Philosophy 210: Midterm 2

Front 1

Categorical statement

Back 1

expresses relations through inclusion and exclusion

ex: all dogs are mammals-two categories:

1. dogs

2. mammals

Front 2

four standards forms of categorical claims

Back 2

A: All..are..

E: No..are..

I:Some.. are..

o:Some...are not..

Front 3

Venn Diagram Rules

Back 3

1. multiple rules can be diagrammed in a single diagram

2. when you diagram multiple claims, the number of circles corresponds to the total number of categories in all the claims

3. note that the shape of your diagram depends on how you choose your categories and sometimes there are multiple

Front 4

categorical logic

Back 4

a type of logic that deals with categorical claims/statements and deductive arguments that involve categorical claims

Front 5

Subject and Predicates

Back 5

terms like "all" "No" and "some" are quantifiers

the category that comes after quantifiers is subject

the predicate comes after "are" or "are not"

Front 6

Translating subject predicate sentences

Back 6

turn the predicate form into a noun phrase in away that gives you an equivalent claim:

ex: All flowers are red.---> All flowers around here are red.

2.) Everyone in the class are going to the party. ---->

All people in the class are people who are going to the party.

Front 7

Translating singular terms

Back 7

replace the singular term with an expression that denotes a one membered category

ex: Aristotle is a logician. ---> All people identical to Aristotle are logicians.

Front 8

Claims involving "only"

Back 8

Claims involving "only" often translate into A claims, but need to find subject and predicate categories; restricted category is subject

Only bald people are allowed in this bar.---> All people allowed in this bar are bald people.

Front 9

3 relations among claims

Back 9

1. contrary claims

2. subcontrary claims

3. contradictory claims

Front 10

contrary claims

Back 10

two claims are contrary when they cannot be both true they can both be false

My car is red all over.

My car is blue all over.

A & E claims that have the same subject and predicate terms are contraries

Front 11

Subcontrary claims

Back 11

two claims are subcontrary when they cannot fail both be can be both true

I & O claims they have the same subject and predicate terms are subcontraries

Front 12

contradictory claims

Back 12

two claims are contradictory when they can be neither true nor false

corresponding A and O claims are contradictory

corresponding E and I claims are contradictory

Front 13

Distributed/ undistributed terms

Back 13

a term is distributed if in the context of statement it refers to each member of the category it denotes

ex: All Badger fans are Packer fans

distributed: Badger fans

undistributed: Packer fans

Front 14

syllogism

Back 14

a two-premise deductive argument

Front 15

categorical syllogism

Back 15

a syllogism whose every claim is a standard-form categorical claim and in which the major term, the minor term and the middle term each occur exactly twice in exactly two of the claims

Front 16

major

Back 16

the term that occurs as the predicate term of the conclusion

Front 17

minor term

Back 17

the term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion

Front 18

middle term

Back 18

the term that occurs in both of the premises but not in the conclusion

Front 19

Distributed rule

Back 19

At least one premise must distribute the middle term

Front 20

Distributed terms

Back 20

(A) All X's Are Y's. X distributed

(E) No X's are Y's. X and Y distributed

(I) Some X's are Y's. none are distributed

(O) Some X's are not Y's. Y distributed

Front 21

Affirming the consequent

Back 21

The fallacy of drawing the conclusion that the antecedent of a conditional is true from the assumption that its consequent is true

**can be modeled as a case of the fallacy of the undistributed middle

Front 22

The fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

Back 22

the fallacy of drawing the conclusion that the consequent is false from the assumption that its antecedent is false.

ex: If A then B.

A is not the case.

B is not the case.

Front 23

The fallacy of illicit Major or minor term

Back 23

if a term that is distributed in the conclusion of a categorical syllogism is not distributed in the premises then the syllogism is the guilty of the fallacy of the illicit major or minor term

Front 24

Distribution Fallacies

Back 24

1. distributed middle term

2. Illicit major or minor term

Front 25

Conditional Fallacies

Back 25

1. Affirming the consequent

2. Denying the Antecedent

Front 26

Distribution rules

Back 26

1. middle terms in premises must be distributed

2. terms in the conclusion distributed must be distributed in premises

Front 27

Rhetorical Force

Back 27

The rhetorical force of an expression is its ability to or power to express and elicit emotional and other psychological responses in the audience

Front 28

7 rhetorical devices

Back 28

Euphemism & Dysphemism

weasler

downplaying

stereotype

loaded question

innuendo

Hyperbole

Front 29

Rhetorical definitions

Back 29

present contentious and controversial ideas as though they are definitions of terms

abortion:

murdering of a child

vs.

terminating a pregnancy

Front 30

Rhetorical analogies

Back 30

use analogies to make a claim more convincing

Front 31

Proof Surrogates

Back 31

suggests there is evidence for a claim without citing or explaining the evidence

ex. "studies show..."

Front 32

Rhetorical omission

Back 32

persuading people to believe something by omitting necessary information in an attempt to mislead

Front 33

Four significant Rhetorical strategies of Demogogues

Back 33

1. repetition

2. fostering Xenophobia and other forms of otherizing

3. demonizing

4. fear and hate mongering

Front 34

Ambiguity

Back 34

when an expression has more than one meaning

Front 35

semantic ambiguity

Back 35

an expression has more than one meaning because a word or phrase that used it has more than one meaning

Front 36

syntactic ambiguity

Back 36

an expression has more than one meaning because its grammatical structure can be understood in more than one way

Front 37

Equivocation

Back 37

happens when we fail to notice that due to the semantic ambiguity different occurrences of an expression have different meanings

Front 38

Grouping Ambiguity

Back 38

special form of semantic ambiguity

when it is not clear whether a claim about a group as a whole or the members of the group

Front 39

Fallacy of Division

Back 39

A claim that is true of the group as a whole is assumed to be true of individual members

Front 40

Fallacy of Composition

Back 40

a claim that is true of individual members is assumed to be true of the group

Front 41

Amphiboly

Back 41

happens when you fail to notice syntactic ambiguities

Front 42

Contraries

Back 42

two claims that cannot be both true but are not exactly opposites so they could be both false

Front 43

Contradictories

Back 43

Two claims that are exact opposites. so if one claim is true the other has to be false