Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
fallacy
|
A defect in an argument that arises from a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.
|
|
|
appeal to force
|
Arguer threatens the reader/listener.
|
|
|
appeal to pity
|
Arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener.
|
|
|
appeal to the people
|
Arguer incites a mob mentality or appeals to our desire for security, love, or respect.
Ex: Everyone nowadays is on a low-carb diet. Therefore, you should go on a low - carb diet, too. |
|
|
ad hominen: abusive
|
Verbally abusing the opponent.
|
|
|
ad hominen: circumstantial
|
Presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or she does.
|
|
|
tu quoque
|
Presenting the opponent as a hypocrite.
Ex: "Obama argues that we should avoid eating junk food. But look at what he eats: greasy cheeseburgers, chili dogs, french fries, etc. Clearly, Obama's arguments about food are not worth listening to." |
|
|
accident
|
A general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Stretch the rule to extreme situations.
|
|
|
straw man
|
Arguer distorts an opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument.
Ex: Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? Clearly Mr. Goldberg's argument is nonsense." |
|
|
missing the point
|
Arguer draws a conclusion different from the one supported by the premises.
Note: Do not cite as a fallacy if another fallacy fits. Ex: "Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate the death penalty immediately." |
|
|
red herring
|
Arguer lead the reader/listener off the track.
|
|
|
appeal to unqualified authority
|
Arguer cites an untrustworthy authority.
|
|
|
appeal to ignorance
|
Premises report that nothing is known or proved about some subject, and then a conclusion is drawn about that subject.
|
|
|
hasty generalization
|
A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.
|
|
|
false cause
|
Conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection.
|
|
|
slippery slope
|
Conclusion depends on an unlikely chain reaction of causes.
|
|
|
weak analogy
|
Conclusion depends on a defective analogy (similarity).
|
|
|
begging the question
|
arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving our a key premise, or reasoning in a circle.
|
|
|
complex question
|
multiple questions are concealed in a single question.
Ex: "How you stopped cheating on exams?" |
|
|
false dichotomy
|
An "either... or..." premise hides additional alternatives.
|
|
|
suppressed evidence
|
arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.
|
|
|
equivocation
|
conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phase.
|
|
|
amphiboly
|
Conclusion depends on an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous statement made by someone other than the arguer.
|
|
|
composition
|
an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the parts to the whole.
|
|
|
division
|
an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the whole to the parts.
|
