Phil 1010 - Test 1

Front 1

It is better to use emotive/neutral language when writing an argument.

Back 1

Neutral language

Front 2

What is emotive language?

Back 2

It is language that evokes emotion - emotion that is not necessarily worthy of the subject.

Front 3

What does the term "interwoven arguments" mean?

Back 3

It means that there are two or more arguments in a single passage.

Front 4

a term that has multiple meanings and you are not sure which meaning is being used

Back 4

ambiguous

Front 5

a term that is simply unclear

Back 5

vague

Front 6

an argument that cannot be solved by clarifying definitions

Back 6

obviously genuine dispute

Front 7

an argument that is resolved after certain terms are clarified

Back 7

merely verbal dispute

Front 8

an argument that requires terms to be clarified, but after clarification, an argument still remains

Back 8

apparently verbal but really genuine dispute

Front 9

In a definition, the ________ are the words that define the _____________.

Back 9

difiniens; definiendum

Front 10

A definiendum is the "conclusion" of a definition. True or False?

Back 10

TRUE

Front 11

this type of definition assigns a new meaning to a new or old word

Back 11

stipulative

Front 12

this type of definition is already established for a word

Back 12

lexical

Front 13

this type of defintion dissolves ambiguity.

Back 13

precising

Front 14

Atttibutes shared by all objects, and only those objects, to which a general term applies i.e. someone who performs a role - actor

Back 14

intension

Front 15

objects to which a term applies i.e. Brad Pitt, Taye Diggs

Back 15

extention

Front 16

this definition defines by limiting to a specific situation where actions or operations lead to specific results, i.e. according to a LITMUS STRIP (an action) this substance is acidic

Back 16

operative definition

Front 17

a broad class of objects related by certain attributes

Back 17

genus

Front 18

certain attributes in a sub class that differentiates one sub class from another

Back 18

species difference

Front 19

a defintion that defines using a class and a sub class

Back 19

definition by genus and difference

Front 20

In a definition by genus and species, it's okay if the definition is a little too broad or narrow. T/F?

Back 20

False. The definition cannot be too broad or narrow.

Front 21

You should/shouldn't use ambiguous or obscure language in a definition.

Back 21

shouldn't

Front 22

A defintion should not be negative if it can be affirmative. T/F?

Back 22

True

Front 23

the argument focuses on insecurities or emotions of the audience

Back 23

appeal to emotion

Front 24

the argument makes an appeal to the mercy of the audience

Back 24

appeal to pity

Front 25

the argument uses "strong-arm" tactics; the threat can be physical, monetary, etc.

Back 25

appeal to force

Front 26

the argument accuses the opponent of being "stupid," "dishonest" when the argument has nothing to do with the opponent but a seperate issue

Back 26

ad hominem ABUSIVE

Front 27

the argument suggests that the opponent to the argument is unreliable or dishonest because of the people or things he/she is associated with; it has nothing to do with the actual argument

Back 27

ad hominem CIRCUMSTANTIAL; guilt by association

Front 28

Mandy is a blonde. All blondes have no idea what they are talking about so why would we listen to her proposal?

Back 28

ad hominem Poisoning the Well; opponent can do nothing to defend him/herself

Front 29

the premises of this argument support a different conclusion

Back 29

irrelevant conclusion

Front 30

this argument misrepresents the position of its opponent in order to make it easier to argue against

Back 30

straw man

Front 31

this argument attacks a nonexisting part of arugment, causes distraction

Back 31

red herring

Front 32

this argument has a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

Back 32

non sequitur

Front 33

this argument argues that "well, you do it TOO!"

Back 33

tu quoque

Front 34

these fallacies have premises that are not relevant to the conclusion

Back 34

fallcies of relevance

Front 35

this argument says that b/c something is not known to be false, you can say it is true

Back 35

argument from ignorance

Front 36

this argument's conclusion is based on the judgement of a presumed authority figure who has no legitimate claim to expertise in the field, or may be biased

Back 36

appeal in inappropriate authority

Front 37

this argument treats something that is not really the cause of the event as the cause of the event

Back 37

false cause

Front 38

this argument argues that event B was after event A - therefore, event A caused event B. i.e. the rooster crows to wake up the sun "after the thing, because of the thing

Back 38

post hoc

Front 39

this arguments says that if we allow event A to occur, event B (evil) will follow i.e. marijuna is a gateway drug

Back 39

slippery slope

Front 40

the premise(s) of this argument is for a specific example, but the conclusion is in general; basing a conclusion on too few examples

Back 40

hasty generalization

Front 41

these fallacies have premises that are too weak or inadequate to warrant the conclusions

Back 41

fallcies of defective induction

Front 42

in this argument, the conclusion is assumed in the premise, or the truth of the premise is stated in the conclusion; it is circular

Back 42

begging the ?

Front 43

this argument presents a choice between two options, but in reality, there are more than only two options

Back 43

false dilemma

Front 44

these fallacies have conclusions that depend on an assumption

Back 44

fallacies of presumption

Front 45

in this argument a loose or awkward phrase is intrepreted one way in the premise and another way in the conclusion

Back 45

amphiboly

Front 46

this argument emphasizes certain parts of a phrase to convey a different meaning than the actual meaning; i.e. a quote out of context, sensationalized "FREE" or "LOW PRICES"

Back 46

accent

Front 47

this argument reasons from parts to a whole, i.e. Player A is a great player. Player B is a great player. Therefore, the team of A and B must be a great team.

Back 47

composition

Front 48

this argument reasons from whole to parts, i.e. Team 1 is a great team. Player C and D are on Team 1, so they must be great players!

Back 48

division

Front 49

these fallacies use confusion or a shift in meaning to establish their conclusions

Back 49

fallacies of ambiguity

Front 50

A: Smiley is guilty of arson. He confessed it was him who started the fire.
B: You are wrong. Smiley has not even been accused of starting the fire, so there's no way he could be (proven) guilty.
This dispute is...

Back 50

merely verbal

Front 51

Nigel deserves a 2nd chance. He just found out his wife is really his sister. That would rattle anyone. This is a(n)...

Back 51

appeal to pity

Front 52

10 hr work day?! NO! You know who wants that? Nigel. His home life sucks. Of course he wants to work 10hr/day, he doesn't wanna go home! This is a(n)...

Back 52

ad hominem circumstantial

Front 53

Too bad you don't agree with the plans. We need someone to promote. It would be a shame if you didn't get the promotion. This is a(n)...

Back 53

appeal to force