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
Argumentation
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is the current definition of a fallacy? | What are violations of the rules for critical discussion that prevent or hinder the resolution of a difference of opinion. |
| Who does the history of the study of fallacies begin with? | Aristotle begins the study of fallacies. True or false? |
| What is another word for sophism? | What is another word for fallacy? |
| What are sophistical refutations? | What deals with parologisms that are only apparent refutations? |
| Aristotle divides the incorrect or false refutations that can be used in a dialectical context in 2 groups. What are they? | "In Diction" and "Extra Dictionem" are what? |
| Until recently, this is an argument that seems valid but is not. What is this a definition of? | What is the old definition of a fallacy? |
| What word describes Sophistical refutations that are dependent on language> | What is "In diction" |
| Accent, Form of expression, Combination of Words, Division of words, Equivocation, and Amphiboly are all forms of what? | What are the 6 types of fallacies that are dependent on language and may ocurr in ordinary colloquial language? |
| Finish this example of ambiguity: (1) Some dogs have fuzzy ears. (2) My dog has fuzzy ears. Therefore (3) | What is this an example of: (1) Some dogs have fuzzy ears (2) My dog has fuzzy ears. Therefore (3) My dog is some dog. |
| What is Extra Dictionem? | What word describes Sophistical refutations independent of language. |
| What are the fallacies that are independent of language that are divided into 7 types, all of which could also occur if the language were perfect? | Are these 7 fallacies dependent or independent on language: accidens, Seccundum quid, (affirming the) consequent, non-cause as cause, petition principia, ignoratio clenchi (or "ignorance of refutation), many questions |
| What fallacy is a fallacy because of the application of a general rule (without modification) to a specific case in which ACCIDENTAL circumstances render it inapplicable? | What is the accidens fallacy? |
| What are false appearances that are imposed upon words, which are framed and applied according to conceit and capacities of the vulgar sort. | What are Idols of the marketplace according to Aristotle? |
| What is a category of arguments first distinguished by the seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke. | What are Ad fallacies? |
| Give an example of the accidens fallacy. | What is this an example of: Member of Parliament Gibels is entitled to publish the contents of his conversation with the queen, since in Holland we have freedom of speech. |
| What is argumentum ad hominem? | What is the name of the fallacy that refers to attacking the opponent personally, instead of responding to his or her actual argument in support of a standpoint? |
| This relates to the closure rule. Nowadays, this it is regarded as a fallacious appeal to ignorance or lack of proof. On the basis that the observed fact that something has not been proven not to be the case, it is concluded that it is the case. | What is Argumentum ad ingorantiam? It relates to rule 9: A failed defense of a standpoint must relate in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts. |
| What is Argumentum ad verecundiam? | This fallacy is often used to refer to a fallacy that involves an incorrect appeal to an authority. What is it? |
| Who defines a fallacy as any argument or apparent argument which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not. | How does Richard Whatley define a fallacy? |
| Depicting someone as stupid (the "abusive" vairant) or indirectly by casting suspicion on the opponent’s motives (circumstantial variant) or pointing out a contradiction in the other party’s words or deeds (tu quoque – you too! –variant) are what? | What three things make up the argumentum ad hominem? |
| What fallacy is this an example of: (1) Are you still beating your wife? (2) When did you stop beating your wife? The person who answers question (1) with a simple Yes or No, thereby admits being, or having been, in the habit of beating his wife. | What is the Many Questions fallacy? |
| What is another name for Petition principia or Begging the question? | What's another name for Circular Reasoning? |
| What is the Non Sequitur fallacy? | What fallacy is similar to ignoratio, arguments that are used and the conclusion that is drawn may themselves be correct, but the conclusion does not follow from the arguments? |
| What fallacy means that the arguer assumes that what needs to be proven has already been shown to hold. A simple example is: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God’s word.” | What is Circular reasoning? |
| What is an argument that does not address the thesis that happens to be the point at issue, but a different opinion attributed, to the other party regardless if it’s right or not? | What is Ignoratio elenchi fallacy? |
| What is another name for Argumentum ad baculum? | What is another name for argument of the stick? |
| What is a fallacy in which an unjustified appeal is made to the audience’s compassion in order to further one’s own interests?: • If you don’t improve my grade for this course I will lose my self-esteem and find it difficult to continue with my life. | Describe the Argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy. |
| What is another name for the "pity argument" fallacy? | What is another name for the argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy? |
| What fallacy is the appeal of force? | Desribe the argumentum ad baculum (argument of the stick) fallacy. |
| What is the consequentiam fallacy and give another name for it? | What fallacy is (“consequence-directed argument” or “wishful thinking”) when a specific favorable or unfavorable light is cast on a factual thesis just by pointing out its possible desirable or undesirable consequences? |
| What is another name for the populist fallacy? | What is another name for the Argumentum ad populum fallacy? |
| What is the straw man fallacy? | What is the fallacy of attributing a fictitious or distorted standpoint to another party that makes it easier to deal with? |
| What fallacy is an argument directed at the people..Sometimes referred to as “mob appeal” or as “snob appeal.” Appeals to the prejudices of a particular audience? | Describe the populist fallacy. |
| What is the composition fallacy? | What fallacy arises when characteristics of the parts are attributed to the whole in order to make a standpoint with respect to the whole acceptable? |
| What is the slippery slope fallacy? | What is a fallacy that is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, in which the speculation on unsubstantiated negative consequences of a proposed course is carried to an extreme.It wrongly suggests that a proposed course will go from bad to worse? |
| What fallacy is this an example of?: • All of the parts of the machine are light in weight, therefore the machine is too, light in weight. | Give an example of the composition fallacy. |
| What fallacy is this an example of: We use real butter, cream, and fresh lettuce, so our meals are delicious. | In the composition fallacy, you say: We use real butter, cream, and fresh lettuce, so ______________. |
| What rule is this?: No Party May Falsely Present a Premise as an Accepted Starting Point, or Deny a Premise Representing an Accepted Starting Point. What rule | What is Rule 6? |
| Wo Violates Rule 6 if he acts as though a certain proposition was accepted as a starting point when that is not the case. He may prevent his proposition from being attached by formulating inconspicuous topic that go unnoticed. | How can the protagonist violate Rule 6? |
| What rule is this: A Standpoint May Not Be Regarded as Conclusively Defended if the Defense Does Not Take Place by Means of an Appropriate Argument Scheme That is Correctly Applied | What is Rule 7? |
| How can the antagonist violate Rule 6? | Who is violating Rule 6, the antagonist or protagonist, if he questions either a proposition that was agreed on as a common starting point or one that the opposing party may rightly assume that he is to be committed to? |
| What is these an example of: • The machine is heavy, therefore all the parts of the machine are heavy. • The Catholic Church is a church for poor people; therefore the Catholic Church is poor. | Give an example of the division fallacy. |
| What stage of the argument do violations of Rule 7 occur? | Violations of Rule 7 occur during the argumentation stage. True or false? |
| What is a fallacy of hasty generalization? | What fallacy is generalizing the evidence of too few observations: Ex: After having spent our 1991 vacation in Cuba, we went there again in 1992, which shows that it’s a great place for tourists. |
| What fallacy is this: a proposition is presented as acceptable because some person or written source that is inappropriately presented as an authority says that it is so. | What is the Fallacy of abuse of authority? |
| What is another name for the Fallacy of abuse of authority? | What is another name for argumentum ad verecundiam? |
| What is another term for Fallacy of hasty generalization? | What is another term for Secundum Quid? |
| What is the standard treatment of fallacies? | What does this describe: the problem with “arguments” is that not all fallacies are arguments. “seems” has a sense of subjectivity. “Valid” referes to some system of logic. Something can be valid in one system and invalid in another. |
| What is Rule 1? (How does it threaten the resolution process of a difference of opinion? | What rule says that parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints. |
| Declaring the standpoint sacrosanct or not open to question and declaring the standpoint taboo are two ways to violate which rule? | There are two ways to violate rule 1. Listed are the examples of two words. What two words are they?: 1) "I’m going to have the kitchen remodeled. We can discuss style but not whether it will be done. 2) I don’t think you should speak ill of the dea |
| Which party/s violate Rule 1 and at what stage? | Which rule can the protagonist or the antagonist violate at the confrontation stage? |
| What fallacies fall under rule number 1 and describe each? | Which rule do these fallacies fall under: Ad baculum, ad misericordiam, ad hominem.? |
| What are the three parts to the argumentum ad hominem fallacy? | What fallacy does this fall under: abusive variant, circumstantial variant, and tu quoque? |
| What is the abusive variant and under which fallacy? | What is a direct personal attack on the other party under the ad hominem fallacy? |
| Under the argumentum ad hominem, what is the Circumstantial Variant? | What is this?: suspicion is cast on the other party’s motives, for example by suggesting that the party has a personal interest in the matter and is therefore biased. This is an indirect personal attack. |
| What is Tu quoque under the argumentum ad hominem? | What is the 'you also variant' and means pointing out a contradiction in that party’s words or deeds, for example, a contradiction between their opinions in the past and the present or between what they say and what they do. |
| What is Rule #2? | What rule says that party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so? |
| When I told Michael, “you can’t talk about Stephanie hiding secrets when you too are hiding the fact that my mom lost the house,” what is this an example of? | Give an example of the Tu Quoque. |
| What rule is violated when someone tries to get out of the obligations to defend a standpoint. | How does one violate Rule 2? |
| What is Rule #3 and how does it threaten the resolution process of a difference of opinion? Give an example of when this is done. | What rule is the standpoint rule? A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party. |
| What is Rule 4? Who violates this rule? What stage of argumentation is this rule violated? | What is the relevance rule? It means a party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint. |
| Who violates Rule 2 and at what stage? | What rule does the protagonist violate at the opening stage? |
| What fallacy/s fall under Rule #3 and explain it/them? | What rule does the fallacy of the straw man fall under? |
| What fallacy is when you try to escape the obligation to prove your standpoint by trying to get the other person to prove that it isn't so? | What is the 'shifting the burden of proof' fallacy? |
| What is a violation of rule 4 and defends a standpoint that is not the standpoint that caused the difference of opinion? | What is irrelevant argumentation? |
| Instead of putting forward argumentation to support the standpoint at issue, the protagonist plays on the emotions, sentiments or biases of the intended audience. (There is a fallacy that describes this as well, but what type of argumentation is this?) | What is non-argumentation? |
| What fallacy is when a person plays on the emotions of the audience? | What is the pathetic fallacy? |
| Which fallacy is when someone exaggerates the unexpressed premise, thereby making the standpoint easier to attack? | What is the 'magnifying what has been left unexpressed' fallacy? |
| What is the fallacy of 'denying an unexpressed premise?' | When the Protagonist violates Rule 5 by refusing to accept commitment to an unexpressed premise implied by their own defense, which fallacy are they committing? |
| "It isn't true because I don't want it to be true." Appealing inappropriately to a causal relation. The mistake of 'confusing facts with value judgments' fallacy. What fallacy is this? | What is the argumentum ad consequentiam ('confusing facts with value judgments) fallacy? |
| What fallacy says that two things compared must really be comparable and there must be no special circumstances that invalidate the comparison? This fallacy is Under Rule 7, the 'argument scheme rule.' | What is the fallacy of false analogy? What rule of critical discussion does this fallacy violate? |
| What is the validity Rule? | What is the short name for Rule #8 which says that The Reasoning in the Argumentation Must Be logically Valid or Must Be Capable of Being Made Valid by Making Explicit One or More Unexpressed Premises. |
| Give an example of the faulty reasoning: 'affirming the consequent." What Rule of critical discussion does this violate? | In the Validity Rule (Rule 8), what type of faulty reasoning is this an example of?: If you eat spoiled fish (antecedent) you get sick. (consequent). Anne is sick. (affirmation of the consequent) Anne has eaten spoiled fish. |
| Give an example of the faulty reasoning: 'denying the antecedent.' What Rule of critical discussion does this violate? | In Rule 8 (the Validity Rule), what type of faulty reasoning is this?: If you eat spoiled fish (antecedent) you get sick. (consequent) Anne hasn't eaten any spoiled fish. (denial of the antecedent) Therefore Anne is not sick. |
| What is the Closure Rule? | What is the short name for Rule 9, which says that A Failed Defense of a Standpoint Must Result in the Protagonist Retracting the Standpoint, and a Successful Defense of a Standpoint Must Result in the Antagonist Retracting His or Her Doubts? |
| What is the 'fallacy of refusing to retract a standpoint that has not been successfully defended?' | What fallacy is a violation of Rule 9 because the protagonist does not give up his standpoint after he has not successfully defended it. |
| What fallacy is a violation of Rule 9 because the antagonist does not retract his criticism of the protagonist's standpoint, even though the protagonist has succeeded at defending his standpoint? | What is the fallacy of refusing to retract criticism of a standpoint that has been successfully defended? What Rule is it under? |
| What is the fallacy of concluding that a standpoint is true because it has been defended successfully? What Rule of critical discussion does this violate? | When protagonists conclude that their standpoint is factual on the basis that they were successful at defending their standpoint, what fallacy are they committing? |
| What is argumentum ad ignorantiam? What Rule of critical discussion does this fallacy violate? | Under the Closure Rule, what is another name for the fallacy of concluding that a standpoint is true because the opposite has not been successfully defended? |
| What is another way to commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy? | People assume that the standpoint adopted in relation to a proposition is either positive or negative. This ignores the possibility of a 'middle course,' that is, taking a neutral position with no standpoint. This is a second way to commit which fallacy? |
| What is the Usage Rule or Rule 10? | What is the short name for this rule: Parties Must Not Use Any Formulations That Are Insufficiently Clear or Confusingly Ambiguous, and They Must Interpret the Formulations of the Other Party as Carefully and Accurately as Possible. |
| Who violates the Usage Rule and at what stage or stages? | The protagonist or the antagonist can violate this rule at all stages. Which rule is this? |
| What is the fallacy of unclarity (or fallacy of ambiguity) and what Rule of critical discussion does it violate? | Any time a party makes use of unclear or ambiguous language to improve his or her own position in the discussion, they are guilty of what fallacy? |
| What is a subcategory of the fallacy of ambiguity in the Usage Rule... It results from illogical order, lack of coherence, obscure structure, etc.? | What is the 'structural unclarity at the textual level' fallacy? What rule of critical discussion does it violate? |
| In regards to rhetoric, these are the three subcategories of what?: Topical potential, adaption to audience, and presentation. | What are the three subcategories of Strategic Maneuvering? |
| What is strategic Maneuvering? | The pragma-dialectical analysis of discourse assumes that parties engaged in discourse want to resolve a difference of opinion and expect each other to comply. But, the discourse knows people want it to be in their favor.What's this describe? |
| In regards to rhetoric, what is dialectical criticism aimed at preventing? | What, in regards to rhetoric, is aimed at preventing arguments from being accepted as reasonable when they are not? |
| What is Topical Potential and what is it a subcategory of? | What is one of the ways that strategic maneuvering manifests itself by making an expedient choice, in the confrontation stage, by selecting the issue that is to be discussed from the available disagreement space? |
| What does this describe: opportunities available in a certain dialectical situation are used to handle that situation most favorably for the speaker or writer. | Describe Strategic Maneuvering. |
| What is Adaptation to Audience Demand? | What consists, in the confrontation stage, of putting the topics of the discussion in a perspective which is expected to appeal to the public? |
| What stage of the discussion does Adaptation to Audience Demand occur? | What occurs during the confrontation stage and a person puts the topics of the discussion in a perspective which is expected to appeal to the public? |
| What is Adaptation to Audience Demand a subcategory of? | There are three subcategories to Strategic Maneuvering. There is The Presentational Devices, Topical potential, and...? |
| What are Presentational Devices? | Once you've determined what to talk about (topical potential) and how to adapt to your audience, you can now see what the best way of presenting your argument. What is this? |
| What is the fallacy of evading the burden of proof? Which rule does it break and why? | What fallacy is committed when the protagonist presents the standpoint as something that is self-evident? This breaks Rule 2: The burden of proof rule. |
| What is precization? (pg. 174) Hint: this involves definitions. | What means, in oral argumentation: considering various possible interpretations of a statement and then choosing one of them? |
| What is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc? | What fallacy is when a cause-and-effect relation is based on no more than the fact that the one thing preceded the other? Ex: a soccer coach suggests that the rise in ticket sales was due to his taking on the job. |
| What rule does these fallacies break: fallacy of false analogy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, slippery slope? | What fallacies fall under Rule 7, the Argument Scheme rule? |
| Name one argument scheme (this is in relation to Rule 7, the argument scheme rule)? | What type of scheme is a causal scheme? |
| If you sneeze (antecedent), then you hurt your eyes (consequent). John's eyes are hurting. Therefore he sneezed. What is this? | Give an example of affirming the consequent. |
| If you eat pizza (antecedent), you get pimples (consequent). I didn't eat any pizza (denial of the antecedent). So I don't have pimples. | Describe denying the antecedent by using an example. |
| What are the 3 argument schemes? | Arguments based on analogy, causal relation, or symptomatic relation are the 3 types of what? |
| What is an argumentative technique that reinterprets and redefines the situation in such a way that the position of the speaker is presented in the most favorable way, and at the same time, it saves the speaker from accusations of inconsistency? | What is dissociation? |
| What is the difference between these two fallacies?: Shifting the Burden of Proof and Evading the Burden of Proof. | What fallacy is when the protagonist makes the person who is criticizing his standpoint prove his standpoint. What fallacy is when the protagonist presents the standpoint as something that is self-evident. |
| When the protagonist gives a personal guarantee for the correctness of his standpoint: "I can assure you that..." "You can take if from me that.." "Essentially, the Frenchman is intolerant." What fallacy? | Give examples of how the protagonist can evade the burden of proof. This is different from shifting the burden of proof. |
| How is the Populist fallacy similar to the Straw Man fallacy? | Some number is used for two fallacies: which ones? |
| Under the Irrelevant Argumentation, what is another sub-category fallacy that falls under Irrelevant Argumentation? | What is the ignoratio elenchi fallacy a sub-category of (it's a sub-category of another fallacy)? |
| What is the Pathetic Fallacy a sub-category of (it's a sub-category of another fallacy). | What fallacy is a sub-category of non-argumentation? |
| What is the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary opinion? | If the 10 rules are necessary conditions to resolve the diff of opinion then you'd resolve the diff if you don't break the rules. If they are also sufficient, then following the rules always resolves the diff of opin, which is not the case. |
| In the Crucial Concepts book, it says that these are deficient moves in argumentative discourse. What does this describe? | How does the Crucial Concepts Book describe fallacies? |
| What was Locke UNCLEAR about in regards to his ad fallacies? | Who was unclear about the fact that the ad fallacies were or were not fallicious arguments. |
| What does fallacy theory deal with? | What deals exclusively with errors in reasoning instead of deceptive maneuvers made by a party who tries to outwit the other party? |
| With respect to many questions fallacy, who says this and what are they referring to, "a man who asks a misleading question can hardly be said to have argued, validly or invalidly. Where are his premises and what is his conclusion?" | Explain what Hamblin says about the standard treatment of fallacies with respect to the many questions fallacy. |
| What are ubiquitous in deliberative thinking, in decision-making and in arguing in all spheres of life? | What are dichotomies? |
| Which text addresses the variation in the judgments concerning the reasonableness of arguments across cultures? | What does the text "Pragmatic Inference and Argumentation In Intercultural Communication" address? |
| Variation in the judgments concerning the reasonableness of arguments across cultures represents a key issue in intercultural communication and at the same time, has been taken as an argument for what? | What represents a key issue in intercultural communication and at the same time has been taken as an argument for logical relativism? |
| What two strategies are suggested when investigating the differences in judgments on the acceptability and reasonableness of arguments that different cultures use different logics and adopt different reasoning standards? | What are these 2 strategies: to look 4 them "below" the logic, in the grounding of enthymematic argument in the endoxa, and "above" logic, in the functioning of the dialogue games in which argumentation appears and in their embedding in social context. |
| What plays a central role in providing a more accurate reconstruction of argumentative processes in regards to cross-cultural variations. | What does pragmatics play a central role in providing for cross-cultural variations? |
| It has been frequently observed that these differ across cultures, and evaluative judgments concerning the logical soundness, acceptability, reasonableness or persuasiveness of argumentation produced by people belonging to other cultures vary accordingly. | Explain argumentation strategies |
| How did Robert Kaplan illustrate the different cultural thought patterns? | Who illustrated the different cultural thought patterns by a series of geometric metaphors: the straight arrow (English thought pattern), the spiral (Oriental), zigzags (Roman) parallel lines (Semitic). |
| Who has been criticized for the ethnocentric bias implied in representing the English text organization as a straight line (a bias that this person even readily admits)? | What was Robert Kaplan criticized for? |
| What is Ordo-Naturalis? | If one considers the temporal and causal ordering of the events reported by Kaplan's text, a linear text would be one that proceeds from earlier events to later events, and from causes to effects. What does the rhetorical-literary tradition calls it? |
| What places the minor points of the argument first (typically the Chinese pattern) and then derives the main point as a conclusion from these arguments? | Describe the inductive pattern. |
| Describe the deductive pattern. | What is typically more Western, in which a topic is introduced at the beginning of a discourse, and then the minor or supporting arguments are presented afterwards? |
| What is a syllogism whose deductive structure is only partially manifest--an incomplete syllogism? | What is an enthymeme? |
| It has been frequently observed that argumentation strategies differ across cultures, and evaluative judgments concerning what four things? These are produced by people belonging to other cultures and vary. | What do these four things relate to?: logical soundness, acceptability, reasonableness or persuasiveness of argumentation. |
| Describe the inductive pattern. | What pattern is this, the inductive or deductive?: it places the minor points of the argument first and then derives the main point as a conclusion from these arguments (Chinese pattern of speaking english). |
| Which pattern introduces a topic at the beginning of a discourse, and then the minor or supporting arguments are presented afterwards? | Describe the deductive pattern. |
| What is a division or contrast between 2 things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different? | What is a dichotomy? |
| What are characterized by their combative nature? | True or false, are dichotomies combative in nature? |
| What is balancing dialectical reasonableness with rhetorical effectiveness (reasonably resolving a difference of opinion in your favour) | In strategic maneuvering, what are you trying to balance? |
| What is another name for ignoratio elenchi? (what is another name for this fallacy) | What is another name for this fallacy: fallacy of irrelevant argumentation? |
| What is another name for this fallacy: the fallacy of playing on the sentiments of the audience? | What is another name for the pathetic fallacy? |
| What is another name for this fallacy: the fallacy of parading one's own qualities? | What is another name, OTHER THAN the vericundiam, for the ethical fallacy of abuse of authority? |
| Is the populist fallacy a symptomatic, causal, or analogy. | What fallacy is a symptomatic relation and deals with the public? |
| Is there a fallacy called "fallacy of denying the antecedent?" | Is there a fallacy called "fallacy of affirming the consequent?" |
| Is there a fallacy of division? | Is there a fallacy of composition? |
| Explain how the Evading the Burden of Proof fallacy and the Declaring a Standpoint Sacrosanct are closely related. | What fallacies are related because one pretends as if the standpoint is self-evident, while similarly, the other acts as if the standpoint is not open to question? Both of these fallacies are attempting to shield the person from being attacked. |
| When you take the test, what should you be particularly concentrating on when you evaluate the soundness of the argumentation? | Why should you be aware of unexpressed elements when taking the test? |
| What is the Equivocation fallacy? | What is another way to say the fallacy of ambiguity? |
Created by:
trechy2002
Popular Miscellaneous sets