
|
|
Reasoning
|
construction of a rational link between the evidence and the claim, and authorizes the step we make when we draw a conclusion.
Chapter 2 |
|
|
|
Logical perspective
|
emphasizes the accuracy of the premises and the correctness of the inferences linking premises and evidence to the claims they support > does it make sense logically
|
|
|
|
Formal Logic
|
study of how conclusions are reached using structural statements
|
|
|
|
Deductive reasoning
|
general > specific
|
|
|
|
Inductive Reasoning
|
specific > general
|
|
|
|
Rhetorical Perspective
|
arguments viewed as appeals to an audience and the circumstances in which the argument was made and the strategies used to influence its audience must be taken into account
|
|
|
|
Dialectical Perspective
|
focuses on and enhances a candid, critical and compressive examination of all purposes relevant to the topic
|
|
|
|
Syllogism
|
basic structure of a deductive argument that comes to an absolute conclusion
|
|
|
|
3 Parts
1. major premise |
general statement about subject of argument
2. minor premise |
statement about a specific case related to generalities of major premise
3. conclusion |
|
|
NOTE
|
conclusion is essentially claim, minor is reasoning, major is evidence
|
|
|
|
Types of syllogism
|
|
|
|
|
Categorical
|
logical argument that draws a necessary conclusion from two premises stated as simple prepositions containing categorical terms that designate classes
|
|
|
|
argument is based on membership in a group
|
|
|
|
|
major premise establishes the group
|
|
|
|
|
generally universal
|
|
|
|
|
only 3 items may be used to make case
|
|
|
|
|
each of 3 terms is used exactly twice
|
|
|
|
|
each term may be used once in each premise
|
|
|
|
|
items can appear in conclusion only if were in major or minor premise
|
|
|
|
|
at least one premise must be in positive state
|
|
|
|
|
if 1 premise is negative, conclusion must be negative
|
|
|
|
|
Disjunctive
|
sets forth two or more alternatives in major premise, deny all but one in minor premise, and affirm the only remaining alternative in the conclusion
|
|
|
|
major premise includes two or more mutually exclusive alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
only 1 alternative may be true > accept only 1 or exclude all except 1
|
|
|
|
|
Hypothetical (conditional)
|
do not involve direct comparison; rather they contain a conditional major premise that is either affirmed or denied in minor premise. Conclusion is what remains.
|
|
|
|
IF-THEN statements
|
|
|
|
|
IF portion is antecedent > hypothetical condition
|
|
|
|
|
THEN portion is the consequent > the outcome
|
|
|
|
|
must be true in ALL cases
|
|
|
|
|
NOT “then-if” both antecedent and consequent must be accepted and explain only what you know > if something else could explain results, argument is invalid
|
|
|
|
|
Enthymeme
|
rhetorical syllogism that calls upon audiences existing beliefs for one of both premises
|
|
|
|
basically a syllogism ( missing a part or two)
|
|
|
|
|
not all arguments need to be verbally stated ( common knowledge)
|
|
|
|
|
people speak in enthymeme not syllogisms
|
|
|
|
|
usually use inductive reasoning
|
|
|
|
|
probability not certainty
|
|
|
|
|
can use visual enthymemes > images
|
|
|
|
|
Toulmin Model
|
Stephen Toulmin felt formal logic and syllogism weren’t adequate
1. Data |
evidence > facts/conditions
2. Claim |
|
|
Toulmin model has 2 important limitations
1. very static; not easy to sum up each part 2. focuses more on arguer than recipient |
|
|
|
|
Co
|
Orientational Approach
|
supposes that the relationship between arguer and recipient is just as important as content of argument.
|
|
|
Process
|
parts of arg can be fluid and change > claim may be used as ecidence in future
|
|
|
|
Situations
|
context > exigence imperfection marked by urgency
|
|
|
|
Relationships
|
between arguers and recipients
|
|
|
|
Argument style
|
orientation arguers choose to use to balance content and relationship needs in an argument
|
|
|
|
Competitor
|
prizes content more than relationship, seeks to demonstrate that particular set of arguments is superior to alternatives
ex. Attorney vs Attorney |
|
|
|
Facilitator
|
all participants can succeed mutually
ex. diplomacy |
|
|
|
escapist
|
neither content nor relationship are important, issues are abandoned
ex. getting the hell out |
|
|
|
negotiator
|
content and relationship are both important
ex. seller vs customer |
|
|
|
accommodator
|
relationship more important than content
ex. significant other |
|
|
|
Argument Chain
|
uses a proved argument as evidence for unproved claim
|
|
|
|
Rhetorical Situation
|
natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence that strongly invites arguments
|
|
|
|
Exigence
|
“an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing that is other than it should be.”
|
|
|
|
Level of Dispute
|
imaginary line that separates what is accepted by recipient from what isn’t accepted.
|
|
|
|
Truth
|
represents the degree to which the premise for an argument align with verifiable facts and reality
|
|
|
|
Validity
|
degree to which the evidence supports the claim
Chapter 11 |
|
|
|
Fallacy
|
flawed argument because of irrelevant / inadequate evidence, erroneous reasoning, or improper expression
|
|
|
|
deceptive, misleading, false notions that render arguments logically unsound
|
|
|
|
|
can be intentional (to persuade w/o support/evidence) or unintentional (ignorance/mistake)
|
|
|
|
|
4 categories of Fallacy
1. Audience Based |
|
|
|
|
Ad Hominem
|
speaker attacks person making argument not argument itself
|
|
|
|
Tu Quoque
|
pointing out a wrong or error made by another
|
|
|
|
Ad populum
|
because many believe, it is reasonable
|
|
|
|
Strawman- ignores opponents actual position and substitutes w/ distorted position
2. Language Based |
|
|
|
|
Equivocation
|
exploits the fact that words often have more than one meaning, leading to false conclusion
|
|
|
|
Amphiboly
|
exploits ambiguous grammatical structure to lead to false/questionable conclusion
|
|
|
|
Emotive Language
|
manipulates the connotative(subjective) meaning of words to establish claim w/o proof
|
|
|
|
loaded language
|
appeals strongly to emotion
3. Grounding |
|
|
|
Begging the question
|
presumes certain things are facts even though they’ve not been proven to be truthful
|
|
|
|
Non-Sequitur
|
unwarranted move from one idea to another
4. Reasoning |
|
|
|
False Analogy
|
compares to things that aren’t alike in significant respects, or have critical points of difference
|
|
|
|
Red Herring
|
speaker introduces irrelevant issue/ evidence to divert attention away from original issue
|
|
|
|
Hasty Generalization
|
draws conclusion about a class based on too few or atypical examples
|
|
|
|
False Cause
|
arguer offers cause for consequence that is not directly related to consequence
|
|
|
|
Post Hoc (ergo popter hoc)
|
assumes because 1 event happened after another, the 1st caused the 2nd
|
|
|
|
Single Cause
|
attributing a complex problem to only one cause
|
|
|
|
Either-Or
|
presenting 2 options, 1 must be correct while other must be incorrect
|
|
|
|
Slippery Slope
|
assumes if course of action is taken, it will lead to inevitable/eventual conclusion
|
|
|
|
Pseudoscientific Thinking
|
belief that anecdotes/ scientific language makes a science
|
|
|
|
Occam’s Razor
|
all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the best one
|
|
|
|
Burden of Proof
|
idea that person making extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the community, their belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts
|
|
|
|
Unexplained is inexplicable
|
if something can’t be explained, it must be supernatural/paranormal
|
|
|
|
ad ignorantiam
|
if you can’t disprove, it must be true
|
|
|
|
Language
|
a rule governed symbol system that allows its users to generate meaning and define reality
|
|
|
|
Language is symbolic, ambiguous, and abstract
|
|
|
|
|
symbols are arbitrary and must be conventionalized
|
|
|
|
|
Language is hierarchical
|
places values of more(higher) & less(lower)
1. use clear language 2. define terms when necessary 3. express argument vividly 4. avoid hate speech |
|
|
|
Abstraction
|
degree to which relevant characteristics are omitted in language
|
|
|
|
Denotative
|
objective meaning > dictionary definition
|
|
|
|
Connotative
|
subjective > meanings held by individuals
|
|
|
|
Euphemisms
|
a linguistic device for replacing words/phrases that carry negative connotations w/ those that have positive connotations
Chapter 10 |
|
|
|
Rhetorical Perspective
|
holds that arguments are viewed as appeals to an audience and we must take account of the circumstances in which the argument is made and the strategies used to influence it’s audience
|
|
|
|
focuses on needs / interests of recipient
|
|
|
|
|
must be relevant and persuasive
4. logos |
logic
5. pathos |
emotion
6. ethos |
|
|
Narrative paradigm
|
proposes that we experience life as a series of narratives (stories) which shape our understanding of the world, our beliefs, and our values
|
|
|
|
Narrative probability
|
does it make sense? is it coherent?
|
|
|
|
Narrative fidelity
|
test in which we decide whether the story matches up with our values, our life experiences, or with our social reality. Does it ring true?
|
|
|
|
Compliance
|
use of rewards and punishments by a powerful source to get recipients to believe / act in a certain manner
|
|
|
|
Identification
|
influence that occurs because people find a source attractive and wish to enhance their own self concept by establishing a relationship with the source
|
|
|
|
Internalization
|
people accept an argument by thinking about it and integrating it into their cognitive system
|
|
|
|
Expertise
|
possessing a background of knowledge and information relevant to argument
|
|
|
|
Trustworthiness
|
whether people believe the arguer is motivated to tell them the truth
|
|
|
|
Dynamism
|
strong delivery that creates the impression with the audience that the arguer has practiced the argument and cares about it
|
|
|
|
Enhancing Credibility
|
|
|
|
|
show audience that you (&source) have experience with topic
|
|
|
|
|
as many credible sources as possible
|
|
|
|
|
use sources that people likely respect
|
|
|
|
|
use sound reasoning
|
|
|
|
|
demonstrate fairness
|
|
|
|
|
use reluctant testimony
|
sources that speak against their own vested interest
|
|
|
|
avoid inconsistency
|
|
|
|
|
Lose Credibility
|
|
|
|
|
Lying to audience (hurts ethos)
|
|
|
|
|
commission
|
willful lie
|
|
|
|
omission
|
leaving things out
|
|
|
|
manipulation
|
deliberate misrepresentation
|
|
|
|
Coercion
|
use of force / threats of harm to make people do things
|
|
|
|
Caveat
|
use of nothing but emotional appeals during attempt to influence is generally distracting and often viewed as unethical
|
|
|
|
Derived Credibility
|
results from what is said in the message – the quality of the claims and evidence used and the ways arguers employ their own expertise to get their claims accepted
|
|
|
|
Initial Credibility
|
based on arguers credentials, status, and reputation as known to recipients before they hear or read the message
|
|
|
|
Extra-systemic Audiences
|
groups that use nonviolence, direction action, or violence to influence or overturn decision process
|
|
|
|
Personal-decision Makers
|
argue in the personal sphere and use rules and conventions that are decided among the participants
|
|
|
|
Technical-decision Makers
|
private third-party recipients who act as an external audience
|
|
|
|
Public-decision Makers
|
third-party audiences that largely apply the norms and conventions of the public sphere
Chapter 6 |
|
|
|
Quasilogical Argument
|
place 2 or 3 elements in a relation to one another so as to make the connections between them similar to the connections in formal logic
|
|
|
|
Transitivity Argument
|
similar to (&constructed like) categorical syllogisms, but the relationships among terms are less certain
|
|
|
|
Incompatibility
|
similar to disjunctive syllogisms in that they imply 2 alternatives between which a choice must be made
|
|
|
|
Reciprocities
|
similar to hypothetical syllogisms > IF-THEN
|
|
|
|
Reasoning by Analogy
|
because 2 concepts resemble each other in certain known respects, they will also resemble each other in unknown respects\
|
|
|
|
3 Analogy Tests
|
quality, quantity, opposition
|
|
|
|
Literal Analogy
|
2 objects of same class that share many characteristic and concludes that a known characteristic that one possesses is shared by the other
|
|
|
|
Figurative Analogy
|
comparison between tow objects of different classes in which a relation or quality within one is said to be similar to a relation or quality within the other
|
|
|
|
Reasoning by cause
|
claim one condition or event contributes to or brings about another condition or event
> necessary condition |
one condition must e present for the other to occur
> sufficient condition |
|
|
Coexistential
|
reasons from something that can be observed (a sign) to a condition or feature that cannot be observed.
|
|
|
|
Dissociation
|
disengage one idea from another and seek a new evaluation of both ideas
Chapter 3 |
|
|
|
Dialectic perspective
|
focusing on and enhancing a candid, critical, and comprehensive examination of all positions relevant to the topic
> ongoing procedure / process > best conclusion will be accepted if all relevant POVs and issues have been considered and discussed > “parliamentary procedure” or “courtroom method” |
|
|
|
Culture & Values
|
help us understand how people live and how people represent themselves > provides primary framework for argument > helps interpretation and response
|
|
|
|
Instrumental Values
|
concern modes of conduct or the means for fulfilling other values
|
|
|
|
Terminal Values
|
concern desirable end states of existence
|
|
