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

1/25

Click to flip

25 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Begging the question
Arguing from a premise which is only accepted by people who already share your opinion on the answer to the question.
Missing the point
Drawing a conclusion to a related but different subject matter than the issue at hand.
Red herring
Pursuing an irrelevant (side) issue.
Complex question
Trying to tie several issues together and get one answer to them all. What you need to do is separate the issues and answer each individually.
Composition
Arguing that since each member of a group has a property that the group also has it.

For example, since no single cell in the human body is intelligent it follows that the body cannot be the basis of human intelligence. Generally such arguments suppose that collections are no different than the things which make up the collections, that there are no collective properties.
Accident
Applying a general rule to a case which is clearly an exception.
False dichotomy
Supposing that there are only two (or a very few) options.
Straw man
Arguing against an oversimplified version of a position rather than the full and more defensible one.
Amphiboly
An inference which depends upon ambiguous grammar.
Division
Arguing that each member of a group must have the very same properties held by the group as a whole.

For example, since your team beat my team that EACH player on your team must be better (at their position) than EACH player on mine. (As if no bad team can have good players.)
Slippery slope
Arguing that since TWO cases are almost the same that they have to be or can be judged the same. Then introducing a THIRD (and so on) with the result that eventually the judgment is obviously so far removed from the original case that IT TOO has to be rejected. It is the use of the third and other cases that make the slippery slope.

Analogies among two cases do not commit this fallacy.
Appeal to force
Trying to win the debate by threat
Appeal to ignorance
Supposing that something must be the case just because it has never been refuted.
Division
Arguing that each member of a group must have the very same properties held by the group as a whole.

For example, since your team beat my team that EACH player on your team must be better (at their position) than EACH player on mine. (As if no bad team can have good players.)
Appeal to the people, direct variety
Trying to get the members of a group to accept a position without allowing them to think for themselves. This frequently involves an US against THEM strategy. In the direct variety, there is an appeal to the group as a whole to take a single position with no room for dissent.
Equivocation
An inference which depends upon understanding a single word in two different ways
Suppressed evidence
The premises are true but leave out relevant information which should be known to anyone offering the premises
Appeal to the people, indirect variety
Trying to get a person to join the others in a group who already accept a position on the grounds that the others accept it. In the indirect variety the others already accept the view and you are being asked to join with them.
False cause
Confusing correlation with causality.

For example, suppose you notice that the last few times you went of a date on Saturday night that you got a good grade on the exams you took on Monday morning.

It is a fallacy of FALSE CAUSE to infer that you got the good grade because you went on the date.
Tu quoque
An attempt to cast doubt upon a position by arguing that those who accept it are hypocritical. We can learn from the mistakes of others
Appeal to unqualified authority
Accepting the judgment of an expert when he or she is speaking in an area outside of their expertise
Argument against the person, abusive
Trying to refute a persons views by casting doubt about their character. This is only acceptable where the issue is how confident we should be in what they say.
Weak analogy
The two things being compared are alike in some respects but the argument overlooks significant ways in which they are different
Argument against the person, circumstantial
Trying to cast doubt upon a person's views by stressing reasons why they might be prejudiced about the topic. Even prejudiced people might be correct.

For example, even a person who would benefit from a tax might correctly point out its need.
Hasty generalization (converse accident)
Generalizing from what is obviously an exceptional and unusual case.