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
ap lang units 2
vocabulary
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| ad hominem | Latin for “against the man,” this fallacy refers to the specific diversionary tactic of switching the argument from the issue at hand to the character of the other speaker |
| ad populum (bandwagon appeal) | This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to “everybody’s doing it, so it must be a good thing to do.” |
| appeal to false authority | This fallacy occurs when someone who has no expertise to speak on an issue is cited as an authority. A TV star, for instance, is not a medical expert, even though pharmaceutical advertisements often use celebrity endorsements. |
| argument | A process of reasoned inquiry; a persuasive discourse resulting in a coherent and considered movement from a claim to a conclusion. |
| assumption | See warrant |
| backing | In the Toulmin model, backing consists of further assurances or data without which the assumption lacks authority. For an example, see Toulmin model. |
| bandwagon appeal | See ad populum |
| begging the question | A fallacy in which a claim is based on evidence or support that is in doubt. It “begs” a question whether the support itself is sound. |
| circular reasoning | A fallacy in which the writer repeats the claim as a way to provide evidence. |
| claim | Also called an assertion or a proposition, a claim states the argument’s main idea or position. A claim differs from a topic or subject in that a claim has to be arguable. |
| claim of fact | A claim of fact asserts that something is true or not true |
| claim of policy | A claim of policy proposes a change |
| claim of value | A claim of value argues that something is good or bad, right or wrong. |
| classical oration | Five-part argument structure used by classical rhetoricians |
| introduction (exordium) | Introduces the reader to the subject under discussion. |
| narration (narratio) | Provides factual information and background material on the subject at hand or establishes why the subject is a problem that needs addressing. |
| confirmation (confirmatio) | Usually the major part of the text, the confirmation includes the proof needed to make the writer’s case. |
| refution (refutio) | Addresses the counterargument. It is a bridge between the writer’s proof and conclusion |
| conclusion (peroratio) | Brings the essay to a satisfying close |
| closed thesis | A closed thesis is a statement of the main idea of the argument that also previews the major points the writer intends to make. |
| deduction | Deduction is a logical process whereby one reaches a conclusion by starting with a general principle or universal truth (a major premise) and applying it to a specific case (a minor premise). |
| either/or (false dilemma) | A fallacy in which the speaker presents two extreme options as the only possible choices |
| fallacy | See logical fallacy |
| faulty analogy | A fallacy that occurs when an analogy compares two things that are not comparable. |
| first-hand evidence | Evidence based on something the writer knows, whether it’s from personal experience, observations, or general knowledge of events. |
| hasty generalization | Evidence based on something the writer knows, whether it’s from personal experience, observations, or general knowledge of events. |
| induction | Evidence based on something the writer knows, whether it’s from personal experience, observations, or general knowledge of events. |
| logical fallacy | Logical fallacies are potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in an argument. They often arise from a failure to make a logical connection between the claim and the evidence used to support it |
| open thesis | An open thesis is one that does not list all the points the writer intends to cover in an essay |
| post hoc ergo propter hoc | This fallacy is Latin for “after which therefore because of which,” meaning that it is incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier. |
| qualifier | In the Toulmin model, the qualifier uses words like usually, probably, maybe, in most cases, and most likely to temper the claim, making it less absolute. |
| quantitative evidence | Quantitative evidence includes things that can be measured, cited, counted, or otherwise represented in numbers — for instance, statistics, surveys, polls, census information |
| rebuttal | In the Toulmin model, a rebuttal gives voice to possible objections |
| reservation | In the Toulmin model, a reservation explains the terms and conditions necessitated by the qualifier. |
| Rogerian arguments | Rogerian arguments are based on the assumption that having a full understanding of an opposing position is essential to responding to it persuasively and refuting it in a way that is accommodating rather than alienating. |
| second-hand evidence | Evidence that is accessed through research, reading, and investigation. It includes factual and historical information, expert opinion, and quantitative data. |
| straw man | A fallacy that occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example in order to ridicule and refute an idea. |
| syllogism | A logical structure that uses the major premise and minor premise to reach a necessary conclusion. |
| Toulmin model | The Toulmin model can be stated as a template: Because (evidence as support), therefore (claim), since (warrant or assumption), on account of (backing), unless (reservation). |
| warrant | In the Toulmin model, the warrant expresses the assumption necessarily shared by the speaker and the audience. |
Created by:
luna013
Popular English Vocabulary sets