Midterm Exam

Front 1

Deductive arguement

Back 1

conclusion follows with certainty or necessity

Front 2

Inductive arguement

Back 2

the conclusion follows only probably

Front 3

Valid

Back 3

if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true (DEDUCTIVE)

Front 4

Invalid

Back 4

if it is possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true (DEDUCTIVE)

Front 5

Sound

Back 5

if it is valid and all of the premises needed to support the conclusion are true (DEDUCTIVE)

Front 6

Unsound

Back 6

is either invalid or has false premises (DEDUCTIVE)

Front 7

Strong

Back 7

the premises make the conclusion likely (INDUCTIVE)

Front 8

Weak

Back 8

the premises do not make the conclusion likely (INDUCTIVE)

Front 9

Cogent

Back 9

(INDUCTIVE) if a strong argument has true premises

Front 10

Uncogent

Back 10

weak argument, or a strong argument with false premises (INDUCTIVE)

Front 11

Connotation

Back 11

characteristics and attributes of all the members of the denoted class

Front 12

Denotation

Back 12

gives individual members of the denoted class

Front 13

Stipulative definition

Back 13

assigns a new meaning to a word

Front 14

Lexical definition

Back 14

the reporting of the different, distinct meanings a word already has in a language, such as would be given by a dictionary definition

Front 15

Precising definition

Back 15

aims to reduce vagueness

Front 16

Theoretical definition

Back 16

assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain characterization to the entities that the term denotes

Front 17

Persuasive definition

Back 17

this aims to foster approval or disapproval of the Definiendum in the audience.

Front 18

Demonstrative definition

Back 18

these denote the extension of a term by pointing to the members of the class

Front 19

Enumerative definition

Back 19

these define a term by naming individual members of the denoted class.

Front 20

Defintion by subclass

Back 20

these define a term by naming subclasses of the denoted class

Front 21

Synonymous definition

Back 21

gives a single word that connotes the same attributes as the Definiendum.

Front 22

Etymological definition

Back 22

gives the meaning of the term by disclosing the word's ancestry in both its own language and other languages

Front 23

Operational definition

Back 23

gives meaning to a term based on the experimental procedures, which determine whether the word applies to a certain thing

Front 24

Definition by genus and difference (species)

Back 24

assigns meaning by identifying a genus to which the term belongs, and the difference w/in the genus, which marks off the definiendum from other members of the genus.

Front 25

Formal Fallacy

Back 25

if there is something wrong with the form (DEDUCTIVE FALLACY'S ONLY)

Front 26

Informal Fallacy

Back 26

(Inductive fallacy's can ONLY be informal) If the form is not problematic, the fallacy is informal

Front 27

Fallacy: Appeal To Force

Back 27

the speaker gains the assent of the audience by explicit or implicit threats.

Front 28

Fallacy: Appeal To Pity

Back 28

the speaker gains the assent of the audience by evoking pity.

Front 29

Fallacy: Appeal To The People

Back 29

appealing to the audience's desire to be accepted as a member of the group.

Front 30

Fallacy: Argument Against The Person

Back 30

argumentum ad Homonym: Alleged, Abusive, Circumstantial, Quoque

Front 31

Fallacy: Straw Man

Back 31

misrepresents the opponents position, giving it a false appearance of weakness

Front 32

Fallacy: Accident

Back 32

applying a general rule to a case it was not meant to cover

Front 33

Fallacy: Missing The Point

Back 33

draws a conclusion that is related (but different) to one that might be legitimately derived from the given premises.

Front 34

Fallacy: Red Herring

Back 34

change the subject to another relevant subject that doesn't support the conclusion given.

Front 35

Fallacy Of Weak Induction: appeal to unqualified authority

Back 35

Authority lacks credibility, is untrustworthy, has a powerful motive to lie regarding the topic, lack expertise in the area they are talking about, might have a bias that affects his/her judgment.

Front 36

Fallacy Of Weak Induction: appeal to ignorance

Back 36

if the premises of an argument show only that there is no evidence, or that we know nothing about a certain subject, and the conclusion asserts something definite about that subject, the subject fails.

Front 37

Fallacy Of Weak Induction: hasty generalization

Back 37

(drawing an inductive conclusion about a whole based on knowledge of some of its parts) is not necessarily fallacious, but if it is done hastily, by taking too small of a sample otherwise not representative of the whole, it can be a fallacy.

Front 38

Fallacy Of Weak Induction: false cause

Back 38

depends on the presence of a dubious causal connection --> Mistaking the succession in time for causality, mistaking the effect for the cause, reading causality into mere coincidence, oversimplifying the cause, or misunderstanding probability (gamblers fallacy)

Front 39

Fallacy Of Weak Induction: slippery slope

Back 39

similar to false cause, this fallacy falsely assumes a series of causal relationships (producing a chain reaction), which is not necessary.

Front 40

Fallacy Of Weak Induction: weak analogy

Back 40

comparison between two things, which identify some similarity, and argue on this basis for further similarities.

Front 41

Begging the question

Back 41

presupposing your conclusion, either by leaving unstated a key (but dubious) premise, restating a false premise in the conclusion, or reasoning in a circle

Front 42

Complex question

Back 42

asks two or more questions while making it seem like only one is asked, such that the answerer is put in a position of having to give one answer to both questions, which may have different answers.

Front 43

false dichotomy

Back 43

involves a disjunction (either...or) and only two alternatives, one of which is obviously not the case, though there are many more alternatives possible.

Front 44

suppressed evidence

Back 44

an argument can appear stronger than it is if it eaves out a crucial piece of evidence, in light of which the other premises would have to be reinterpreted and the conclusion would be false.

Front 45

equivocation

Back 45

conclusion of an argument depends on an ambiguous use of a certain word

Front 46

amphiboly

Back 46

when someone takes an ambiguous statement of someone else, and draws a false conclusion as a result of the ambiguity.

Front 47

composition

Back 47

characteristics that parts of something truly have, and suppose that the whole has the same characteristics

Front 48

division

Back 48

assumes what is true of a group must be true of each individual member