The flashcards below were created by user bananavocado on FreezingBlue Flashcards.

  1. Define Inductive

    Premises is intended to make likely/probable. But not guarantee the truth of its conclusion.

    Ex : Every lawyer that I have met has been aggressive. Since your blind date tonight is a lawyer, she will probably be aggressive.
  2. Inductive arguments have 2 criteria...?
    • 1. Sample Size?
    • 2. Representatives.
  3. Define Deductive

    If the truth of its premises is intended to guarantee the truth of its conclusions.

    • Ex : All humans are mortal.
    • Sally is a Human.
    • So, Sally is mortal.
  4. Deductive argument : Cogency. 
    Has three criteria which are...?
    • 1. Validity 
    • 2. True Premises.
    • 3. All relevant information is included.
  5. Symbol for Contingent and Define.

    Statement where its truth depends on something other than itself.
  6. Symbol for Contradiction and Define
    A • ~ A

    Statement that's necessarily FALSE.
  7. Symbol for Tautology and Define
    A v ~ A

    statement that's necessarily TRUE.
  8. Give an example of Affirming the consequent. 

    Is it Valid or Invalid?
    • If P then Q
    • Q
    • ∆ P


    • Ex: If it rains, the ground will be wet.
    • The ground is wet.
    • So, it's raining.
  9. Give and example of Denying antecedent.

    Is it Valid or Invalid?
    • If P, then Q.
    • ~ P
    • ∆ ~ Q


    • Ex : If the birds are chirping, it's Spring.
    • The Birds are not chirping.
    • Therefore, it's not spring.
  10. Give and example of Disjunctive Syllogism.

    Is it Valid or Invalid?
    • P v Q
    • ~P 
    • ∆ Q
    • *vice versa*


    • Ex : Either he'll buy a Honda or a Harley.
    • Didn't buy a Honda.
    • So, he bought a Harley.
  11. Give an example of Hypothetical Syllogism.

    Is it Valid or Invalid?
    • If P, then Q
    • If Q, then R
    • So, if P, then R.


    • Ex : If I sell my car, I'll get $1500.
    • If I get $1500, I can go to Spain.
    • So, if I sell my car, I can go to Spain.
  12. Give an example of Modus Tollens 

    Is it Valid or Invalid?
    • If P then Q
    • ~ Q
    • ∆ ~ P


    • Ex : If she really loved you, she would have agreed to marry you.
    • She didn't agree to marry you.
    • She didn't love you.
  13. Give an example of Modus Ponens 

    Is it Valid or Invalid?
    • If P, then Q.
    • P.
    • Q.


    • If it's Wednesday, then she wears blue.
    • It's Wednesday.
    • So, she'll wear blue.
  14. Explain why it may be valid.
    If all of its premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
  15. Explain why it may be Invalid.
    All true premises and a false conclusion.
  16. Define Induction by Enumeration
    When we infer front the fact that all A's observed so far are Bs to the conclusion that all As whatsoever are Bs.
  17. What are the 3 criteria for fallacious deductive arguments? And define!
    • 1. Invalid Inference : drawing conclusions not sufficiently supported by evidence.
    • 2. Questionable Premises : Accepting premises that we should doubt
    • 3. Suppressed Evidence : Neglecting relevant evidence.
  18. Define the fallacious category : Appeal to Authority
    - committed when we accept the conclusion of an argument solely on the basis that "so and so" said so, does so, believes so etc. One person or many.
  19. Define the fallacious category : Inconsistency
    • - Committed when we are persuaded to accept the conclusion of an argument that contains self-contradictory statements that contradict each other.
    • I'm saying A, but I'm also not saying A.
  20. Define the fallacious category : Strawman
    • - To negatively represent another's argument, beliefs, practices, etc. so that they can easily be refuted. 
    • - To mention of underscore only the weak or negative aspects/elements of an argument, product or practice and ignore the strong points.
    • - Goes after the naturally weaker opponent, argument, product and position. Level 20 vs level 2.
  21. Define the fallacious category : False Dilemma
    - When forces to choose between two UNDESIRABLE alternatives.
  22. Define the fallacious category : Either Or Fallacy
    • - when two options are given and one option is considered undesirable, so the other option is taken. 
    • P v Q
    • ~ P 
    • Q
  23. What are the 2 ways we can refute a false dilemma and an either or fallacy?
    • - 1. Going between the horns : saying that there's at least a 3rd alternative. Attacks the 1st premise.
    • - 2. Grasping the horns : challenging one or more of the remaining premises. Attacks the 2nd premise.
  24. Define the fallacious category : Begging the question
    • - To leave the issue/question at hand unaddressed. Leaves it unanswered. 
    • - 1. Using the same proposition as both the premise and conclusion. Being redundant, but using different words.
    • - 2. To use a premise where truth presupposes or requires that we already know the truth of the conclusion. (Circular Reasoning)
    • - 3. Evading the issue (explained @ next slide)
  25. Define the fallacious category : Evading the Issue
    - Technically answers the question, but still evades the issue.
  26. Define the fallacious category : Questionable Premise
    - when a premise that is not believable is spotted in an argument and none of these more specific labels apply.
  27. Define the fallacious category : Suppressed Evidence
    • - Failing to bring relevant evidence to bear on an argument. 
    • Example : advocates on both sides of the debates about the merits of "three strikes, and you're out" laws who slight sensible arguments and objections of their opponents"
  28. Define the fallacious category : Tokenism
    - Accepting a token gesture in lieu of the real thing.
  29. Define the fallacious category : Ad Hominem
    - of attacking his opponent rather than his opponent's evidence and arguments.

    • P : Person A makes Claim X
    • P : Person B makes an attack on person A.
    • Con : Therefore, A's claim is false.
  30. Define the fallacious category : Guilt by Association
    - a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    • P: It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
    • Con : Therefore P is false
  31. Define the fallacious category : Two Wrongs make a Right.
    - Those who try to justify a wrong by pointing to a similar wrong perpetrated by others. "Tu Quoque"

    • P: It is claimed the person B would do X to person A.
    • Con : It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B.
  32. Define the fallacious category : Common Practice
    - Committed when a wrong is justified on the grounds that one other person or group, but rather lots of, or most, or even all other do the same sort of thing. 

    • P :X is a common action.
    • Con : Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

    P :
  33. Define the fallacious category : Traditional Wisdom
    - When a wrong or an unsuitable practice is justified on grounds that it follows a traditional or accepted way of doing things.

    • P : X is old or traditional
    • Con : Therefore X is correct or better.
  34. Define the fallacious category : Irrelevant Reason (Non Sequitur)
    - "It dos not follow" refer to reasons or premises that are irrelevant to a conclusion when the error doesn't fit a narrower fallacy category such as ad hominem or two wrongs don't make a right.

    Doesn't fall on both ad hominem or two wrongs make a right.
  35. Define the fallacious category : Equivocation
    - an argument when used to mean one thing in one place and another thing in another.
  36. Define the fallacious category : Appeal to Ignorance
    • - Taking the absence of evidence, and thus absence of refutation, as justification for believing that it's true.
    • "your inability to show that I'm right proves that I'm right."
  37. Define the fallacious category : Composition
    - committed when someone assumes that a particular item myst have a certain property because all of its parts have that property. 

    ex : Moving from part (P) to whole (Con).

    • P : Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C etc.
    • Con : Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
  38. Define the fallacious category : Division
    - committed when we assume that all of the parts of an item have a particular property because the item as a whole has it. 

    ex : Moving from whole (P) to parts (Con)

    • P: The whole, X, has properties A, B, C, etc.
    • Con : Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C, etc.
  39. Define the fallacious category : Slippery Slope
    - Committed when one assumes without proof or further justification that the occurrence of an event or action will lead through a series of connections to an inevitable conclusion.
  40. Define the fallacious category : Hasty Conclusion
    - committed when we accept a conclusion based upon evidence that, while relevant to the conclusion, is not sufficient by itself to warrant acceptance of the conclusion. Reasons are relevant, but not enough.
  41. Define the fallacious category : Small Sample
    - Drawing conclusions about a population on the basis of a sample that is too small to be reliable measure of that population.
  42. Define the fallacious category : Unrepresentative Sample
    - when we reason from a sample that isn’t sufficiently representative. Also known as biased statistics.

    Example : Using chimps, gorillas, lemurs, tarsiers and so forth is not representative of all Homo sapiens.
  43. Define the fallacious category : Questionable cause
    there are three branches. explain.
    • - labeling A as the cause of B on evidence that is insufficient, negative, unrepresentative, or in serious conflict with well-established high-level theories.
    • 1. X caused Y
    • 2. Y caused X
    • 3. X and Y are both the effects of a common cause, Z.

    • • Guilt of confusing cause and effect 
    • • Guilt of neglecting a common cause
    • • Guilt of post HOC reasoning. “after this, therefore before this.”
  44. Define the fallacious category : Questionable Analogy
    - when we conclude the from the observed similarity of two or more items in some respects to their similarity in another. a.k.a faulty comparison.

    *don't forget to mention how/why it's a questionable analogy and include a reason.*
  45. Define the fallacious category : Questionable statistics
    • - perfectly good statistics that are questionable without further support.
    • - You question where these statistics are from.
  46. Define the fallacious category : Questionable uses of good statistics
    • - taking good statistics and manipulating it.
    • Troubling in two reasons :
    • 1.) inability of so many people to understand the significance of this statistic.
    • 2.) ability to bamboozle the rest of us.
  47. Define the fallacious category : Polls. How can they be misleading?
    • - Polls can be misleading because of...
    • 1. The way in which a question is asked influences the answers.
    • 2. They ask the wrong questions.
    • 3. Respondents don’t want to appear ignorant.
  48. Define the fallacious category : False charge of fallacy
    The temptation to charge inconsistency, but making a given statement at one time and one that contradicts it at a later time does not indicate inconsistency; we may have, and express, good grounds of changing our minds. 

    example : “I used to believe that women are not as creative as men, because most of the intellectually productive people I knew about were men; but i’ve changed my mind. 

    There can also be false charge of fallacy against analogy. When we accuse someone of perpetrating a questionable analogy, when their intent is not to prove something, but merely, via analogy, to explain it.
Card Set:
2014-08-06 18:07:38

Show Answers: