Chapter 5 - Informal Fallacies

Question 0

Genetic fallacy

Answer 0

When someone attempts to criticize an argument or view or theory but without directly dealing with it directly but by citing its origin

Question 1

Fallacies of relevance

Answer 1

Lack of relevance between the premises and conclusion

Question 2

Ad hominem

Answer 2

Argument is one presented by A to counter B, but doesn’t address truth of premises or quality of reasoning rather appeals to certain facts about B

Question 3

Types of ad hominem

Answer 3

• Abusive
• Tu quoque
• Association
• Circumstantial

Question 4

Ad hominem abusive

Answer 4

When the arguer insults or verbally abuses the opponent

Question 5

Ad hominem Tu quoque

Answer 5

Arguer claims opponent as hypocrite and thinks they diminish the others argument

Question 6

Ad hominem circumstantial

Answer 6

Arguer appeals to opponents circumstances or potential ulterior motives

Question 7

Ad hominem association

Answer 7

Arguer points out that their opponent is associated in some way with a group, event, person that is distasteful or has negative press

Question 8

Ad populam

Answer 8

“Appeal to people”

Arguer attempts to persuade someone of something by citing its popularity

Question 9

Types of ad populam

Answer 9

• bandwagoning

- snoberry

Question 10

Ad populam bandwagoning

Answer 10

Popularity of an action or product

“30 mil people own a Chevy, do they know something you don’t?”

Question 11

Ad populam snobbery

Answer 11

Cites the exclusiveness of a product or club or event

“Only for the rich and beautiful”

Question 12

Appeal to pity

Answer 12

Arguer attempts to elicit a sympathetic emotional response to affect them positively

Question 13

Appeal to spite

Answer 13

Arguer attempts to elicit a negative or spiteful emotional reaction to effect someone or something negatively

Question 14

Straw man

Answer 14

Arguer claims to be refuting an opponent’s argument but really refutes a different, usually weaker argument that resembles the opponent’s argument.

Question 15

Alternate description

Answer 15

Arguer re-describes some object or event in a way that makes their own argument seem reasonable when in fact some distinct description of that object or event is more appropriate for the issue

Question 16

Begging the question

Answer 16

Arguer attempts to establish some conclusion by appealing to some premises but those premises illicitly assume the conclusion is true