Logic Class

Front 1

PROPOSITION (OR SSTATEMENT)

Back 1

A sentence of which it makes sense to ask if true or false.

Front 2

Truth

Back 2

a property of propositions which correspond to stats of affairs in the real world

Front 3

Argument

Back 3

Set of propositions, one of which (CONCLUSION) is claimed to follow from the others (PREMISES)

Front 4

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 4

Argument that IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE

Front 5

PROPOSITION

Back 5

a sentence of which it makes sense to ask if it is true or false

Front 6

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 6

An argument for which we make claim PREMISES are evidence for CONCLUSION,though they do not guarantee it.

Front 7

VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 7

An argument that if every premise is true, then conclusion must be true

Front 8

INVALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 8

A deductive argument that is not valid, It is possible that every premise is true, while conclusion is false

Front 9

SOUND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 9

A valid deductive argument with every premise true. Thus, conclucision must be true

Front 10

UNSOUND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 10

A valid argument with ast least one false premise

Front 11

INDICATOR WORDS

Back 11

Premises - because, since, as, for, inasmuch as, given that, follows from, due to.
CONCLUSIONS - therefore, hence, so, thus, it follows that, accordingly, for these reasons

Front 12

ATTACKING THE PERSON

AD HOMINEM (Abusive)

Back 12

Name calling, or insulting a person to discredit their argument

Front 13

AD HOMINEM (circumstantial)

Back 13

Attacking an arguer's circustance to discredit the argument, without any other reason

Front 14

AD HOMINEM (tu quoque)
"you do it too"

Back 14

Attacking someone's actions or ideas to discredit their argument

Front 15

APPEAL TO THE POPULACE
(ad populum)

BANDWAGON

Back 15

Everyone does it

Front 16

AD POPULUM (Emotion)

Back 16

Appeals to emotions of others rther than giving relevant reasons

Front 17

AD MISERICORDIAM

Back 17

Appeals to pitying heart

Front 18

APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

Back 18

Speaker attempts to support a conclusion by using a premise that claims that some questionable source says conclusion is true

Front 19

FALSE CAUSE

Back 19

Assuming that one event causes the other, without sufficient evidence of the causal connections between the two events.

Front 20

POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

Back 20

Assuming that one event causes the other, merely because one precedes the other

Front 21

CAUSAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION

Back 21

Assuming that one event is the only cause other another, when it is just one of MANY causes

Front 22

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Back 22

Draws a conclusion that CREATES a general rule, based on too few specific cases, or exceptional cases

Front 23

SWEEPING GENERALIZATION

Back 23

Drawing a conclusion by applying a GENERAL rule to a specific case, that is an exception to the rule

Front 24

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Back 24

Some proposed action or event is just the first of a series of events that will lead to some disastrous consequence

Front 25

APPEAL TO TRADITIONAL

Back 25

Using something "has always been done", to support that it should still be done.