THEMES

Drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence

failing to acknowledge disagreement among experts

mistakenly inferring that because one event follows another they have a causal relation

assuming without sufficient proof that if objects or processes are similar in some ways, then they are similar in other was as well

"Against the man" attacking the arguer rather than the argument or issue

simplifying a complex problem into either/or dichotomy

Predicting withoutjustification that one step in a process will lead unavoidably to a second, generally undesirable step

making a statement that assumes that the issue being argued has already been decided

disputing a view similar to, but not the same as, that of the arguer's opponent

Diverting attention from the issue by introducing a new point

"it does not follow" using irrelevant proof to buttress a claim (build it up)

"to the people"; playing on the prejudices of the audience

A proposal that something should continue because it has traditionally existed or been done that way

Basing an arguement on feelings especiallyl pity or fear- often to draw attention away from real issues or conceal another purpose

errror of reasoning based on faulty use of evidence or incorrect inference

Reasoning by which a general statement is reached ont hte basis of particular examples (general to specific)

reasoning by which we establish that a conclusion must be true because the statements on which it is based are true (general to specific)

reasoning from what you have learned about a few examples to what you think is true of a whole class of things

we assume certain conclusions drawn about a subjct will hold true for similiar subjects under similar conditions

series of statements

classic form of deductive reasoning by Aristotle contaning major/minor premisies and conclusion

generalization about a large group/class

statement about a member of a group/class

links two propositions (major/minor premise) together

fact that two things sharean attribute doesn't mean that they are the same thing

conceptual system of argument devised by the philosopher Stephen Toulmin; claim support and warrant plus backing qualifier and reservation

conclusion

minor premise

Major premise