ch.4 ARGUMENT FORMS, CRITICAL ANALYSIS, AND FALLACIES Flashcards

1
Q

Good arguments succeed at two things:

  1. _____
  2. _____

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

A
  1. ) They have TRUE PREMISES.

2. ) The premises LOGICALLY IMPLY the CONCLUSION.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

logical fallacy

A

A defective inference form.

Latin. “fallax” meaning deceptive.

Note: Be careful distinguishing this from actually false assertions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Other terms for FALLACY…

A

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”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

The 2 basic types of LOGICAL FALLACY:

A
  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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

FORMAL FALLACIES

Ff ~ ded.

A

Mistaken inferences in Deductive arguments.

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

excluded middle [Ff]

A

Key word: “so”

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

affirming the consequent [Ff]

A

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”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Inf ~ Ind.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

3 qualities of a STRONG INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:

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

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

[Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?]

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Ad Baculum

A

(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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

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

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Ad Misericordiam

A

(Appeal to PITY)

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ignoratio Elenchi

A

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

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Accident

A

Applying a GENERAL RULE to an obvious reasonable exception.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ad Populum

A

(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.