Flaws Part 2

Front 1

"Depending on the ambiguous use of a key term."

Back 1

Uncertain Use of a Key Term or Concept

Front 2

"It confuses two different meanings of the word "xxxxx".."

Back 2

Uncertain Use of a Key Term or Concept

Front 3

"relies on interpreting a key term in two different ways."

Back 3

Uncertain Use of a Key Term or Concept

Front 4

"equivocates with respect to a central concept."

Back 4

Uncertain Use of a Key Term or Concept

Front 5

"allows a key term to shift in meaning from one use to the next."

Back 5

Uncertain Use of a Key Term or Concept

Front 6

"fails to define the term."

Back 6

Uncertain Use of a Key Term or Concept

Front 7

"makes an attack on the character on opponents."

Back 7

Source Argument

Front 8

"it is directed against the proponent of a claim rather then the claim itself."

Back 8

Source Argument

Front 9

"He directs his criticisim against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argumrny itself."

Back 9

Source Argument

Front 10

"it draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of tha position from evidece about the positions source."

Back 10

Source Argument

Front 11

"Assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character."

Back 11

Source Argument

Front 12

"It assumes what is seeks to establish."

Back 12

Circular Reasoning

Front 13

"Argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises."

Back 13

Circular Reasoning

Front 14

"presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove"

Back 14

Circular Reasoning

Front 15

"the argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate"

Back 15

Circular Reasoning

Front 16

"It takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish"

Back 16

Circular Reasoning

Front 17

"it offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion"

Back 17

Circular Reasoning

Front 18

"Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition"

"confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition"

Back 18

Errors of Conditional Reasoning

Front 19

"Mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship"

Back 19

Mistaken Cause and Effect

Front 20

"Confusing the coincidence of two events with a causal relation between the two"

Back 20

Mistaken Cause and Effect

Front 21

"Fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect"

Back 21

Mistaken Cause and Effect

Front 22

"The author mistakes an effect for a cause"

Back 22

Mistaken Cause and Effect

Front 23

"Refutes a distorted version of an opposing position"

Back 23

Straw Man

Front 24

"misdescribing the student representative's position, thereby making it easier to challenge"

Back 24

Straw Man

Front 25

"potrays opponents' views as more extreme than they really are"

Back 25

Straw Man

Front 26

"distorts the proposal advocated by opponents"

Back 26

Straw Man

Front 27

"The author cites irrelevant data"

Back 27

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

Front 28

"draws a conclusion that is broader in scope than is warranted by the evidence advanced"

Back 28

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

Front 29

"It uses irrelevant facts to justifiy a claim about the quality of the disputed product"

Back 29

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

Front 30

"It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches"

Back 30

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

Front 31

"It introduces information unrelated to its conclusion as evidence in support of that conclusion"

Back 31

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

Front 32

"bases a conlcusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other"

Back 32

Internal Contradiction

Front 33

"the author makes incompatible assumptions"

Back 33

Internal Contradiction

Front 34

"introduce information that actually contradicts the conclusion"

Back 34

Internal Contradiction

Front 35

"offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidece that are mutually contradictory"

Back 35

Internal Contradiction

Front 36

"some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided"

Back 36

Internal Contradiction

Front 37

"assumes something that it later denies, resulting in a contradiction"

Back 37

Internal Contradiction

Front 38

"The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant"

Back 38

Appeal Fallacies
Authority

Front 39

"the argument inappropriately appeals to the authority if the mayor"

Back 39

Appeal Fallacies
Authority

Front 40

"it relies on the judgment of experts in a matter to which their expertise is irrelevant"

Back 40

Appeal Fallacies
Authority

Front 41

"accepts a claim on mere authority without requiring sufficient justification"

Back 41

Appeal Fallacies
Authority

Front 42

"It treats a popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim"

Back 42

Appeal Fallacies
Popular Opinion

Front 43

"attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment"

Back 43

Appeal Fallacies
Popular Opinion

Front 44

"a claim is inffered to be false merely because a majority of people believe it to be false"

Back 44

Appeal Fallacies
Popular Opinion

Front 45

"the argument, instead of providing adequate reasons in supposrt of its conclusion, makes an appeal to popular opinion"

Back 45

Appeal Fallacies
Popular Opinion

Front 46

"Attempts to persuade by making an emotional appeal"

Back 46

Appeal Fallacies
Emotion

Front 47

"uses emotive language in labeling proposals"

Back 47

Appeal Fallacies
Emotion

Front 48

"the argument appeals to emotion rather than reason"

Back 48

Appeal Fallacies
Emotion

Front 49

"Uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative"

Back 49

Survey Errors

Front 50

"states a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group about which the generakuzation is supposed to hold true"

Back 50

Survey Errors

Front 51

"generalizes from an unrepresentative sample"

Back 51

Survey Errors

Front 52

" supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example"

Back 52

Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization

Front 53

"The argument generalizes from too small a sample of cases"

Back 53

Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization

Front 54

"Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment"

Back 54

Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization

Front 55

"bases a genreal claim on a few exceptional instances"

Back 55

Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization

Front 56

"assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself"

Back 56

"Errors on Composition and Division"

Front 57

improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characterisitic from the premis that most scientists have that characteristic"

Back 57

"Errors on Composition and Division"

Front 58

"takes a view of one lawyer to represent the views of all lawyers"

Back 58

"Errors on Composition and Division"

Front 59

"presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of a whole must be true of each of its constituent parts."

Back 59

"Errors on Composition and Division"