Chapter 7

Question 1

Insubstantial criticism

Answer 1

may appear to be significant but actually fails to identify a real flaw in the argument. Ex: “Maybe that’s not true”.

Question 2

Argument stoppers

Answer 2

have the effect of cutting off rational discussion. Ex: “Who’s to say that that’s true?” or “That’s just a matter of opinion”.

Question 3

Competing arguments

Answer 3

when one argument has a statement as its conclusion, C and another argument has the denial of that statement as its conclusion, not-C.

Question 4

Specific factual claim

Answer 4

typically asserts that some specific object has some (possibly complex) property. Ex: x is an A.

Question 5

Counter-example

Answer 5

an example that counters the claim made in a generalization.

Question 6

Compound sentences

Answer 6

formed by combining two or more simpler sentences.

Question 7

Inclusive interpretation

Answer 7

P or Q or both.

Question 8

Exclusive interpretation

Answer 8

P or Q but not both.

Question 9

Sufficient condition

Answer 9

When P is true, Q must also be true.

Could P be present, without Q? Yes, Q is sufficient for P.

Question 10

Necessary condition

Answer 10

When P is false, Q must also be false.

Could Q be present without P? P is necessary for Q.

Question 11

Ambiguous

Answer 11

words with more than one meaning.

Question 12

Semantic ambiguity

Answer 12

when a sentence contains a word that is ambiguous & has different meanings depending on how that word is used.

Question 13

Syntactic ambiguity

Answer 13

words can be combined in different ways to form sentences with different meanings.

Question 14

Vague

Answer 14

a word or phrase that has no precise cut-off point between when it applies and when it doesn’t.

Question 15

Incomplete sentences

Answer 15

in these sentences an important element of the sentence goes unstated.

Question 16

Implicit relativity

Answer 16

make comparisons or describe relations between one thing and some unspecified comparison group or reference class.

Question 17

Steps of Argument Analysis

Answer 17

1. ) Decide if there’s an argument.
2. ) Reconstruct the argument.
3. ) Fine-tune the reconstruction.
4. ) Evaluate the argument.
5. ) Evaluate your evaluation.

Question 18

Conjuncts

Answer 18

Evaluate each of the conjuncts separately.

Both of them must be true for the conclusion as a whole to be true.

Question 19

Disjuncts

Answer 19

On the inclusive interpretation, only one disjunct has to be true for a disjunction, as a whole to be true. If both disjuncts are false, the whole disjunction is false.

Question 20

Exhaustive

Answer 20

includes every possibility, complete.

Question 21

Non-exhaustive

Answer 21

not complete, partial.

Question 22

Exclusive

Answer 22

alternatives rule each other our, you can’t have both.

Question 23

Non-exclusive

Answer 23

ones that don’t rule each other out.

Question 24

Fallacy of false dichotomy

Answer 24

occurs when the premise(s) claims that a choice between two alternatives is exhaustive or exclusive, or both, when the choice is not.

Question 25

Reportative definition

Answer 25

reports the existing meaning of a term

ex: dictionary definitions

Question 26

Stipulative definition

Answer 26

words used in a very specific technical way.

ex: valid.

Question 27

Normative definition

Answer 27

deriving from a standard or norm.

Question 28

Broad

Answer 28

A definition is too broad if it includes things that it should not.

Question 29

Narrow

Answer 29

A definition is too narrow if it excludes things that it should not.

Question 30

Fallacy of Equivocation

Answer 30

when an ambiguous word or expression is used in 2 different senses in an argument… but the argument appears to suggest otherwise, simply in order to get to its conclusions.

Question 31

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Answer 31

occurs when an argument claims or assumes that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to a further, undesirable outcome.

Question 32

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization

Answer 32

when an argument concludes something about a group set on the basis of an inadequate sample size.

Question 33

Fallacy of Begging the Question (circular reasoning)

Answer 33

attempting to prove a conclusion by using that same conclusion as a premise (sometimes the conclusion is worded differently when its used as a premise, and sometimes its implicit).

Question 34

Fallacy of Composition

Answer 34

arguing or assuming that whats true of the parts must be true of the whole.

Question 35

Fallacy of Division

Answer 35

arguing or assuming that whats true of the whole must be equally true of the parts.

Question 36

Appeal to Popularity

Answer 36

arguing that a claim must be true simply because its a popular belief.

Question 37

Appeal to Common Practice

Answer 37

arguing that something should be done in a way simply because its commonly done that way.

Question 38

Appeal to Tradition

Answer 38

arguing that a claim must be true simply because its part of a tradition.

Question 39

Appeal to Ignorance

Answer 39

an argument which contains an inference, like this:
“We don’t know that P is true, therefore P is false”.
“We don’t know that P is false, therefore P is true”.

Question 40

Ad Hominen (to the person) Fallacy

Answer 40

rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself.

Question 41

Types of Ad Hominen fallacies

Answer 41

1. ) Character –> premise merely attacks the person.
2. ) Circumstances –> premise merely points out something about the person’s circumstances.
3. ) Tu Quoque –> premise merely point out that some claim is inconsistent with some thing else the speaker says or does.

Question 42

Six Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation

Answer 42

1) don’t criticize an argument by merely denying its conclusion
2) don’t accept an argument because you believe in the conclusion
3) Direct your criticisms at Individual premises
4) Make sure your criticisms of premise are substantial
5) Don’t accept the conclusions of competing arguments
6) Don’t merely object to intermediate conclusions of compound arguments

Question 43

Cases of conditionals

Answer 43

1) When an antecedent is true, the consequent is guaranteed to be true (can rephrase to make obvious)
2) When the antecedent is true the consequent is probably true (rephrase to make connection obvious)
3) When the antecedent is true, the consequent is neither guaranteed to be true nor probably true (should reject)

Question 44

List of fallacies

Answer 44

1. Ad Hominen
2. Fallacy of equivocation
3. Fallacy of false dichotomy
4. Fallacy of hasty generalization
5. Appeal to Ignorance
6. Appeal to tradition
7. Appeal to popularity
8. Appeal to common practice
9. Slippery slope fallacy
10. Fallacy of begging the question (circular reasoning)
11. Fallacy of composition
12. Fallacy of division