Chapter 14 - Arguing Back Flashcards

1
Q

What is a full explanation when explaining the weakness in an argument?

A
  1. Explain the nature of the weakness we think we’ve identified
  2. Back up our diagnosis (reconstruct the argument, supply missing premises, identifying logical structure, etc.)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the method of counter-examples?

A

Presenting an exception to the generalization that shows that it should not be relied upon.

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

What type of arguments is the method of counter-examples limited to?

A

Those that rely upon a generalization in the premise that can be challenged as being unacceptable.

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

What is the method of absurd examples?

A

Constructing an argument that is parallel to the weak argument, but which has true or plausible premises and an obviously false or absurd conclusion.

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

What is the structure of an absurd example argument?

A

All As are Bs.
All Cs are Bs.
Therefore, all As are Cs.

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

When are absurd examples effective?

A

When they are closely similar to the original argument. The similarity must always involve and identical structure, but it often involves similarity of content as well.

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

What is the main drawback to the absurd example method?

A

It is often difficult to invent a good absurd example on the spur of the moment.

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

What is the greatest strength of the absurd example method?

A

Dilemma: either accept our absurd conclusion, or admit that their argument fails to support their conclusion.

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

What is a counter-argument?

A

Attempts to show that someone’s conclusion is false or problematic by constructing a different argument altogether to support a conclusion that is inconsistent with the original conclusion.

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