Chapter 3.1-3.4

Question 1

Deductive argument

Answer 1

• if premise are true the conclusion is necessarily true
• goes from particular to general

1) arg based on math
2) arg by definition
3) categorical syllogism (all some or no)
4) hypothetical syllogism (if… Then)
5) disjunctive syllogism (either.. Or)

Question 2

Affirming the consequent

Answer 2

P1: if p, then q
P2: q
C: p

Infallacy.
- Invalid form of reasoning because conclusion is not true

Question 3

Denying the antecedent

Answer 3

P1: if p, then q
P2: not p
C: not q

Fallacy

Question 4

Fallacy

Answer 4

• is an error in reasoning

- “non sequitur” (it does not follow that)

Question 5

Formal fallacies

Answer 5

• it is identified merely by examining the form or structure (deductive identifiable forms)

Question 6

Informal fallacies

Answer 6

• can only be detected by examining the content of the argument

Question 7

Fallacies of Relevance

Answer 7

• share the common characteristics that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion

1) appeal to force
2) appeal to pity
3) appeal to the people (7 types)
4) argument against the person (3 types)
5) accident
6) straw man
7) missing the point
8) red herring

Question 8

Appeal to force

Answer 8

• occurs whenever an argued poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person that some harm will come to him or her if she/he does not accept the conclusion

Question 9

Appeal to pity

Answer 9

• occurs when an argued attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

Question 10

Appeal to the people

Answer 10

• uses people’s desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion

Subtypes of appeal to the people 
2 approaches indirect and direct
1) appeal to fear
2) bandwagon argument
3) appeal to vanity 
4) appeal to snobbery
5) appeal to tradition

Question 11

Appeal to the people

- Direct approaches

Answer 11

1) occurs when an arguer addresses large groups of people and gets them excited into a mob mentality
2) appeal to fear- arguer trumps up a fear of something in the mind of the crowd and uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion

Question 12

Appeal to people

- indirect approach

Answer 12

• arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd but at the individuals separately

1) bandwagon argument
- everyone believes such and such or does such and such therefore you should too
2) appeal to vanity
- linking the love, admiration or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired and approved of
3) appeal to snobbery
- the crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way
4) appeal to tradition
- an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for some conclusion

Question 13

Argument against the person

Answer 13

• involves two argues, one advances a certain argument and the other redirects the argument not to the first persons argument but to the person himself

Three forms

1) ad hominem abusive
- second person responds to the first persons argument by verbally abusing the first person
2) ad hominem circumstantial
- second person attempts to discredit the opponents argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent
3) Tu quoque (you too)
- second arguer attempts to make the first appear hypocritical or arguing in bad faith

Question 14

Accident

Answer 14

• when a general rule is applied to a specific case that it was not intended to cover
• cited in premises and then wrongly applied to the conclusion

Question 15

Straw Man

Answer 15

• when an arguer distorts an opponents argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument and then concludes that the opponents real argument has been demolished

Question 16

Missing the Point

Answer 16

• when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion is drawn

Question 17

Red Herring

Answer 17

• arguer diverts the attention of the reader by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one

Question 18

Fallacies of weak induction

Answer 18

• the connection between the premise and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

1) appeal to unqualified authority
2) appeal to ignorance
3) hasty generalization
4) false cause (4 types)
5) slippery slope
6) weak analogy

Question 19

Appeal to Unqualified Authority

Answer 19

• when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility

Question 20

Appeal to Ignorance

Answer 20

• premise states that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing

Question 21

Hasty Generalization

Answer 21

• an argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group based on a select few (OPPOSITE of this)

Question 22

False Cause

Answer 22

• occurs whenever the link between the premises and conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection that probably doesn’t exist

1) post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore on account of this)
- just bc one event precedes the other, the first event causes the second
2) non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause)
- what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all
3) oversimplified cause
- a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause
4) gamblers fallacy
- conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are casually related

Question 23

Slippery slope

Answer 23

• when the conclusion of an argument rests on the alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think the chain reaction will actually take place

Question 24

Weak analogy

Answer 24

• when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion drawn

Question 25

Fallacies of presumption

Answer 25

• premises presume what they purport to prove

1) begging the question
2) complex question
3) false dichotomy
4) suppressed evidence

Question 26

Fallacies of ambiguity

Answer 26

• some form of ambiguity in either premise or conclusion

1) equivocation
2) amphiboly

Question 27

Fallacies of illicit transference

Answer 27

• incorrect transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole, or from the whole onto the parts

1) composition
2) division

Question 28

Begging the question

Answer 28

• arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possible false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle

Question 29

Complex question

Answer 29

• when two or more questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them

Question 30

False dichotomy

Answer 30

• when a disjunctive (either.. Or) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, then the arguer gets rid of the undesirable one leaving just the desirable option

Question 31

Suppressed evidence

Answer 31

• the premise ignores some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion

Question 32

Equivocation

Answer 32

• when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, explicitly or implicitly , in two different senses in the argument

Question 33

Amphiboly

Answer 33

• the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation

Question 34

Composition

Answer 34

• when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole
  1) collective predication
• applies to a class as a whole
  2) distributive predication
• applies to each and every part in the whole

Question 35

Division

Answer 35

• conclusion depends on an attribute from a whole onto its parts