Ch. 8, 9, 10, & 11 Flashcards
Hasty Generalization
jumping to a conclusion
Transfer
extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible
Fallacy of composition
when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole
Fallacy of division
what is true of the whole will be true of its parts
Fallacy of refutation
Straw Man Argument
Mischaracterization and rebuttal of the argument
setting other person up for failure
Non sequiturs
Does not follow logically
Post Hoc
Does not follow temporally
Circular Reasoning
a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Simple evasion
changing the subject for no apparent reason, or bypassing a critical issue, diverts attention from the issues central to the argument
Ad hominem argument
Attacking the person not the argument (personal attack)
Shifting ground/ Moving the goalpost
Occurs when an arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one
Seizing on a trivial point
When you locate another’s weak or indefensible argument and magnify it out of all proportion to discredit his entire position on the proposition
Forcing a Dichotomy (false Dilemma)
Choice a or choice b” but there can be more than two options
Slippery Slope
If a, then B, C, D, E, F, G
Red Herring
something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting
Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignoratium argument)
ask the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny its validity Example: is god real or not?
Appeal to the People (ad populum argument
jumping on the bandwagon/ ask an audience to accept a claim because it is supported by majority opinion
Appeal to Emotion
pity and fear
Appeal to Authority
encourage reliance on some ultimate source of knowledge in place of reasoning as the basis of a claim
Appeal to Humor
either fail to make a serious point or reduce another’s claim to its most absurd level
Reduction ad absurdum
absurd meaning
Appeal to Tradition
ask an audience to accept a claim because it represents a customary belief or course of action
Ambiguity
unclear/ occurs when a term is used in legitimate but different senses by two or more persons involved in argumentation
Equivocation
more than just one meaning/ occurs when an individual uses a term in different ways in the context of the same argument.
Emotionally Loaded Language
generates an emotional response/ becomes a problem when we use terms that show more about our feelings on the issues tan about the rational basis from which those feelings derive or when we use emotion as the sole means to alter the belief or behavior of others
Technical Jargon
words audience does not understand/ becomes a problem when the audience is overwhelmed with too many new terms or when it is used to impress the audience or replace sound reasoning
Effect arguments
forces on one or more units of argument that call the audience’s attention to the results, outcome, or consequences of the relationship alleged by the proposition of fact
Inherency arguments
often deals with attitudes
Preempting Opposing Arguments
Consider the proposition from the opponent’s perspective
Preemptive arguments
arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before he has a chance to raise them.
Core American values
Acceptance of diversity Belief in hard work and productivity Child-centeredness Community and charity Cooperation with other countries Hunger for common ground Individualism Patriotism Pragmatism and compromise
Pragmatism
desire to get things accomplished
Values in Conflict
Generational difference Value hierarchy differences Cultural differences Societal difference worldwide
Value change
events can influence what is valued at a particular point in time by a particular culture
Engines of change (societal values)
-New information is introduced -Political and ideological change -Erosion of a value – occurs when large numbers or people resist acting in accordance with a value -Change in the operating environment
Value redistribution
society adopts the value of a minority group that has successfully promoted a different way of attributing importance to that value
Value restandardization
the meaning of “quality of life” changes
Value implementation retargeting
the value itself has not undergone change; what has changed is the manner in which we pursue it
Defining the value object
By what value hierarchy is the object of the proposition best evaluated? By what criteria is the value object to be located within this hierarchy? Do indicators of the effect, significance, and inherence of the value object show that it conforms to the criteria?
Value hierarchy
complex set of attitudes and core values shared by members of a field or audience
Measuring the value object
Effect Significance Inherency
Opposing the proposition of value
Establishing strategy Examining definitions and hierarchy Challenging the criteria Refuting the measurement Argument in action
Advocating propositions of policy
Advocating the first stock issue- Is there a reason for change in a manner generally suggested by the policy proposition? -Identify the disparity What’s the nature of the disparity? How severe is the problem? -Quantify the disparity How extensive is the disparity? -Characterize the consequences Does this disparity harm to something or someone? -Establish inherency Is it inherent? -Advocating the second stock issue- Does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change? Change Mechanism Financing Enforcement -Advocating the third stock issue- what are the consequences of the proposed change? Demonstrate solvency Overcome inherency Establish workability Identify subsidiary effects -Argument in action
Opposing propositions of policy
-Establish strategy -Refute the reason for change Challenge inherency Minor repairs must be attainable within the foreseeable future Minor repair must be attainable without benefit of a structural or attitudinal change Minor repairs are subject to the same standards of proof, insofar as their solvency, inherency, and workability are concerned, as the policy proposed by the advocate. Minor repairs should not themselves be interpretable as a legitimate part of the policy proposition -Refute the consequence of change Question solvency- does is actually solve the problem? Identify barriers Dispute workability- time/costs. Will it be put into effect smoothly? Present disadvantages- treats people differently? Critique the proposal or proposition -Offer a counterproposal -Argument in action
jumping to a conclusion
Hasty Generalization
extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible
Transfer
when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole
Fallacy of composition
what is true of the whole will be true of its parts
Fallacy of division
Straw Man Argument
Fallacy of refutation
setting other person up for failure
Mischaracterization and rebuttal of the argument
Does not follow logically
Non sequiturs
Does not follow temporally
Post Hoc
a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Circular Reasoning
changing the subject for no apparent reason, or bypassing a critical issue, diverts attention from the issues central to the argument
Simple evasion
Attacking the person not the argument (personal attack)
Ad hominem argument
Occurs when an arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one
Shifting ground/ Moving the goalpost
When you locate another’s weak or indefensible argument and magnify it out of all proportion to discredit his entire position on the proposition
Seizing on a trivial point
Choice a or choice b” but there can be more than two options
Forcing a Dichotomy (false Dilemma)
If a, then B, C, D, E, F, G
Slippery Slope
something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting
Red Herring
ask the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny its validity Example: is god real or not?
Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignoratium argument)
jumping on the bandwagon/ ask an audience to accept a claim because it is supported by majority opinion
Appeal to the People (ad populum argument
pity and fear
Appeal to Emotion
encourage reliance on some ultimate source of knowledge in place of reasoning as the basis of a claim
Appeal to Authority
either fail to make a serious point or reduce another’s claim to its most absurd level
Appeal to Humor
absurd meaning
Reduction ad absurdum
ask an audience to accept a claim because it represents a customary belief or course of action
Appeal to Tradition
unclear/ occurs when a term is used in legitimate but different senses by two or more persons involved in argumentation
Ambiguity
more than just one meaning/ occurs when an individual uses a term in different ways in the context of the same argument.
Equivocation
generates an emotional response/ becomes a problem when we use terms that show more about our feelings on the issues tan about the rational basis from which those feelings derive or when we use emotion as the sole means to alter the belief or behavior of others
Emotionally Loaded Language
words audience does not understand/ becomes a problem when the audience is overwhelmed with too many new terms or when it is used to impress the audience or replace sound reasoning
Technical Jargon
forces on one or more units of argument that call the audience’s attention to the results, outcome, or consequences of the relationship alleged by the proposition of fact
Effect arguments
often deals with attitudes
Inherency arguments
Consider the proposition from the opponent’s perspective
Preempting Opposing Arguments
arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before he has a chance to raise them.
Preemptive arguments
Acceptance of diversity Belief in hard work and productivity Child-centeredness Community and charity Cooperation with other countries Hunger for common ground Individualism Patriotism Pragmatism and compromise
Core American values
desire to get things accomplished
Pragmatism
Generational difference Value hierarchy differences Cultural differences Societal difference worldwide
Values in Conflict
events can influence what is valued at a particular point in time by a particular culture
Value change
-New information is introduced -Political and ideological change -Erosion of a value – occurs when large numbers or people resist acting in accordance with a value -Change in the operating environment
Engines of change (societal values)
society adopts the value of a minority group that has successfully promoted a different way of attributing importance to that value
Value redistribution
the meaning of “quality of life” changes
Value restandardization
the value itself has not undergone change; what has changed is the manner in which we pursue it
Value implementation retargeting
By what value hierarchy is the object of the proposition best evaluated? By what criteria is the value object to be located within this hierarchy? Do indicators of the effect, significance, and inherence of the value object show that it conforms to the criteria?
Defining the value object
complex set of attitudes and core values shared by members of a field or audience
Value hierarchy
Effect Significance Inherency
Measuring the value object
Establishing strategy Examining definitions and hierarchy Challenging the criteria Refuting the measurement Argument in action
Opposing the proposition of value
Advocating the first stock issue- Is there a reason for change in a manner generally suggested by the policy proposition? -Identify the disparity What’s the nature of the disparity? How severe is the problem? -Quantify the disparity How extensive is the disparity? -Characterize the consequences Does this disparity harm to something or someone? -Establish inherency Is it inherent? -Advocating the second stock issue- Does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change? Change Mechanism Financing Enforcement -Advocating the third stock issue- what are the consequences of the proposed change? Demonstrate solvency Overcome inherency Establish workability Identify subsidiary effects -Argument in action
Advocating propositions of policy
-Establish strategy -Refute the reason for change Challenge inherency Minor repairs must be attainable within the foreseeable future Minor repair must be attainable without benefit of a structural or attitudinal change Minor repairs are subject to the same standards of proof, insofar as their solvency, inherency, and workability are concerned, as the policy proposed by the advocate. Minor repairs should not themselves be interpretable as a legitimate part of the policy proposition -Refute the consequence of change Question solvency- does is actually solve the problem? Identify barriers Dispute workability- time/costs. Will it be put into effect smoothly? Present disadvantages- treats people differently? Critique the proposal or proposition -Offer a counterproposal -Argument in action
Opposing propositions of policy
