Critical Thinking

Front 1

Argument

Back 1

a group of statements, one or more of which
(called the premises) are intended to prove or support another statement (called the conclusion)

Front 2

Premises

Back 2

Statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons why we should accept another statement, the conclusion.

Front 3

Conclusion

Back 3

The statement in an argument that the premises are intended to prove or support.

Front 4

Statement

Back 4

A sentence that can be viewed as either true or false

Front 5

Indicator Words

Back 5

Words or phrases that provide clues that premises or conclusions are being put forward

Front 6

Conditional Statement

Back 6

An if-then statement, made of an antecedent and a consequent

Front 7

Antecedent

Back 7

The first part of a conditional statement that follows the word if

Front 8

Consequent

Back 8

The second part of a conditional statement that follows the word then

Front 9

Explanation

Back 9

Tries to show WHY something is the case, not to prove THAT it is the case

Front 10

Chain argument

Back 10

Multiple conditional statements linked together

Front 11

Principle of Charity

Back 11

Always give the speaker of writer the benefit of the doubt. never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the evidence reasonably permits us to attribute to him or her a stronger one.

Front 12

Vagueness

Back 12

meaning is fuzzy blurry or inexact

Front 13

Overgenerality

Back 13

the information provided is too broad and unspecific in a given context

Front 14

Ambiguity

Back 14

refers to a doubtful sense of a word or phrase.

Front 15

Denotation

Back 15

literal meaning

Front 16

Connotation

Back 16

the images or feelings that are associated with a word

Front 17

dysphemism

Back 17

harsh blunt or taboo words used to cause discomfort vie emotive force

Front 18

euphemism

Back 18

mild comforting or evasive words that take place of harsher words to produce a softening affect

Front 19

Political Correctness

Back 19

a term coined to indicate the almost ridiculous extremes to which some people have gone to avoid using language that might offend or insult

Front 20

What are the two key questions that should be asked when evaluating an argument?

Back 20

1. Are the premises true?
2. Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?

Front 21

Deductive arguments

Back 21

try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic. Guaranteed conclusions

Front 22

Inductive arguments

Back 22

try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely given the premise. Likely conclusions

Front 23

Syllogism

Back 23

Three line argument. 2 premises and 1 conclusion.

Front 24

Hypothetical syllogism

Back 24

a syllogism that contains at least 1 conditional (if-then) statement as a premise

Front 25

The form of a modus ponens argument

Back 25

If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.

Front 26

The form of a modus tollens argument

Back 26

If A then B.
not B
Therefore not A.

Front 27

Denying the antecedent form

Back 27

If A then B.
not A.
Therefore not B.

Front 28

Affirming the consequent form

Back 28

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Front 29

Categorical Syllogism

Back 29

each statement begins with all, some, or no

Front 30

Argument by elimination aka Disjunctive syllogism

Back 30

seeks to logically rule out various possibilities.

Front 31

Disjunctive syllogism form aka argument by elimination

Back 31

A or B A or B
not A not B
therefore B therefore A

Front 32

Valid/Invalid and Sound/Unsound refer to

Back 32

words we use to talk about Deduction

Front 33

Strong/Weak and Cogent/Uncogent refer to

Back 33

words we use to talk about Induction

Front 34

Ad Hominem

Back 34

when we reject someone's argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person's argument or claim

Front 35

Attacking the motive

Back 35

the error of criticizing a person's motivation for offering a particular argument or claim

Front 36

Tu Quoque

Back 36

The fallacy committed when an arguer rejects another person's argument or claim because that person fails to practice what he preaches.

Front 37

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Back 37

the fallacy which occurs when an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.

Front 38

Scare Tactics or Appeal to fear or ad baculum

Back 38

Arguments that distract by making the audience afraid of the consequences of disagreeing with the speaker

Front 39

Appeal to pity or ad miseriocordiam

Back 39

Arguments that distract by making the audience feel sorry for the speaker or someone the speaker is speaking on behalf of

Front 40

Bandwagon argument, Mob Appeal, or Ad populum

Back 40

Arguments that distract by making the audience want to be popular, accepted, valued, or part of the crowd

Front 41

Straw Man Fallacy

Back 41

Arguments that attempt to disprove an opponents position by presenting it in an unfair, inaccurate light

Front 42

Red Herring Fallacy

Back 42

fallacy committed when an arguer tries to sidetrack the audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has effectively been settled by the irrelevant diverson

Front 43

Equivocation

Back 43

is committed when a key word is used in two or more senses in the same argument and the apparent success of the argument depends on the shift in meaning

Front 44

Begging the Question

Back 44

committed when an arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing he or she is trying to prove as a conclusion.

Front 45

inappropriate appeal to authority

Back 45

is committed when an arguer cites a witness or authority who, there is good reason to believe, is unreliable

Front 46

appeal to ignorance

Back 46

occurs when an arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false, or conversely that a claim must be false because no one has proven it true

Front 47

false alternatives or false dilemna

Back 47

is committed when an arguer poses a false either/or choice

Front 48

loaded question

Back 48

occurs when an arguer asks a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted presupposition

Front 49

Questionable Cause or Post Hoc

Back 49

committed when an arguer assumes without adequate evidence that because one event (A) occurred before another event (B), A is the cause of B.

Front 50

Hasty Generalization

Back 50

Arguments that make a generalization on the basis of too few samples

Front 51

Slippery Slope

Back 51

occurs when we claim without sufficient evidence that a seemingly harmless action if taken will lead to a disastrous outcome

Front 52

Weak Analogy

Back 52

occurs when an arguer compares two or more things that aren't really comparable in relevant respects

Front 53

Inconsistency

Back 53

occurs when an arguer asserts inconsistent or contradictory claims

Front 54

Non-sequitor

Back 54

means does not follow

Front 55

Line Drawing Fallacy AKA Fallacy of the beard

Back 55

Not allowing for extremes because of gradations. Show me the line between . If you can't show me the clear line then the two extremes don't exist. Pornography and art and beard vs clean-shaven

Front 56

Black and White Fallacy

Back 56

says that there are only extremes and there are no gradations. Not allowing for gradations because of extremes

Front 57

Special Case fallacy

Back 57

when we take an unusual or special case and try to generalize it to all cases

Front 58

Dicto Simpliciter fallacy

Back 58

is applying a general rule to a special case

Front 59

Composition as a fallacy .

Back 59

says that what is true of the parts of something must be true of the whole- it illegitimately composes something. example: Because every tile is square floor must be square

Front 60

Division as a fallacy

Back 60

states that what is true of the whole must be true of the individual parts. Example: Movie is good/bad. Movie composed of parts.

Front 61

Argument from outrage or Horselaugh

Back 61

dismissing without any argument

Front 62

Misplaced Burden of Proof

Back 62

asking who has to make the argument in this debate? Who has the responsibility to make this case? The fallacy is the placing the burden of proof on the wrong person

Front 63

Poisoning the Well

Back 63

Trying to set up the argument in a bad light (a type of ad hominem)

Front 64

Genetic Fallacy

Back 64

made when somebody argues against a conclusion based on its origin. Arguing that something is false based on where the argument came from.

Front 65

enthymeme

Back 65

An argument with a missing premise or conclusion

Front 66

inductive generalization

Back 66

an argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to make a claim about the population as a whole

Front 67

Statistical Argument

Back 67

argues from premises regarding a percentage of a population to a conclusion about an individual member of that population or some part of that population

Front 68

Method of agreement

Back 68

A common factor is present whenever the effect is present

Front 69

Method of agreement

Back 69

Everyone got sick. The only thing that everyone ate was oysters. So oysters were the cause.

Front 70

Method of Difference

Back 70

A factor is present when an effect occurs and absent on an otherwise similar occasion when it does not.

Front 71

Method of Difference

Back 71

You alone got sick. You alone at the oysters. So oysters were the cause.