Logic 1

Front 1

Logic

Back 1

the art and science of reasoning

Front 2

Formal Logic

Back 2

Genus: one of the two branches of logic
Difference: reasoning in the abstract
focuses on deductive reasoning
validity of an argument is based solely on the
structure of the argument and the premises
imply a necessary conclusion

Front 3

Deductive Reasoning

Back 3

a method of determining the validity of a formal argument in which the conclusion must ,necessarily be true if all the premises used to support it are true.it is whole to part reasoning

Front 4

Informal Logic

Back 4

Genus: one of the two branches of logic
Difference: deals with ordinary-language arguments
tends to emphasize on inductive reasoning
the structure or form of the argument is less
the issue than the weight of the evidence
arguments ar generally determined to be
reasonably accurate with more or less
probability

Front 5

Inductive Reasoning

Back 5

a method of determining the validity of an informal argument which tends to start with evidence that can be observed and compiled and works works towards generalizations that are reasonably accurate with more or less probability 9 (part to whole reasoning) .inductive arguments are strong or weak.

Front 6

Fallacy

Back 6

a commonly recognized bad argument that fails to meet the requirements of clarity,presumption,and relevance

Front 7

Fallacies of Relevance

Back 7

arguments that have premises that do not bear upon the truth of the conclusion

Front 8

Ad Fontem Arguments

Back 8

Genus: Fallacies of Relevance
Difference: focus on the source of the argument rather than on the issue itself

Front 9

Ad Hominem Abusive

Back 9

Genus: Ad Fontem
Difference: arguments involving obviously abusive language aimed at a rival

Front 10

Ad Hominem Circumstantial

Back 10

Genus: Ad Fontem
Difference: arguments that focus on the rivals circumstances rather than the argument itself

Front 11

Tu Quoque

Back 11

Genus: Ad Fontem
Difference: arguments that focus entirely on the inconsistencies of a speakers rival

Front 12

Genetic Fallacy

Back 12

Genus: Ad Fontem
Difference: arguments that distract by focusing on the source of the argument rather than the argument itself

Front 13

Appeals to Emotion

Back 13

Genus: Fallacies of Relevance
Difference: attempts to persuade by compelling an audience to feel emotions such as pity, anger, fear, peer pressure, intimidation,etc.

Front 14

Ad Baculum

Back 14

Genus: Appeals to Emotion
Difference: arguments that appeal to the emotion of fear

Front 15

Ad Misercordiam

Back 15

Genus: Appeals to Emotion
Difference: arguments that appeal to the emotion of pity

Front 16

Ad Populum

Back 16

Genus: Appeals to Emotion
Difference: arguments that appeals to our emotion by making us want to be part of the crowd with the common man

Front 17

Ad Verecundiam

Back 17

Genus: Appeals to Emotion
Difference: an argument that plays on the listeners sense of shame by appealing to an illegitimate authority

Front 18

Snob Appeal

Back 18

Genus: Appeals to Emotion
Difference: arguments that appeal to our emotion of elitism or wanting to be part of a select group

Front 19

Chronological Snobbery

Back 19

Genus: Appeals to Emotion
Difference: arguments that try to make us approve or disapprove of something merely because of its age

Front 20

Red Herrings

Back 20

Genus:Fallacies of Relevance
Difference:these arguments make a more subtle appeal to emotion, but contain proofs that are irrelevant to the case at hand

Front 21

Appeal to Ignorance

Back 21

Genus: Red Herrings
Difference: arguments that claim that since a proposition cant be disproven it is therefore true or likely

Front 22

Irrelevant Goals or Functions

Back 22

Genus: Red Herrings
Difference: arguments that measure a plan or policy according to goals or functions it was never intended to achieve

Front 23

Irrelevant Thesis

Back 23

Genus: Red Herrings
Difference: arguments that make a case for the wrong point

Front 24

Straw Man Fallacy

Back 24

Genus: Red Herrings
Difference:arguments that attempt to disprove an opponents position by presenting it in an unfair,inaccurate light

Front 25

Fallacies of Presumption

Back 25

arguments that make unwarranted assumptions about data or the nature of a reasonable argument

Front 26

Fallacies of Presupposition

Back 26

Genus: Fallacies of Presumption
Difference: arguments containing hidden assumptions that make them unreasonable

Front 27

Petitio Pricipii

Back 27

Genus: Fallacies of Presupposition
Difference: arguments that either assume their conclusions or include a highly questionable and hidden premise

Front 28

Bifurcation

Back 28

Genus: Fallacies of Presupposition
Difference: arguments that are built on a false dilemma

Front 29

Fallacy of Moderation

Back 29

Genus: Fallacies of Presupposition
Difference: arguments that make the assumption that compromise is always best

Front 30

Is-Ought Fallacy

Back 30

Genus: Fallacy of Presupposition
Difference: these arguments assume that something is right or preferably simple simply because its the way things are at the moment

Front 31

Fallacy of Composition

Back 31

Genus: Fallacies of Presupposition
Difference: arguments that assume that a collective whole will have the same properties as its individual parts

Front 32

Fallacy of Division

Back 32

Genus: Fallacies of Presupposition
Difference: an argument that assumes that the parts will have the same properties of the collective whole

Front 33

Fallacies of Induction

Back 33

Genus: Fallacies of Presumption
Difference: arguments that misuse empirical data or don't follow proper methods of inductive reasoning

Front 34

Sweeping Generalizations

Back 34

Genus: Fallacies of Induction
Difference: arguments that overextend a generalization to include facts or cases that are exceptions to it.

Front 35

Hasty Generalizations

Back 35

Genus: Fallacies of Induction
Difference: arguments that make hasty generalizations based on too few samples

Front 36

False Analogy

Back 36

Genus: Fallacies of Induction
Difference: arguments that fail because they create an analogy between two things that are not similar enough to warrant an analogy

Front 37

False Cause

Back 37

Genus: Fallacies of Induction
Difference: arguments based on a weak cause and effect connection

Front 38

Fake Precision

Back 38

Genus: Fallacies of Induction
Difference: arguments that misuse statistics in various ways

Front 39

Fallacies of Clarity

Back 39

arguments that fail because they contain words,phrases, or syntax that distort or cloud their meanings

Front 40

Equivocation

Back 40

Genus: Fallacies of Clarity
Difference: arguments that fail because a key term is ambiguous

Front 41

Accent

Back 41

Genus: Fallacies of Clarity
Difference:

Front 42

Distinction Without a Difference

Back 42

Genus: Fallacies of Clarity
Difference:

Front 43

Sound

Back 43

logically valid and free from error or fallacy

Front 44

Valid

Back 44

in logic,having the characteristics of a properly structured deductive argument in which the conclusion must necessarily be true considering all the premises are granted

Front 45

Ambiguous

Back 45

ambiguous words can be open to two or more interpretations and therefore do not have a clear meaning readily understood by the listener

Front 46

Enthymeme

Back 46

arguments that contain at least one statement that is assumed rather than explicitly stated

Front 47

Premises

Back 47

rational reasons,propositions,or examples given in an argument that lead to or support the conclusion