Study Study Fallacies!

Front 1

formal fallacy's place

Back 1

deductive arguments

Front 2

formal fallacy's form

Back 2

All A are B
All C are B
=All A are C

Front 3

Formal fallacy definition

Back 3

examine form of the argument

Front 4

Fallacy

Back 4

defect in an argument, other than just false premises

Front 5

"Non Sequitur", It does not follow

Back 5

fallacy that involves a mistake in reasoning

Front 6

Informal Fallacy definition

Back 6

examine the content of the argument

Front 7

5 Groups of Informal Fallacies

Back 7

Relevance, Weak Induction, Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy

Front 8

Fallacy of Relevance

Back 8

connection between premises and conclusion is emotional

8 Types

Front 9

Appeal to the Force (relevance)

Back 9

Argumentum ad Baculum

Involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader

Front 10

Appeal to Pity (relevance)

Back 10

Argumentum ad Misericordiam

Arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity.

Front 11

Appeal to the People (relevance)

Back 11

Argumentum ad Populum

Uses desires (to be loved, admired, recognized), you have to accept XYZ as true
Has Direct and Indirect Approach

Front 12

Direct Approach
Indirect Approach

Back 12

Appeal to the People
Direct-arouse a mob mentality. Want to share in camaraderie, excitement.
Indirect- focuses on individuals, relationship to the crowd. 3 types.

Front 13

Bandwagon Argument

Back 13

Indirect Approach for Appeal to the People

You'll be left out of a group if you do not do something.

Front 14

Appeal to Vanity

Back 14

Indirect Approach for Appeal to the People

Associates product with someone who is admired so you'll think you will be admired too.

Front 15

Appeal to Snobbery

Back 15

indirect approach for appeal to the people

says not everyone can have one

Front 16

Argument against the Person (relevance)

Back 16

Argumentum ad Hominem

Second arguer directs his argument NOT to the first argument but to the person himself.

3 Forms

Front 17

Ad Hominem Abusive

Back 17

Second person responds to first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person.

"he's nothing but trash"

Front 18

Ad Hominem Circumstantial

Back 18

Alludes to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.

"she just said that because she wants this"

Front 19

Tu Quoque (YOU TOO)

Back 19

Makes the first arguer look like a hypocrite

"why should I stop, you did it too!"

Front 20

Accident (Relevance)

Back 20

General rule is applied to specific case it was not intended to cover.

Ex. Freedom of speech and starting a riot

Front 21

Straw Man (relevance)

Back 21

arguer distorts argument then destroys the distorted argument, making it look like he destroyed the actual one.

Front 22

Missing the Point (relevance)

Back 22

Ignoratio Elenchi

Premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion.

Ex. crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion should be to reinstate the death penalty.
*Wrong because better way (provide increased police protection) and because not a capital crime.*

Front 23

Red Herring (relevance)

Back 23

Arguer diverts attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a subtly related one.
OR
changes topic to flashy, eye-catching topic

Front 24

Weak Induction

Back 24

Connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough.

6 types

Front 25

Appeal to Unqualified Authority (weak induction)

Back 25

Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Person might lack expertise, might be biased, have a motive to lie, or lack memory.

Front 26

Appeal to Ignorance (weak induction)

Back 26

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam

Involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved.
Ex. People have tried to disprove the claims of astrology and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that the claims of astrology are true.

Front 27

Ignoratio Elenchi (ignorance of the proof)

Back 27

Missing the Point.

Front 28

Hasty Generalization (weak induction)

Back 28

Converse Accident

Fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. Sample is too small or not randomly selected.

Front 29

False Cause (weak induction)

Back 29

Link between premises and conclusion depend on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
*4 types

Front 30

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therfore on account of this)

Back 30

one event precedes another event the first event has to have caused the second

(false cause)

Front 31

Non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause)

Back 31

Mistaking the cause for the effect.

(false cause)

Front 32

Oversimplified cause

Back 32

Multitude of causes is responsible but arguer selects one case and presents it as sole cause

(false cause)

Front 33

Gambler's fallacy

Back 33

conclusion depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are related.

(false cause)

Front 34

Slippery Slope (weak induction)

Back 34

Variety of the false cause fallacy. Alleged conclusion rests upon an alleged chain reaction.

Front 35

Weak Analogy (weak induction)

Back 35

committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Entity B has attributes a, b, and c
Therefore, entity B probably has attributes z also.

1) Identify the attributes a, b, c that the two entities have in common 2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c.

Front 36

Fallacies of Presumption

Back 36

Include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence.

Premises presume what they purport to prove.

Front 37

Begging the Question (presumption)

Back 37

Petitio Principii (request for the source)

Leaving out a possibly false key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.

1) Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
*How do you know abortion is murder?
2) Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
3) Ford produces the finest cars in the U.S. We know they produce the best because they have the best engineers. This is true because they can afford to pay them a lot because they have the finest cars in the U.S.

Front 38

Complex Question (presumption)

Back 38

two or more questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is given to both of them. Presumes existence of a certain condition.

Front 39

False Dichotomy (presumption)

Back 39

when a disjunctive (either...or...) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
Ex. Either you let me go to this or I'll be miserable the rest of my life.

Front 40

Suppressed Evidence (presumption)

Back 40

ignores important information

by this product and you'll have fun!
fun does not come packaged.

Front 41

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Back 41

include equivocation and amphiboly.

Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

Front 42

Fallacies of grammatical analogy

Back 42

include composition and division

grammatically wrong

Front 43

Equivocation (ambiguity)

Back 43

conclusion of argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two different ways in the argument.
Ex. Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are obtuse.

Front 44

Amphiboly (ambiguity)

Back 44

Draws a conclusion based on faulty interpretation.

Front 45

Composition (grammatical analogy)

Back 45

Because parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too.

Ex. Maria likes anchovies. She also likes chocolate ice cream. She probably likes them together.

Front 46

Division (grammatical analogy)

Back 46

Whole to parts.

Ex. Jigsaw puzzle is circular, so each piece is too.

**Division may be mistaken for accident. If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy committed is accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy is division.

Ex. of Division
Stanley Steamers have almost disappeared.
This car is a Stanley Steamer.
This car has almost disappeared.