ch.4 ARGUMENT FORMS, CRITICAL ANALYSIS, AND FALLACIES

Question 1

Good arguments succeed at two things:

1. _____
2. _____

Bad arguments fail in one or both of those two ways.

Answer 1

1. ) They have TRUE PREMISES.

2. ) The premises LOGICALLY IMPLY the CONCLUSION.

Question 1

logical fallacy

Answer 1

A defective inference form.

Latin. “fallax” meaning deceptive.

Note: Be careful distinguishing this from actually false assertions.

Question 2

Other terms for FALLACY…

Answer 2

Latin. “Fallax” meaning deceptive.

Greek. “Sophist” meaning a professional lawyer for winning arguments.

Latin. “Non sequitur” meaning the conclusion “does not follow” the premises.

Greek. “Paralogism”

Question 3

The 2 basic types of LOGICAL FALLACY:

Answer 3

1. ) FORMAL FALLACIES …eg. Affirming the consequent, Denying the antecedent, excluded middle.
2. ) INFORMAL FALLACIES …occupies one extreme of a spectrum:

         Fallacious--->Weak--->Strong--->Cogent

Question 4

FORMAL FALLACIES

Ff ~ ded.

Answer 4

Mistaken inferences in Deductive arguments.

eg. Affirming the consequent, Denying the antecedent, Excluded middle.

Question 5

excluded middle [Ff]

Answer 5

Key word: “so”

Ex: Some dogs are animals, and some animals are cats, SO some dogs are cats.

Question 6

affirming the consequent [Ff]

Answer 6

Taking the consequent of a conditional claim as implying the antecedent, when the reality is the other way around.

Ex: If interest rates go up, housing prices will go down, but housing prices have gone down, SO interest rates have gone up.

Key word: “so”

Question 7

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Inf ~ Ind.

Answer 7

Fallacies in INDUCTIVE arguments that REGARD the CONTENT.
Notice that you need to know something about the content**

Ex: Shortly after the President’s visit to California, a mud slide destroyed an entire neighborhood. This is another sign of the President’s failed leadership.

Question 8

3 qualities of a STRONG INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:

Answer 8

1. ) Premises RELEVANT to conclusion.
2. ) Premises SUFFICIENT PROOF for conclusion.
3. ) Premises UNAMBIGUOUS.

Bonus: To be cogent, all premises must be true.

Question 9

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

[Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?]

Answer 9

The premises of an argument are emotionally, psychologically, or rhetorically related to the conclusion, BUT THEY DO NOT MAKE THE CONCLUSION MORE LIKELY.

Note: When there is relevance, the argument is not fallacious.

Question 10

Ad Baculum

Answer 10

(Appeal to force)

Violence or sanction of some kind is threatened in order to elicit belief or assent to some proposition.

Note: Be careful to distinguish an appeal to force from a simple non-argumentative threat.

Question 11

There are 5 FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE that argue directly for a particular conclusion….

Answer 11

1* ad Baculum ________ force

2* ad misericordiam ________ pity

3* ignoratio elenchi ________ baby bath water

4* Accident ________ general rule

5* ad populum ________ people or elite snobbery

Question 12

Ad Misericordiam

Answer 12

(Appeal to PITY)

Pity is used in order to elicit assent to some proposition.

Question 13

Ignoratio Elenchi

Answer 13

(Baby-with-the-bath-water fallacy)

Drawing a completely unwarranted and usually EXTREME CONCLUSION FROM UNSUPPORTIVE PREMISES.

Question 14

Accident

Answer 14

Applying a GENERAL RULE to an obvious reasonable exception.

Question 15

Ad Populum

Answer 15

(Appeal to THE PEOPLE)

2 forms:

• the BANDWAGON argument- makes an appeal to the sheer number of people who agree with some position, when such agreement is irrelevant.
• the appeal to SNOBBERY- appeals to the support of an elite or selective group of people rather than the masses, eventhough their support is irrelevant.