Home > Flashcards > Print Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?
Argument that gives the conclusion proof.
Gives conclusion that is probable from its premises.
- Affirming the antecedent
- - If p, then q
- -Therefore, q
- Denying the antecedent
- - If , then q
- Not q
- - therefore, not p
- An argument with 3 lines-two of them premises, one of them the conclusion.
- - If , then
- - If q, then r
- Therefore p, then r
- - Either p or q - Either p or q
- - Not or - Not q
- - Therefore q - Therefore p
Denying the antecedent
- Inferring the inverse from the original statement.
- - If p, then q
- - Not p
- - Therefore not q
Affirming the consequent
- Inferring the converse from the original statement even though statement 1 & 2 can be true.
- - If p, then q
- - q
- - Therefore p
- The assumption of their previous outcomes of random events have an effect on subsequent events.
- - Hot Streaks
- Making a generalisation from limited psychological accessible information.
- Ex: I had a Ford that was always in the shop, it was a total lemon, I'll never buy those again!
- Unrepresentative sample
- Psychological tendency to prefer available evidence and ignore future argumentation or evidence.
- - Avoiding conformation bias means forcing yourself to examine both contrary and supportive evidence for your beliefs.
- Preferring information that is accessible or immediate over factual information.
- - fear over flying
Appeal to Authority
- Qualities of expertise, education and training from reputable sources in that field.
- - Experience in that field
- - Consensus in their field
- - Reputation in the field
- - Professionally accomplished
- Arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin.
- Ex: Weapons were made in Germany, therefore weapons are bad.
- A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some ( or even many) part of the whole.
- Ex: Each member is intelligent, productive, and nice. Therefore every other member will be too.
- The assumption that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts.
- Ex: Germany is a military country, thus each Germany is a militant.
Abusive ad Hominem
Usually and most notoriously involves merely insulting ones opponent, but can also involve painting out factual but damning characterised flaws or actions.
Ex: We cannot approve of this recycling idea.
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Involves pointing out that someone's is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position.
Ex: We should disregard Kellogg because its a cereal brand.
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Charging hypocrisy to avoid making an argument or two avoid taking up someone's argument.
- Ex: Veggies and rice is a good diet. It is a fact that it is.
- What do you know about a healthy diet?
Fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase is an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.
Ex: "Laws" imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore there must be a cosmic lawgiver.
Appeal to popularity
Arguing that a claim must be true because a number of people believe it.
Ex: Coke out sells Pepsi. Therefore coke must be better.
Appeal to tradition
Common logical fallacy in which someone proclaims his/her accuracy by using that "that is how its always been done." Essentially: this is right because we've always done it that way.
Ex: we've always had bonfires, so we always will.
Appeal to ignorance
Fallacy when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.
Ex: Scientist cant prove that UFOs do not visit the earth p, so it makes sense to believe in them.
Appeal to emotion
Occurs when the argument attempts to make their point using emotional rather than argument.
Deliberately raising points that have nothing to do with the argument in an attempts to confuse or muddy the argument.
Picking apart a weak or distorted version of another claim instead of the actual or stronger version.
Two wrongs fallacy
Justifying an action because of another person or actors wrong doing.
Ex: I can cheat on hank because he cheated on me.
Begging the question
Fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument premise assume the of the conclusion, instead of supporting it . In other words, you assume without proof the stand position or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.
Ex: Thoughts are most not part of the physical world, since thoughts are in thief nature non-physical.
Asserting that there are only two options in a situation when there are actually more than two. Often used to force opponent into a corner.
Ex: Either you are for me against me.
Decision point fallacy
Claiming that because there is no clear line that there is distinction between things.
Ex: Fred can never have a beard. Because one hair does not make a beard.
Fallacy when someone argues that someone is the first step that makes several other steps follow when they don't actually follow in an attempt to make the argument look foolish.
Ex: Allowing Martin in class will lead to the end of the world.
Argument that because two things are similar in some respects, then they must be similar in all respects.