Fallacies Philosophy Final Exam 102

Front 1

Fallacy Of Composition

Back 1

Inferring a conclusion about a whole or a group from premises about the parts of that whole or the members of that group.

Front 2

Fallacy of Division

Back 2

Inferring a conclusion about some or all parts of a whole or members of a group from premises about the whole or about the group.

Front 3

Genetic Fallacy

Back 3

Inferring a conclusion about the characteristic or merits of a thing from premises about its origin.

Front 4

Anecdotal Argument

Back 4

Argument in which the premises describe only a single epidsode, or a few episodes, typically from within the personal experience of the arguer. such evidence is too slight to be the basis for the cogent inductive generalization. the G condition of argument cogency is not satisfied when evidence is partly anecdotal.

Front 5

Post Hoc

Back 5

To infer, from the fact A was followed by B, the conclusion that A caused B. "After this, therefore because of this" Such arguments are not cogent because the g condition of argument cogency is not satisfied.

Front 6

Abusive Ad Hominem

Back 6

Attacking someones character. Ex His views are false because he has tattoos"

Front 7

Circumstantial Ad Hominem or Tu Quoque

Back 7

You are a hypocrite therefore your view must be false. Ex."Al Gore wants to stop global warming, but he uses a private jet, so his ciews must be false."

Front 8

Guilt by Association

Back 8

Attacks a person credibility because of a group or race they might be in.

Front 9

Fallacy Of Equivocation

Back 9

Misleading use of a word with more than one meaning

Front 10

Ad Populam

Back 10

Appel to the Population fallacy. If the majority believes in it then it must be true.

Front 11

Ad Misericordiam

Back 11

Appealing to pity.

Front 12

Ad Baculum

Back 12

Appealing to fear. Stating a conclusion should be accepted or bad things will happen.

Front 13

Appeal to Tradition

Back 13

Inferring that a belief should be accepted because it was accepted in the past. Ex. Slavery.

Front 14

Red Herring

Back 14

Switching Subjects

Front 15

Begging the Question

Back 15

Moving the conversation in circles. Assume the conclusion in the Premise.

Front 16

Ad Ignorantiam

Back 16

Committed when people try to use lack of evidence as a result to accept a positive result. Ex. "You can't disprove the boogey man, so he must exist."

Front 17

Straw Man

Back 17

Attacking the weakest argument.

Front 18

Dicto Simpliciter

Back 18

occurs when acceptable exceptions are ignored. Ex. "Arrest all opium users, even if they are cancer patients."

Front 19

Hasty Generalization

Back 19

When a generalization if reached to quickly. Ex "I can't speak french therefore no one can."

Front 20

Hypothesis Contrary to the Fact

Back 20

When the premises of an argument cantradict each other. Ex. "If I hadn't come around you would never learned about the fallacies."

Front 21

Poisoning the Well

Back 21

Attacking someone before they can rebutt

Front 22

False Dichotomy

Back 22

Because something in unintelligent doesnt mean they are intelligent, they could be average.

Front 23

Affirming the Consequent

Back 23

If my car has fuel thatn it will start. It starts so my car must have fuel.

Front 24

Neagtive Slippery Slope

Back 24

one thing leads to another in a bad way. ex." When my boyfriend breaks up with my, then my life will be over.

Front 25

Positive Slippery Slope

Back 25

One thing, leads to another. Ex. "I picked up a piece of trash therefore there is no polution in the earth."

Front 26

False Analogy

Back 26

Comparing two things that have nothing in common.

Front 27

Denying the Antecedent

Back 27

An invalid form of inference of the type "P Then Q; not P Therefore not Q.One Instance will lead to another. Ex. " If the president does a good job the economy will remain stable. The president hasn't so the economy will not remain stable.