Philosophy & Ethics Define Fallacies

Front 1

Define Denying the Antecedent:

Back 1

Committed because denial of the truth of p (antecedent) does not necessarily mean denial of the truth of q (consequent).

[Follows the format of: p then q, not p thus not q.]

Front 2

Define Affirming the Consequent:

Back 2

Committed because affirming the truth of q (consequent) does not necessarily mean affirmation of the truth of p (antecedent).

[Follows the format of: p then q, q thus p.]

Front 3

Define Genetic Fallacy:

Back 3

Committed when an argument is deemed cogent/lacking cogency solely on its origin as opposed to its merit.

(An argument is viewed as untrustworthy if it comes from the mouth of someone known to lie)

Front 4

Define Argumentum Ad Populum:

Back 4

Committed when it is claimed that a proposition is true simply because many or most people happen to believe it is true.

Front 5

Define Ad Hominem:

Back 5

Committed when you attack the person advancing an argument as opposed to the argument itself.

Front 6

Define Hasty Generalisation:

Back 6

Committed when you draw a general conclusion from a limited sample.

Front 7

Define Argument from Ignorance:

Back 7

Committed when you infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false OR infer that a proposition is false from the fact that it is not known to be true.

Front 8

Define Argument from Equivocation:

Back 8

Committed when a phrase or a term is used (often deliberately) to shift from one meaning to another. The phrase or term in question is ambiguous.

Front 9

Define Argument from Irrelevant Authority:

Back 9

Committed when someone or something deemed to possess expertise in a particular area is presented as possessing expertise in a different area, when expertise in that area is in fact lacking.

Front 10

Define Definist Fallacy:

Back 10

Committed when a key term in a argument is used in such a way that is not true to the accepted meaning of that term, so that the new meaning is biased or favourable toward one particular position.

Front 11

Define Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc:

Back 11

Committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.

Front 12

Define Confusion of Correlation and Causation:

Back 12

Committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously.

Front 13

Define Non Sequitur:

Back 13

Committed when a conclusion (which can either be true or false) simply does not follow from the premises in an argument.

Front 14

Define False Dichotomy:

Back 14

Committed when only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. (e.g. You must either be religious or atheistic. You can also choose to be agnostic but this is not considered in the statement)

Front 15

Define Straw Man Argument:

Back 15

Committed whenever someone argues against a position that the other person does not actually hold.

Front 16

Define Begging the Question:

Back 16

Committed when you assume the truth of some portion of your conclusion in your premises. This involves circular reasoning.

Front 17

Define Statistical Fallacies:

Back 17

Committed when the conclusion of an argument rests upon false or misapplied premises involving numerical evidence.

Front 18

Define Appeal to Adverse Consequences:

Back 18

Committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to scare someone into accepting a conclusion.