Logic- Intro And Fallacies

Front 1

argument

Back 1

group of statements, one or more of which claim to provide support for or reason to believe one if the others

Front 2

two types of argument

Back 2

- premises do support conclusion
- premises do not support conclusion

Front 3

statement

Back 3

sentence thats true or false

Front 4

truth values

Back 4

-truth
-falsity

Front 5

statements are divided into

Back 5

one or more premises
one conclusion

Front 6

premises

Back 6

statements that set forth reasons or evidence

Front 7

conclusion

Back 7

statement evidence is said to support or imply

Front 8

conclusion indicators

Back 8

help to distinguish the premise from result

therefore
hence
so
for this reason

Front 9

premise indicators

Back 9

help to distinguish the evidence from conclusion

since
for
because
as
given that
for the reason that

Front 10

interference

Back 10

the reasoning process expressed by an argument

Front 11

proposition

Back 11

the meaning or information content of a statement

Front 12

father of logic

Back 12

Aristotle

Front 13

Who first devised systematic criteria for analyzing and evaluating arguments?

Back 13

Aristotle 384-322 bc

Front 14

syllogistic argument

Back 14

logic in which the fudamental elements are terms

arguments are rated good or bad based on how the terms are arranged

Front 15

modal logic

Back 15

involves concepts like possibility, necessity, doubt and belief

Front 16

Chrysippus 280-206 bc

Back 16

fundamental elements were whole propositions

treated every proposition as either true or false
layed rules for the foundation of truth functional interpretation of logic connectives and introduces the notion of deduction

Front 17

Peter Aberlard

Back 17

first major logician of Middle Ages

reconstructed and refined logic of Aristotle and Crysippus

theory of universals traced universal characters of general terms instead of Aristole's "natures"
distinguished arguments are valid base on son tent and formal validity is the perfect or conclusive variety

Front 18

Leibniz

Back 18

develop calculus

Front 19

a passage contains an argument if

Back 19

it purports to prove something

if it does not do so it is not an argument

Front 20

Two conditions that must be fufillled for a passage to purport to prove something are

Back 20

1. At least one statement must claim to present evidence or reasons

2. There must be a claim that alleged evidence supports or implies something -that is a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence or reason

Front 21

factual claim

Back 21

statement that claims present evidence or reasons

Front 22

interferential claim

Back 22

claim that the passafe expresses a certain kind or reasoning process

supports or implies something that follows from something


this claim in not equatable with the intentions of the arguer

Front 23

explanandum

Back 23

statement that describes the event

Front 24

explanans

Back 24

statement(s) that explain the event

Front 25

conditional statement

Back 25

it... than

two component statement of antecedent and consequents

Front 26

antecedent

Back 26

if part of statement

Front 27

consequent

Back 27

than part of statement

Front 28

conditional statements express

Back 28

relationship between necessarily and sufficient conditions

Front 29

necessary condition

Back 29

a cannot occur with out the occurrence of b

Front 30

sufficient condition

Back 30

when occurrence of a is all that is needed for the occurrence of b

Front 31

fallacy

Back 31

something other than a false premise alone

Front 32

formal fallacy

Back 32

identified by merely examining the form or the structure of an

argument only deductive in arguments that identifiable syllogisms and hypothetical syllogisms

Front 33

informal fallacies

Back 33

those that can only be deducted by examining the content of the argument

Front 34

Appeal to Force

Back 34

the reader is persuaded to agree by force
arguer implicitly or explicitly tells a person harm will come to them if he/she doesn't accept conclusion

Front 35

Appeal to Pity

Back 35

evoking pity to win the argument