Errors In Logical Reading

Front 1

Fallacy of Four Terms

Back 1

A standard form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument

Front 2

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

Back 2

The Middle Term must be distributed in at least one premise

Front 3

Fallacy of the illicit minor term

Back 3

If the minor term is distributed in the ocnclusion, but it is not distributed in the premise

Front 4

Fallacy of hte illicit major term

Back 4

If the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise

Front 5

Fallacy of exclusive premises

Back 5

No standard form categorical syllogism having two negative premises is valid

Front 6

Fallacy of Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise

Back 6

If either premise of a valid standard form categorical sylllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative

Front 7

Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative premises

Back 7

If both premises of a valid standard form categorical syllogism are affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative

Front 8

Existential Fallacy

Back 8

No valid standard form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises

Front 9

Presupposing that a flaw is fatal

Back 9

the argument concludes that a shortcoming is fatal having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming

Front 10

assuming that there must be overlap between 2 different groups

Back 10

The arg overlooks the possbility that there's little or no overlap between the 2 groups cited

Front 11

arguing for a course of action that is not feasible

Back 11

duh

Front 12

basing a conclusion on evidence that provides more support for the denial of the conclusion

Back 12

the argument draws a conclusion that connot be true if all the data advanced in its support are true

Front 13

ignoring counterevidence that is readily available

Back 13

the arg ignores available, potentially useful counterevidence

Front 14

treating something that's possible as though it were definite

Back 14

-the arg takes evid showing merely that it's conclusion could be true to constitute evidence that its conclusion is in fact true

Front 15

treating something that's possible as though it were definite

Back 15

arg relies on actuality of a phenomenon. it has only shown to be possible

Front 16

treating something that's possible as though it were definite

Back 16

statements that merely gives some support to a conclusion are treated as if they absolutely establish that conclusion

Front 17

treating something that's possible as though it were definite

Back 17

the arg mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a function it does so

Front 18

treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim

Back 18

the arg concludes that a claim is false on the basis of a lack of evidence for that claim

Front 19

treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim

Back 19

the arg takes failure of opponents to establish their conclusion as the basis for claiming the view is false

Front 20

treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim

Back 20

the arg confuses an absence of evidence for a hypothetical with the existence of evidenc eagainst the hypothetical

Front 21

treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim

Back 21

the arg rejects the possibility that what has not been proven is nevertheless true

Front 22

arguing that a course of action is a necessary by excluding only one of several alternatives to that course of action

Back 22

the argument offers as an adequate defense of a practice of an observation that discredits only 1 of several possible alternative

Front 23

arguing that a course of action is a necessary by excluding only one of several alternatives to that course of action

Back 23

the arg offers two alternatives that do not exhaust the possibilities available and hten treats those alternatives as the only possible ones

Front 24

distorting the point at issue

Back 24

the arg misdescribes the position of its opponents, thereby making the position easier to challenge

Front 25

distorting the point at issue

Back 25

the arg gives a distorted version of its opponents' proposal and attacks this distorted version

Front 26

distorting the point at issue

Back 26

the arg makes exaggerations in formulating the claim against which it argues

Front 27

distorting the point at issue

Back 27

the arg unfairly refutes a distorted version of an opposing position

Front 28

providing irrelevant evidence in support of a conclusion

Back 28

the arg treats evidence of 1 situation as evidence of another situation

Front 29

providing irrelevant evidence in support of a conclusion

Back 29

the arg mistakenly equates proof of 1 state of affairs with proof of another state of affairs

Front 30

missing the point at issue

Back 30

the argument attacks a point that is different from the one made by opponents

Front 31

missing the point at issue

Back 31

the argument fails to respond directly to the claims set forth by opponents

Front 32

assuming that a state of affairs is posible when a necessary conddition for that state of affairs has not been fulfilled

Back 32

the argument holds that a situation is possible even though all of hte requirements for that situation have not been met

Front 33

supporting a position that implies a contradiction

Back 33

arg supports a position that necessarily leads to implausible consequences

Front 34

supporting a position that implies a contradiction

Back 34

arg defends a principle that is untenable on its own terms

Front 35

supporting a position that implies a contradiction

Back 35

position taken in the arg is internally inconsistent

Front 36

supporting a position that implies a contradiction

Back 36

line of reasoning used by the arg can be shown to lead to clearly false conclusions

Front 37

mistakenly assuming a contradiction

Back 37

arg assumes 2 statements are incompatible when they could be true

Front 38

mistakenly assuming a contradiction

Back 38

arg presupposes that alternatives can be true separately can't be true together

Front 39

mistakenly assuming a contradiction

Back 39

sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that aren't exclusive

Front 40

mistakenly assuming a contradiction

Back 40

treats 2 things, neither of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exlcusive

Front 41

assuming a causal relationship between 2 evens that were both actually caused by a 3rd events

Back 41

arg explains 1 event as being caused by another event, even though both events could have been caused by some 3rd event

Front 42

mistakenly reversing the cause and effect

Back 42

arg mistakes the effect for the cause and cause for effect

Front 43

mistakenly reversing the cause and effect

Back 43

arg concludes that 1 thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the 1st thing's having caused the 2nd

Front 44

mistakenly reversing the cause and effect

Back 44

arg confused the causes with the consequences in the given situation

Front 45

assuming independent insufficient factors can't be sufficient together

Back 45

argument assumes that if separate factors are each insufficient to produce a certain situation, then the combination of those factors also can't be sufficient

Front 46

drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion

Back 46

the argument fails to exclude an obvious alternative explanation for hte observed effect

Front 47

drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion

Back 47

the evidence presented in the argument is consistent with a compelling alternative hypothesis

Front 48

drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion

Back 48

the argument bases its conclusion on facts that could, in the given situation, have resulted from causes oter than those presupposed by the argument

Front 49

assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group

Back 49

the arg draws a conclusion that's broader in scope that n is warranted by the evidence advanced

Front 50

assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group

Back 50

the argument attempts to support a sweeping generalization on the basis of info about only a small # of individuals

Front 51

assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group

Back 51

the arg shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to apply characteristics to all members of that group

Front 52

assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group

Back 52

the arg overlooks the possibility that what's true under certain specified conditions is not necessarily true under all conditions

Front 53

assuming that if each member of a group could possess a characteristic, then all of the group's members could possess that characteristic

Back 53

assuming that if each member of a group could possess a characteristic, then all of the group's members could possess that characteristic

Front 54

assuming that the best overall part is a member of the best overall group

Back 54

assuming that the best overall part is a member of the best overall group

Front 55

assuming that the best part of the best overall group must be the best overall part

Back 55

assuming that the best part of the best overall group must be the best overall part

Front 56

generalizing from examples that aren't representative

Back 56

the arg draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion

Front 57

assuming that a temporal sequence implies a causal relation

Back 57

arg concludes that a 1st event was caused by a 2nd event solely on the grounds

Front 58

assuming that a temporal sequence implies a causal relation

Back 58

arg inappropriately presupposed that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon

Front 59

assuming that a temporal sequence implies a causal relation

Back 59

arg assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken to bring about that change

Front 60

circular reasoning

Back 60

the argument precludes the possibility of disconfirming evidence

Front 61

circular reasoning

Back 61

the argument disallows in principle any evidence that would disconfirm its conclusion

Front 62

circular reasoning

Back 62

the argument offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion

Front 63

circular argument

Back 63

the conclusion is identical to 1 of its premises

Front 64

circular argument

Back 64

the argument presupposes what it sets out to console

Front 65

circular argument

Back 65

the arg draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given to support that conclusion

Front 66

circular argument

Back 66

the argument assumes what it seeks to establish

Front 67

circular argument

Back 67

the argument rephrases its conclusion without offering any support for it

Front 68

circular argument

Back 68

the argument takes for granted what it is trying to prove

Front 69

circular argument

Back 69

the argument attempts to support its conclusion solely by restating the conclusion in other words

Front 70

ambiguous word use

Back 70

the argument draws a conclusion based on equivocal language

Front 71

ambiguous word use

Back 71

the argument inappropriately uses vague language

Front 72

ambiguous word use

Back 72

the argument depends upon the use of an imprecise term

Front 73

ambiguous word use

Back 73

the argument equivocates with respect to a term

Front 74

ambiguous word use

Back 74

the argument incorrectly relies on words whose meanings are vague or imprecise

Front 75

ambiguous word use

Back 75

the argument involves an equivocation, in that an important word is allowing to shift its meaning during the course of the argumetn

Front 76

unfairly redefining a key term

Back 76

the argument proceeds by redefining a term in a way that is favourable to the argument

Front 77

unfairly redefining a key term

Back 77

the argument unreasonably extends the application of a key term

Front 78

attempting to refute a general claim with a limited number of counter-examples

Back 78

the arg attempts to refute a general claim by reference to nonconforming cases, although the claim is consistent with the occurrence of such cases

Front 79

treating a factor that might be only partially responsible for a situation as completely responsible

Back 79

the argument treats evidence that a given action contributes to bringing about a cerain effect as though that evidence by istelf is sufficient to bring about that effect

Front 80

treating a failure to disprove a claim as definitive proof of that claim

Back 80

the arg assumes that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false

Front 81

treating a failure to disprove a claim as definitive proof of that claim

Back 81

arg uses lack of evidence contradicting a claim as conclusive evidence of that claim

Front 82

mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition

Back 82

the arg mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with soething that itself is enough to bring about that situation

Front 83

mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition

Back 83

the arg mistakes a factor required to achieve a state of affairs for a factor by itself enough

Front 84

mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition

Back 84

the arg mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion with something that ensures that the conclusion follows

Front 85

mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition

Back 85

the arg fails to take into account the distinciton between something not being prohibited and its being authorized