Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Logic Chapter 3 PPT
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Fallacy can be | formal or informal. |
| A fallacy that involves a mistake in reasoning is sometimes called a | non sequitur. |
| Formal Fallacies | Are fallacies that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument. |
| Categorical Syllogism Fallacy | Valid: All B are C All A are B :. All A are C |
| Formal Fallacy of Hypothetical Syllogism | If A then B A________ :.B |
| Formal Fallacies are only found in | arguments with identifiable forms: Categorical syllogism, Hypothetical syllogism and Disjunctive syllogism. |
| Formal Fallacy of Disjunctive Syllogism | Valid Forms A or B Not A :. B A or B Not B :.A |
| Informal Fallacies | Can only be found by looking at the content of the argument |
| Our text divide 22 informal fallacies into five groups: | Of relevance, Of weak induction, Of presumption, Of ambiguity, Of grammatical analogy |
| Fallacies of Relevance | Share the common characteristic that the argument in which they occur have premise that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet, the premise may appear to be psychologically relevant, so that the conclusion seems to follow. |
| Appeal to force. | Occurs when the arguer proposes a conclusion, and then tells the reader/listener either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to them if they don’t accept that conclusion. |
| Appeal to Pity | Occurs when the arguer attempts to support a conclusion merely by evoking pity from the reader/listener. |
| Appeal to the People | Uses the normal desires of loved, esteem, admired, valued, recognized and acceptance that everyone wants against the reader/listener either directly or indirectly to accept the conclusion. |
| Appeal to the People | A Direct Approach - Is often used by those who try to motivate a large crowd to accept their conclusion. |
| Appeal to the people | Indirect Approach - Is often directed to an individual, or one or more individuals, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd. |
| Argument against the Person | The arguer argues against the person not against the position that person is arguing for. These type of fallacies must have two arguers-the goal is to have the other seen in a bad light. |
| Tu quoque (you too) | Begins the same as the other variations but the second arguer attempt to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. (Pot calling the kettle black) |
| Accident | Is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. General rule is cited either directly or indirectly in the premise, then wrongly applied to a specific case in the conclusion. |
| Straw Man Fallacy | Occurs when the arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, and thus claims the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. |
| Missing the Point | This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn. |
| Red Herring | Is committed when the attention is diverted by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. |
| Fallacies of Weak Induction | Occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but because the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. |
| Appeal to Unqualified Authority | Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility. |
| Appeal to Ignorance | Occurs when the premises state that nothing has been proven one way or another about the topic but the conclusion makes a definite assertion/claim. |
| Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) | This fallacy affects inductive generalization, draws a conclusion about members of a group from evidences from a small sample group. Occurs when the sample is not representative of the whole group…either by being too small or not randomly selected. |
| Accident fallacy moves from general to particular. Converse Accident | moves from particular to general. |
| False Cause | Occurs when the link between the premise and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that does not exist. |
| False Cause-Gambler’s Fallacy | Occurs whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related. It is essential that the events be independent or nearly independent for this fallacy to exist. |
| Slippery Slope Fallacy | Occurs when the conclusion rests upon an alleged chain reaction but there is not sufficient reason to think the chain reaction will actually take place. |
| Fallacy of Weak Analogy | Is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion. |
| Fallacies of Presumption | Occur because the premises presume what they purport to prove, NOT because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion |
| Begging the Question | Committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that an inadequate premise provides adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possible false or shaky key premise. |
| Fallacy of Complex Question/Loaded Question | Occurs when two or more questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both questions. |
| Fallacy of False Dichotomy | Occurs when a disjunctive (either…or) premise present two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available. Thus the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion. |
| Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence | Occurs when the premise ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and thus give a very different conclusion. |
| Fallacies of Ambiguity | Occur when there is some form ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both) include Fallacies of Equivocation and Amphiboly. |
| Fallacy of Equivocation | Shifts of the meaning from one part of premise to mean something else in the rest of the argument. |
| Fallacy of Amphiboly | Occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on the faulty interpretation. |
| Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy | These type of fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect, includes Composition and Division |
| Fallacy of Composition | Is committed when it is argued that because parts have certain attributes, that it follows that the whole has those attributes as well. |
| Fallacy of Division | Committed when it is argued that because whole certain attributes, that it follows that the parts has the attributes as well. |
Created by:
rorossonera