• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/40

Click to flip

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Reason
claims given to support something
Main conclusion
the claim you are being persuded to believe
Intermediate conclusion
conclusion reached before main conclusion
Counter assertion
when a claim is made against an argument without reasons to support it
Counter argument
when a conclusion plus reasons are given that go against the argument
Evidence
reasearched, often statistical examples, used to prove a point
Example
an illustration which supports a reason
Hypothetical reasoning
based on what may happen in the future "If this happen, then this will happen"
Assumptions
the unsaid part of an arugument that needs to be true for an argument to work effectively
Reason indicators
since, because, for, as is implied by, for this reason
Conclusion indicators
therefore, as a result of, we conclude, it follows
Analogies
claims that are a number of significant parts of comparrsion between two different things
Principles
statement which makes a claim about how things should be
Slippery slope
injustified claim that negative consuequences will follow if something bad is allowed to happen
Post hoc
assumes that if an event follows 'after this' it was caused by this
Circular argument
conclusion repeats the reasons
Restricting the options
limited number of possibilities which listener not allowed to chose, others options not mentioned
Tu Quoque
deflecting criticsm by accusing the critic of being guilty of the same thing (two wrongs don't make a right)
Confusing necessary and sufficnet conditions
necessary conditions is vital for something else to happen. Sufficent conditions gaurenteers next stop can follow
Hasty Generalisation
something claimed about a large group of people based on little evidence
Straw Man
argument grossly exaggerated or simplified to make it easier to knock down
Ad Hominen
criticising the person putting forward the argument, not the argument itself
Conflation
using two different terms as if they were exactly the same, the conclusion then presented using only one of the concepts
Simplyfying casual relationships
one event was caused by another without providing sufficent evidence
Restricting the options
limited number of possibilities which listener not allowed to chose, others options not mentioned
Tu Quoque
deflecting criticsm by accusing the critic of being guilty of the same thing (two wrongs don't make a right)
Confusing necessary and sufficnet conditions
necessary conditions is vital for something else to happen. Sufficent conditions gaurenteers next stop can follow
Hasty Generalisation
something claimed about a large group of people based on little evidence
Straw Man
argument grossly exaggerated or simplified to make it easier to knock down
Ad Hominen
criticising the person putting forward the argument, not the argument itself
Conflation
using two different terms as if they were exactly the same, the conclusion then presented using only one of the concepts
Simplyfying casual relationships
one event was caused by another without providing sufficent evidence
Restricting the options
limited number of possibilities which listener not allowed to chose, others options not mentioned
Tu Quoque
deflecting criticsm by accusing the critic of being guilty of the same thing (two wrongs don't make a right)
Confusing necessary and sufficnet conditions
necessary conditions is vital for something else to happen. Sufficent conditions gaurenteers next stop can follow
Hasty Generalisation
something claimed about a large group of people based on little evidence
Straw Man
argument grossly exaggerated or simplified to make it easier to knock down
Ad Hominen
criticising the person putting forward the argument, not the argument itself
Conflation
using two different terms as if they were exactly the same, the conclusion then presented using only one of the concepts
Simplyfying casual relationships
one event was caused by another without providing sufficent evidence