Philosophy 101

Front 1

equivocation

Back 1

A claim is ambiguous if more than one meaning can be assigned but the particular meaning it should be assigned is not madde clear by context. Example: I know a little Greek.

Front 2

Amphiboly

Back 2

an argument exhibits amphiboly if it tries to justify its conclusion by relying on an ambiguity in sentence structure. Example: he saw the farmer with binoculars.

Front 3

Accent

Back 3

Statement spoken in a tone of voice not intended for, certain words are wrongly stressed, certain words are taken out of context and are given emphasis they were not meant to have.

Front 4

Emotionally Charged Language

Back 4

opinions that build on such language attempt to distract us from the fact that no argument has been presented.

Front 5

Euphemism

Back 5

using highly emotional subject in a matter-of-fact voice.

Front 6

Appeal to Force

Back 6

use of threat to coerce opponents

Front 7

Appeal to pity

Back 7

"you should accept my conclusion out of pity" The argument is addressed to our sense of mercy.

Front 8

Appeal to the people

Back 8

"bandwagon"

Front 9

Appeal to authority

Back 9

carries connotations of shame as well as modesty, emphasizing how we may accept a false conclusion because we are ashamed to dispute authority.

Front 10

Appeal to Ignorance

Back 10

follows the assumption that the inability to demonstrate that a statement is true should constitute proof that the contradiction of the statement is supposedly true. This appeal tries to establish an affirmative conclusion by stating our lack of knowledge as support for such conclusion.

Front 11

Abusive ad hominem

Back 11

attempt to lower our esteem for a person by abusing or insulting that person.

Front 12

Circumstantial ad hominem

Back 12

attack is directed at a person's motives or at such circumstances as one's profession, political views, social status, or gender.

Front 13

tu quoque

Back 13

try to justify what we are doing by pointing out that our opponents or others engage in questionable behavior as well.

Front 14

strawman

Back 14

given when someone ignores an opponents actual position and presents in its place a distorted or misrepresented version of that position. now, this distroted position will be easier to refute.

Front 15

Missing the point

Back 15

this arguement actually proves a different conclusion

Front 16

Red Herring

Back 16

the arguer tries to draw attention away from an issue by raising some other, seemingly related issue.

Front 17

Begging the Question

Back 17

either a key premise is left out or the conclusion is restated as a premise or by circular reasoning. instead of offering proof for a conclusion, the argument simply reasserts the conclusion in another form.

Front 18

Complex Question

Back 18

committed when a single question is asked that is really 2 or more questions and a single answer is then applied to both questions.

Front 19

Sweeping generalization

Back 19

committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case to which the rule is not applicable because of the special features of that case.

Front 20

Hasty generalization

Back 20

an isolated or exceptional case is used as teh basis for a general conclusion which is unwarranted.

Front 21

False dilemma

Back 21

x is true because either x is true or y is true, and y isn't. said when x and y could both be false.

Front 22

False Cause (post hoc)

Back 22

reasoning that x caused y simply because y occurred after x or around the same time

Front 23

Slippery Slope

Back 23

objects to a position on the ground that the position, if taken, will set off a chain reaction that ultimately will lead to some undesirable consquence.

Front 24

False analogy

Back 24

arises when the comparison is an erroneous one that distorts the facts in the case being argued.