Busy. Please wait.
or

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

taken
show password

why

Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.

By signing up, I agree to StudyStack's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the email address associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know (0)
Know (0)
remaining cards (0)
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Logical Fallacies AP

LCHS Woodard AP Logical Fallacy terms

Logical Fallacies AP WoodardLogical Fallacies AP Woodard
Fallacy defect in an argument which causes it to be invalid, unsound, or weak
ad misericordia appeal to pity, a statement designed to arouse pity rather that using a logical premise
ad ignorantium appeal to ignorance, concluded a proposition is true because it has not been proven false or that it is false because it has not been proven true.
appeal to traditional wisdom appeal based on previous actions
plain folks a speaker tries to win confidence and support by appearing to be just like the audience, the common man
ad hominem "against the man" appeal attacking a person or group, not the issue
ad populum "to the people" (bandwagon) conclues a proposition to be true because so many people believe it
double standard two comparable items are evaluated according to different standards
straw man selecting to refute opponents weakest argument, or concocting tenuous opposing arguments
red herring divert attention from important issues by selecting irrelevant issues to discuss
false analogy comparing two items that do not deserve comparison (opposite of double standard)
glittering generality emotionally appealing words closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs
equivocation (slanting) using ambiguous words/phrases/ideas and changing their meaning
oversimplification obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
false dilemma (either/or) stating two choices as the only alternatives
nonsequitur "it does not follow" conclusion is not a logical result of the facts
post hoc (ergo propter hoc) "after this" implying that because one event follows another, the 1st caused the second (chronology doesn't = causality)
hasty generalization drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence (leads to stereotypes)
begging the question premise is identical with the conlcusion
slippery slope one step will eventually lead to an undesirable second (or third, fourth, etc.) step