3.2 Terms

Question 1

fallacies of relevance

Answer 1

share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.

Question 2

appeal to force

Answer 2

occurs whenever an arguer presents a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion

Question 3

appeal to pity

Answer 3

occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

Question 4

appeal to the people

Answer 4

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others. The appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.

Question 5

Direct approach

Answer 5

occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion.

Question 6

the indirect approach

Answer 6

In the indirect approach of appeal to the people, the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of those individuals’ relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, the appeal to snobbery, and the appeal to tradition.

Question 7

Appeal to fear

Answer 7

An appeal to negative emotions can also generate a mob mentality. The appeal to fear, also known as fear mongering, is a variety of the direct form of the appeal to the people that occurs when an arguer trumps up a fear of something in the mind of the crowd and then uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion.

Question 8

bandwagon argument

Answer 8

Everybody believes such-and- such or does such-and-such; therefore, you should believe or do such-and-such, too.

Question 9

appeal to vanity

Answer 9

The appeal to vanity is another form of the indirect approach, and it often involves linking the love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of.

Question 10

appeal to snobbery

Answer 10

In the appeal to snobbery the crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way—more wealthy, more powerful, more culturally refined, more intelligent, and so on.

Question 11

appeal to tradition

Answer 11

another variety of the indirect appeal to the people. It occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for some conclusion.

Question 12

ad populum

Answer 12

You want to be accepted/included in the group/loved/esteemed. . . .Therefore, you should accept XYZ as true.

Question 13

argument against the person

Answer 13

the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person

Question 14

ad hominem abusive

Answer 14

the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person

Question 15

ad hominem circumstantial

Answer 15

begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously.

Question 16

tu quoque

Answer 16

The tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. The fallacy often takes the form, “How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself.

Question 17

fallacy of accident

Answer 17

committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion.

Question 18

straw man fallacy

Answer 18

committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real “man” (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well.

Question 19

Missing the point

Answer 19

illustrates a special form of irrelevance. This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument sup- port one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.

Question 20

Ignoratio elenchi

Answer 20

means “ignorance of the proof.” The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely.

Question 21

Red herring

Answer 21

The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one