Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

1/85

Click to flip

85 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Fallacy of Four Terms
A standard form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The Middle Term must be distributed in at least one premise
Fallacy of the illicit minor term
If the minor term is distributed in the ocnclusion, but it is not distributed in the premise
Fallacy of hte illicit major term
If the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise
Fallacy of exclusive premises
No standard form categorical syllogism having two negative premises is valid
Fallacy of Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
If either premise of a valid standard form categorical sylllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative
Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative premises
If both premises of a valid standard form categorical syllogism are affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative
Existential Fallacy
No valid standard form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises
Presupposing that a flaw is fatal
the argument concludes that a shortcoming is fatal having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
assuming that there must be overlap between 2 different groups
The arg overlooks the possbility that there's little or no overlap between the 2 groups cited
arguing for a course of action that is not feasible
duh
basing a conclusion on evidence that provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
the argument draws a conclusion that connot be true if all the data advanced in its support are true
ignoring counterevidence that is readily available
the arg ignores available, potentially useful counterevidence
treating something that's possible as though it were definite
-the arg takes evid showing merely that it's conclusion could be true to constitute evidence that its conclusion is in fact true
treating something that's possible as though it were definite
arg relies on actuality of a phenomenon. it has only shown to be possible
treating something that's possible as though it were definite
statements that merely gives some support to a conclusion are treated as if they absolutely establish that conclusion
treating something that's possible as though it were definite
the arg mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a function it does so
treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim
the arg concludes that a claim is false on the basis of a lack of evidence for that claim
treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim
the arg takes failure of opponents to establish their conclusion as the basis for claiming the view is false
treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim
the arg confuses an absence of evidence for a hypothetical with the existence of evidenc eagainst the hypothetical
treating a failure to prove a claim as proof of the denial of that claim
the arg rejects the possibility that what has not been proven is nevertheless true
arguing that a course of action is a necessary by excluding only one of several alternatives to that course of action
the argument offers as an adequate defense of a practice of an observation that discredits only 1 of several possible alternative
arguing that a course of action is a necessary by excluding only one of several alternatives to that course of action
the arg offers two alternatives that do not exhaust the possibilities available and hten treats those alternatives as the only possible ones
distorting the point at issue
the arg misdescribes the position of its opponents, thereby making the position easier to challenge
distorting the point at issue
the arg gives a distorted version of its opponents' proposal and attacks this distorted version
distorting the point at issue
the arg makes exaggerations in formulating the claim against which it argues
distorting the point at issue
the arg unfairly refutes a distorted version of an opposing position
providing irrelevant evidence in support of a conclusion
the arg treats evidence of 1 situation as evidence of another situation
providing irrelevant evidence in support of a conclusion
the arg mistakenly equates proof of 1 state of affairs with proof of another state of affairs
missing the point at issue
the argument attacks a point that is different from the one made by opponents
missing the point at issue
the argument fails to respond directly to the claims set forth by opponents
assuming that a state of affairs is posible when a necessary conddition for that state of affairs has not been fulfilled
the argument holds that a situation is possible even though all of hte requirements for that situation have not been met
supporting a position that implies a contradiction
arg supports a position that necessarily leads to implausible consequences
supporting a position that implies a contradiction
arg defends a principle that is untenable on its own terms
supporting a position that implies a contradiction
position taken in the arg is internally inconsistent
supporting a position that implies a contradiction
line of reasoning used by the arg can be shown to lead to clearly false conclusions
mistakenly assuming a contradiction
arg assumes 2 statements are incompatible when they could be true
mistakenly assuming a contradiction
arg presupposes that alternatives can be true separately can't be true together
mistakenly assuming a contradiction
sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that aren't exclusive
mistakenly assuming a contradiction
treats 2 things, neither of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exlcusive
assuming a causal relationship between 2 evens that were both actually caused by a 3rd events
arg explains 1 event as being caused by another event, even though both events could have been caused by some 3rd event
mistakenly reversing the cause and effect
arg mistakes the effect for the cause and cause for effect
mistakenly reversing the cause and effect
arg concludes that 1 thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the 1st thing's having caused the 2nd
mistakenly reversing the cause and effect
arg confused the causes with the consequences in the given situation
assuming independent insufficient factors can't be sufficient together
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
drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion
the argument fails to exclude an obvious alternative explanation for hte observed effect
drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion
the evidence presented in the argument is consistent with a compelling alternative hypothesis
drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion
the argument bases its conclusion on facts that could, in the given situation, have resulted from causes oter than those presupposed by the argument
assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group
the arg draws a conclusion that's broader in scope that n is warranted by the evidence advanced
assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group
the argument attempts to support a sweeping generalization on the basis of info about only a small # of individuals
assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group
the arg shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to apply characteristics to all members of that group
assuming that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of the parts of that group
the arg overlooks the possibility that what's true under certain specified conditions is not necessarily true under all conditions
assuming that if each member of a group could possess a characteristic, then all of the group's members could possess that characteristic
assuming that if each member of a group could possess a characteristic, then all of the group's members could possess that characteristic
assuming that the best overall part is a member of the best overall group
assuming that the best overall part is a member of the best overall group
assuming that the best part of the best overall group must be the best overall part
assuming that the best part of the best overall group must be the best overall part
generalizing from examples that aren't representative
the arg draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion
assuming that a temporal sequence implies a causal relation
arg concludes that a 1st event was caused by a 2nd event solely on the grounds
assuming that a temporal sequence implies a causal relation
arg inappropriately presupposed that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon
assuming that a temporal sequence implies a causal relation
arg assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken to bring about that change
circular reasoning
the argument precludes the possibility of disconfirming evidence
circular reasoning
the argument disallows in principle any evidence that would disconfirm its conclusion
circular reasoning
the argument offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion
circular argument
the conclusion is identical to 1 of its premises
circular argument
the argument presupposes what it sets out to console
circular argument
the arg draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given to support that conclusion
circular argument
the argument assumes what it seeks to establish
circular argument
the argument rephrases its conclusion without offering any support for it
circular argument
the argument takes for granted what it is trying to prove
circular argument
the argument attempts to support its conclusion solely by restating the conclusion in other words
ambiguous word use
the argument draws a conclusion based on equivocal language
ambiguous word use
the argument inappropriately uses vague language
ambiguous word use
the argument depends upon the use of an imprecise term
ambiguous word use
the argument equivocates with respect to a term
ambiguous word use
the argument incorrectly relies on words whose meanings are vague or imprecise
ambiguous word use
the argument involves an equivocation, in that an important word is allowing to shift its meaning during the course of the argumetn
unfairly redefining a key term
the argument proceeds by redefining a term in a way that is favourable to the argument
unfairly redefining a key term
the argument unreasonably extends the application of a key term
attempting to refute a general claim with a limited number of counter-examples
the arg attempts to refute a general claim by reference to nonconforming cases, although the claim is consistent with the occurrence of such cases
treating a factor that might be only partially responsible for a situation as completely responsible
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
treating a failure to disprove a claim as definitive proof of that claim
the arg assumes that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false
treating a failure to disprove a claim as definitive proof of that claim
arg uses lack of evidence contradicting a claim as conclusive evidence of that claim
mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
the arg mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with soething that itself is enough to bring about that situation
mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
the arg mistakes a factor required to achieve a state of affairs for a factor by itself enough
mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
the arg mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion with something that ensures that the conclusion follows
mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
the arg fails to take into account the distinciton between something not being prohibited and its being authorized