Chapter 7 Flashcards
Insubstantial criticism
may appear to be significant but actually fails to identify a real flaw in the argument. Ex: “Maybe that’s not true”.
Argument stoppers
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”.
Competing arguments
when one argument has a statement as its conclusion, C and another argument has the denial of that statement as its conclusion, not-C.
Specific factual claim
typically asserts that some specific object has some (possibly complex) property. Ex: x is an A.
Counter-example
an example that counters the claim made in a generalization.
Compound sentences
formed by combining two or more simpler sentences.
Inclusive interpretation
P or Q or both.
Exclusive interpretation
P or Q but not both.
Sufficient condition
When P is true, Q must also be true.
Could P be present, without Q? Yes, Q is sufficient for P.
Necessary condition
When P is false, Q must also be false.
Could Q be present without P? P is necessary for Q.
Ambiguous
words with more than one meaning.
Semantic ambiguity
when a sentence contains a word that is ambiguous & has different meanings depending on how that word is used.
Syntactic ambiguity
words can be combined in different ways to form sentences with different meanings.
Vague
a word or phrase that has no precise cut-off point between when it applies and when it doesn’t.
Incomplete sentences
in these sentences an important element of the sentence goes unstated.
Implicit relativity
make comparisons or describe relations between one thing and some unspecified comparison group or reference class.
Steps of Argument Analysis
- ) Decide if there’s an argument.
- ) Reconstruct the argument.
- ) Fine-tune the reconstruction.
- ) Evaluate the argument.
- ) Evaluate your evaluation.
Conjuncts
Evaluate each of the conjuncts separately.
Both of them must be true for the conclusion as a whole to be true.
Disjuncts
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.
Exhaustive
includes every possibility, complete.
Non-exhaustive
not complete, partial.
Exclusive
alternatives rule each other our, you can’t have both.
Non-exclusive
ones that don’t rule each other out.
Fallacy of false dichotomy
occurs when the premise(s) claims that a choice between two alternatives is exhaustive or exclusive, or both, when the choice is not.
Reportative definition
reports the existing meaning of a term
ex: dictionary definitions
Stipulative definition
words used in a very specific technical way.
ex: valid.
Normative definition
deriving from a standard or norm.
Broad
A definition is too broad if it includes things that it should not.
Narrow
A definition is too narrow if it excludes things that it should not.
Fallacy of Equivocation
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.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
occurs when an argument claims or assumes that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to a further, undesirable outcome.
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
when an argument concludes something about a group set on the basis of an inadequate sample size.
Fallacy of Begging the Question (circular reasoning)
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).
Fallacy of Composition
arguing or assuming that whats true of the parts must be true of the whole.
Fallacy of Division
arguing or assuming that whats true of the whole must be equally true of the parts.
Appeal to Popularity
arguing that a claim must be true simply because its a popular belief.
Appeal to Common Practice
arguing that something should be done in a way simply because its commonly done that way.
Appeal to Tradition
arguing that a claim must be true simply because its part of a tradition.
Appeal to Ignorance
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”.
Ad Hominen (to the person) Fallacy
rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself.
Types of Ad Hominen fallacies
- ) Character –> premise merely attacks the person.
- ) Circumstances –> premise merely points out something about the person’s circumstances.
- ) Tu Quoque –> premise merely point out that some claim is inconsistent with some thing else the speaker says or does.
Six Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation
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
Cases of conditionals
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)
List of fallacies
- Ad Hominen
- Fallacy of equivocation
- Fallacy of false dichotomy
- Fallacy of hasty generalization
- Appeal to Ignorance
- Appeal to tradition
- Appeal to popularity
- Appeal to common practice
- Slippery slope fallacy
- Fallacy of begging the question (circular reasoning)
- Fallacy of composition
- Fallacy of division
