Fallacies

Front 1

Amphiboly

Back 1

Vagueness/confusion resulting from grammatical construction that is loose/awkward

Front 2

Post Hoc

Back 2

Revolves around time sequence; assumption that because two events occur together, one causes the other

Front 3

False Dilemma

Back 3

Aka false dichotomy, false choice, black and white thinking

Assuming limited options when the limit doesn't exist

Front 4

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Back 4

Aka 3rd grade argument

Absence of evidence is taken as proof; Existence of God argument

Front 5

Argumentum ad Hominem

Back 5

If you discredit a person, you discredit their argument

Circumstantial and character assassination

Based on moral character

Front 6

Begging the Question

Back 6

Aka circular argument

Argument relies on the conclusion you're trying to prove

Always valid, but proves nothing

Front 7

Hypothesis contrary to fact

Back 7

Assuming that you would know for certain what might happen if a past event or condition changed.

Fallacious when you don't have the evidence to prove it would or wouldn't have happened

Front 8

Equivocation

Back 8

"Pulling the carpet out."

Assignment of different meanings to the key word/idea of an argument

I.e. a Ford Explorer is better than a Zonda

Conclusion relies on a shift in meaning of a key term or phrase.

Front 9

False Obversion

Back 9

Overcategorization

Misuse of contrasts or opposites

Front 10

False Conversion

Back 10

Switching of a subject or predicate in a statement.

I.e. all dogs bark but not all things that bark are dogs

Front 11

Ad Populum

Back 11

Irrelevant appeal to the masses

I.e. most people use crest. Crest is the best choice for me.

Front 12

False Appeal to Authority

Back 12

When a person is cited outside their area of expertise

TO BE VALID: must actually be an expert (vocational or advocational); have to be representing a strong majority in field; must be tested over time.

Front 13

Tu Quoque

Back 13

Hypocrisy

When an argument can't be accepted because of belief

Front 14

Hasty Generalization

Back 14

Sample is too small for conclusion

Front 15

Biased Statistics

Back 15

Sample doesn't represent the population it's meant to represent

Front 16

Red Herring

Back 16

Changing the subject/topic change

Unrelated issue is brought forward as conclusion

Front 17

Naturalistic Fallacy

Back 17

Assumes that because something is true, then it ought to be true

Hume's "Is ought" argument

Can't move from descriptive to normative

Drawing conclusion about how behavior should be based k what the behavior is

Front 18

False Analogy

Back 18

When relevant dissimilarities in a comparison are ignored

Does something belong in the group? If not, no conclusion

Front 19

Gambler's Fallacy

Back 19

Belief that departures from what happens on average will be corrected in the short run

Assuming dependency when there is none

I.e. coin flips

Front 20

Straw Man Fallacy

Back 20

Arbitrarily reducing an argument to an overly simple and flawed thesis

Putting words in their mouth

I.e. Obama and the Iraq war.

Manipulation of what someone says in order to demonstrate that the person is wrong.

Front 21

False Dispersion

Back 21

"Mosts"

I.e. most physicists are male, but most men are not physicists = most physicists are not physicists

Front 22

Ad Hoc

Back 22

When an additional thesis is unjustifiably added to a theory merely to save the theory

I.e. creationism argument

Front 23

Ad Bacculum

Back 23

Aka appeal to force/fear

Force taken as evidence for the conclusion

Front 24

Ad Misericordium

Back 24

Appeal to misery; Sarah MacLachlan fallacy

Pity taken as evidence for conclusion

Front 25

Consequence as Evidence

Back 25

Aka wishful thinking

Rejecting/accepting A belief w/out stroing evidence

I.e. Christian nations and major crime argument

Taking harms/benefits of a belief as evidence for/against it

Front 26

Slippery Slope

Back 26

One "innocent" decision or action is assumed to ultimately result in something undesirable.

Responding:

Does the chain reaction actually exist?

Is there a principles reason for a stopping point between innocent and undesirable action?

Does the evil of limiting the first action outweigh the evil of the result?

Front 27

Genetic Fallacy

Back 27

Identification of the source of the claim is taken as evidence for or against a claim

Ex. Your parents said sex before marriage is wrong. That comes from their religion and religions are intolerant. So, sex before marriage is not wrong.

Accepting/rejecting belief based on the reason someone holds that belief

Front 28

Ignoring a Common Clause

Back 28

An effect is taken as the cause of another effect.

Ex. Smoking causes cancer. (Carcinogens cause cancer.)

Assuming causal relationship exists between two events when they could just as justifiably been caused by an underlying event.

Front 29

Ignoring relevant information

Back 29

95% of students dislike Bach

Marjorie, a violinist, is a student

Therefore, Marjorie dislikes Bach

Front 30

Anecdotalism

Back 30

Misleading vividness

Ex. My Taurus sucks. Therefore, all Taureses suck.

Taking a memorable event as evidence.

Front 31

Types of evidence?

Back 31

Physical (fingerprints on glass)

Verbal (eyewitness account)

Front 32

Indicator words for conclusions/premises

Back 32

Conclusions- therefore, thus, and so, consequently, necessarily, hence, etc.

Premises- because, since, or, for the reason that

Front 33

3 types of extended arguments

Back 33

A. Series of diff arguments w/ same conclusion (large classes, able to read quickly)

B. Chain of arguments, each leading to the next (easiest to grade; a proves b, b proves c)

C. Pro-con arguments (toughest to read bc they still have a thesis; avoid in large classes; good for graduate work, capstone)

Front 34

Three kinds of vagueness

Back 34

A. Vague when there are borderline cases for a term's application (middle-age, kid)

B. Vague when required multiple criteria or degree not given (Good friend)

C. Information is also vague when someone simply won't specify

Front 35

Syntactic definition

Back 35

State grammatical function of term

Front 36

Rules for stipulative definition

Back 36

Definition that introduces new word

1. Shouldn't already have a widely accepted standard meaning.

2. Should be a useful addition to the language.

3. Avoid jargon.

Front 37

Convention

Back 37

Words have the meanings they do as a result of widespread acceptance

Front 38

What do theoretical definitions do?

Back 38

Connect the term to the theory (general belief about nature of a subject expressed in a set if arguments)

Front 39

Persuasive definition

Back 39

Convey an attitude along with definition; can be positive or negative

Front 40

Cogent argument

Back 40

Reasonably strong evidence for conclusion and correct about evidence

Front 41

Translating necessary/sufficient

Back 41

Necessary=consequent

Sufficient=antecedent

Front 42

Deductive argument

Back 42

If all premises are true, conclusion cannot be false

Front 43

Inductive argument

Back 43

Conclusion is strongly supported by evidence but it could be false.

PROBABILITY not possibility