Ch. 8, 9, 10, & 11 Flashcards
1
Q
Hasty Generalization
A
jumping to a conclusion
2
Q
Transfer
A
extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible
3
Q
Fallacy of composition
A
when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole
4
Q
Fallacy of division
A
what is true of the whole will be true of its parts
5
Q
Fallacy of refutation
A
Straw Man Argument
6
Q
Mischaracterization and rebuttal of the argument
A
setting other person up for failure
7
Q
Non sequiturs
A
Does not follow logically
8
Q
Post Hoc
A
Does not follow temporally
9
Q
Circular Reasoning
A
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.
10
Q
Simple evasion
A
changing the subject for no apparent reason, or bypassing a critical issue, diverts attention from the issues central to the argument
11
Q
Ad hominem argument
A
Attacking the person not the argument (personal attack)
12
Q
Shifting ground/ Moving the goalpost
A
Occurs when an arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one
13
Q
Seizing on a trivial point
A
When you locate another’s weak or indefensible argument and magnify it out of all proportion to discredit his entire position on the proposition
14
Q
Forcing a Dichotomy (false Dilemma)
A
Choice a or choice b” but there can be more than two options
15
Q
Slippery Slope
A
If a, then B, C, D, E, F, G
16
Q
Red Herring
A
something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting
17
Q
Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignoratium argument)
A
ask the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny its validity Example: is god real or not?
18
Q
Appeal to the People (ad populum argument
A
jumping on the bandwagon/ ask an audience to accept a claim because it is supported by majority opinion
19
Q
Appeal to Emotion
A
pity and fear
20
Q
Appeal to Authority
A
encourage reliance on some ultimate source of knowledge in place of reasoning as the basis of a claim
21
Q
Appeal to Humor
A
either fail to make a serious point or reduce another’s claim to its most absurd level
22
Q
Reduction ad absurdum
A
absurd meaning
23
Q
Appeal to Tradition
A
ask an audience to accept a claim because it represents a customary belief or course of action
24
Q
Ambiguity
A
unclear/ occurs when a term is used in legitimate but different senses by two or more persons involved in argumentation
25
Equivocation
more than just one meaning/ occurs when an individual uses a term in different ways in the context of the same argument.
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
Inherency arguments
often deals with attitudes
30
Preempting Opposing Arguments
Consider the proposition from the opponent’s perspective
31
Preemptive arguments
arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before he has a chance to raise them.
32
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
33
Pragmatism
desire to get things accomplished
34
Values in Conflict
Generational difference Value hierarchy differences Cultural differences Societal difference worldwide
35
Value change
events can influence what is valued at a particular point in time by a particular culture
36
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
37
Value redistribution
society adopts the value of a minority group that has successfully promoted a different way of attributing importance to that value
38
Value restandardization
the meaning of “quality of life” changes
39
Value implementation retargeting
the value itself has not undergone change; what has changed is the manner in which we pursue it
40
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?
41
Value hierarchy
complex set of attitudes and core values shared by members of a field or audience
42
Measuring the value object
Effect Significance Inherency
43
Opposing the proposition of value
Establishing strategy Examining definitions and hierarchy Challenging the criteria Refuting the measurement Argument in action
44
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
45
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
46
jumping to a conclusion
Hasty Generalization
47
extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible
Transfer
48
when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole
Fallacy of composition
49
what is true of the whole will be true of its parts
Fallacy of division
50
Straw Man Argument
Fallacy of refutation
51
setting other person up for failure
Mischaracterization and rebuttal of the argument
52
Does not follow logically
Non sequiturs
53
Does not follow temporally
Post Hoc
54
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
55
changing the subject for no apparent reason, or bypassing a critical issue, diverts attention from the issues central to the argument
Simple evasion
56
Attacking the person not the argument (personal attack)
Ad hominem argument
57
Occurs when an arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one
Shifting ground/ Moving the goalpost
58
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
59
Choice a or choice b” but there can be more than two options
Forcing a Dichotomy (false Dilemma)
60
If a, then B, C, D, E, F, G
Slippery Slope
61
something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting
Red Herring
62
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)
63
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
64
pity and fear
Appeal to Emotion
65
encourage reliance on some ultimate source of knowledge in place of reasoning as the basis of a claim
Appeal to Authority
66
either fail to make a serious point or reduce another’s claim to its most absurd level
Appeal to Humor
67
absurd meaning
Reduction ad absurdum
68
ask an audience to accept a claim because it represents a customary belief or course of action
Appeal to Tradition
69
unclear/ occurs when a term is used in legitimate but different senses by two or more persons involved in argumentation
Ambiguity
70
more than just one meaning/ occurs when an individual uses a term in different ways in the context of the same argument.
Equivocation
71
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
72
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
73
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
74
often deals with attitudes
Inherency arguments
75
Consider the proposition from the opponent’s perspective
Preempting Opposing Arguments
76
arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before he has a chance to raise them.
Preemptive arguments
77
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
78
desire to get things accomplished
Pragmatism
79
Generational difference Value hierarchy differences Cultural differences Societal difference worldwide
Values in Conflict
80
events can influence what is valued at a particular point in time by a particular culture
Value change
81
-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)
82
society adopts the value of a minority group that has successfully promoted a different way of attributing importance to that value
Value redistribution
83
the meaning of “quality of life” changes
Value restandardization
84
the value itself has not undergone change; what has changed is the manner in which we pursue it
Value implementation retargeting
85
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
86
complex set of attitudes and core values shared by members of a field or audience
Value hierarchy
87
Effect Significance Inherency
Measuring the value object
88
Establishing strategy Examining definitions and hierarchy Challenging the criteria Refuting the measurement Argument in action
Opposing the proposition of value
89
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
90
-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
