Phl 101 - Exam 2

Front 1

involves attacking the person who asserts a statement as opposed to rationally critiquing the statement itself

Back 1

argument against the person

Front 2

involves an attempt to discredit an argument or view by launching a direct personal attack

Back 2

abusive ad hominem

Front 3

involves an attempt to discredit an argument or view by calling attention to the circumstances of those who advance it

Back 3

circumstantial ad hominem

Front 4

involves an attempt to discredit an argument or view by suggesting that one's opponent is hypocritical

Back 4

tu quoque

Front 5

occurs when the arguer attacks a misinterpretation of the opponent's view

Back 5

straw man fallacy

Front 6

occurs when a conclusion is defended by a threat to the well-being of those who don't accept it

Back 6

appeal to force

Front 7

occurs when there is an attempt to persuade a person or group by appealing to the desire to be accepted by others

Back 7

appeal to the people

Front 8

occurs when an attempt is made to supports a conclusion merely by evoking pity in one's audience

Back 8

appeal to pity

Front 9

involves either: (a) the claim that a statement is true because it hasn't been proven false OR (b) the claim that a statement is false because it hasn't been proven true

Back 9

appeal to ignorance

Front 10

occurs whenever the premises of an argument are logically unrelated to the conclusion

Back 10

red herring

Front 11

occurs when multiple meanings of a word/phrase are used in a context where validity requires a single meaning

Back 11

fallacy of equivocation

Front 12

occurs when multiple meanings of a sentence are used in context where (a) validity requires a single meaning and (b) multiple meanings are due to sentence structure

Back 12

fallacy of amphiboly

Front 13

involves either (a) an invalid reference from the nature of the parts of the whole or (b) an invalid reference from attributes of members of a group to attributes of the group itself

Back 13

fallacy of composition

Front 14

involves either (a) an invalid reference from the nature of the whole to the nature of the parts or (b) an invalid reference from the nature of a group to the nature of its members

Back 14

fallacy of division

Front 15

occurs when an argument assumes the point to be proved

Back 15

begging the question

Front 16

occurs when one uses a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered

Back 16

false dilemma

Front 17

occurs when an appeal to an authority is made when the reliability of the authority may be reasonably doubted

Back 17

appeal to unreliable authority

Front 18

occurs when one possible cause of a phenomenon is assumed to be the cause although reasons are excluding other possible causes

Back 18

false cause fallacy

Front 19

involves asking a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question

Back 19

complex question fallacy

Front 20

A(n) ________ fallacy is an error in reasoning that involves the explicit use of an invalid form

Back 20

formal

Front 21

A(n) ________ fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not involve the explicit use of an invalid form

Back 21

informal

Front 22

Step 1 for constructing well-crafted arguments

1. ________

2. Eliminate excess verbiage (discounts, repetition, assurances, hedges)

3. ???

4. ???

5. ???

6. ???

Back 22

Identify the premises and the conclusion

Front 23

Step 2 for constructing well-crafted arguments

1. Identify the premises and the conclusion

2. ________

3. Employ uniform language

4. ???

5. ???

6. ???

Back 23

Eliminate excess verbiage (discounts, repetition, assurances, hedges)

Front 24

Step 3 for constructing well-crafted arguments

1. ???

2. Eliminate excess verbiage (discounts, repetition, assurances, hedges)

3. ________

4. Be fair and charitable in interpreting an argument

5. ???

6. ???

Back 24

Employ uniform language

Front 25

Step 4 for constructing well-crafted arguments

1. ???

2. ???

3. Employ uniform language

4. ________

5. Do not confuse subconclusions w/ conclusions

6. ???

Back 25

Be fair and charitable in interpreting an argument

Front 26

Step 5 for constructing well-crafted arguments

1. ???

2. ???

3. ???

4. Be fair and charitable in interpreting an argument

5. ________

6. Make explicit obviously implicit premises in a charitable way

Back 26

Do not confuse subconclusions w/ conclusions

Front 27

Step 6 for constructing well-crafted arguments

1. ???

2. ???

3. ???

4. ???

5. Do not confuse subconclusions w/ conclusions

6. ________

Back 27

Make explicit obviously implicit premises in a charitable way

Front 28

standard form of a conditional statement

Back 28

"If A, Then, B"

Front 29

a word or a statement that adds nothing to the argument

Back 29

excess verbiage

Front 30

an acknowledgement of a fact or possibility that might be thought to render the argument invalid, weak, unsound, or uncogent

Back 30

discount

Front 31

a restatement of a premise or conclusion, perhaps w/ slightly altered wording

Back 31

repetition

Front 32

a word or statement that indicates that the author is confident of a premise or inference

Back 32

assurance

Front 33

a word or statement that indicates that the arguer is tentative about a premise or an inference

Back 33

hedge

Front 34

an argument w/ an implicit premise or conclusion

Back 34

enthymeme