Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CT TST 2 > Exam 2 > Flashcards

Exam 2 Flashcards

1
Q

Premise

A

A set of statements which justify the conclusion

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

Conclusion

A

The ‘point’ of the argument; what the argument is trying to establish or demonstrate

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

Aurguments

A

Set of claims (provide reasons to believe a claim)

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

Sub-aurguments

A

Often arguments have more than one conclusion and the conclusion of one argument serves also as a premise of a larger argument

  • should be outlines w/ reasons & objections leading to the conclusion
  • related & linked back
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Principle of charity

A

Principle of charity states that one should choose the most favorable interpretation of the argument consistent with the actual argument content

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

Prima facie judgements

A

Preliminary judgement is made with knowledge rat is tentative and open to revision in the light of subsequent information or other considerations

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

Burden of proof

A

“The responsibility for making the case and the degree of evidence required to do so”

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

Probative Aurguments

A

Inductive arguments whose premises are reasons rather than statistics

Evaluated using the principles of good reasoning

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

Statistical Arguments

A

An inductive arguments which has data or quantitative observations as its premises

  • can be evaluated to some extent using laws of probability & statistical reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Counterexamples

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

necessary and sufficient conditions

A

Antecedent: sufficient condion

Consequent: necessary condition

  • the truth of sufficient condition is enough for the truth of the consequent. When the necessary condition is false the antecedent is also false
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Modus ponens

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Modus tollens

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Deductive form

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Deductive validity

A

A property of deductive arguments in which the premises are true, then the conclusions is guaranteed to be true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Deductive invalidity

A

A property of deductive arguments in which even when all the premises are true, then the conclusions IS NOT guaranteed to be true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Deductive soundness

A

A property of deductive arguments which are both valid and have all true premises

18
Q

Inductive form

A

When the conclusion contains some new information that is not contained in the premises

“For every day of my life so far, the sun has rises. Therefore the sun will rise every day in the future”

19
Q

Inductive strength

A
20
Q

Inductive weakness

A
21
Q

Red herring

A

Committed when a speaker or writer “introduces an irrelevant issue which has the effect of distracting us (or shifting focus) from the issue at hand”

  • changes focus of discussion (away from the weaker part of the opponents position) leads in new direction
22
Q

Guilt by association

A

A fallacy committed when a speaker or writer “argues for rejecting a claim because it is a position which is also held by people who are viewed unfavorably”

  • form of “personal attack” (ad hominem)
23
Q

Straw person

A

Fallacy committed when a speaker or writer “attributes to a proponent a view the proponent does not hold” and “pretend to refute the view the proponent does not hold by attacking the misrepresented position”

24
Q

Hasty generalization

A

Fallacy committed when a speaker or writer concludes a generalization “from only a few (sometimes no) examples” as evidence

  • ex. Anecdotal evidence
25
Q

Irrelevant standard

A

Fallacy committed when a speaker or writer “criticizes a policy or program for not achieving goals which the program was never expected to achieve”

26
Q

Two wrongs (make a right)

A

Fallacy is committed when a speaker or writer tried to “justify a wrong on the basis that you were wronged to claiming that you should get away with it because others have gotten away with it”

27
Q

Ad hominem

A

Fallacy is committed when a speaker or writer “rejects the opponents argument on the basis of critical remarks about the proponent”

  • abusive: uses “malicious attack on the property of an argument”
  • malicious: “ facts about the background or loyalties of the proponent”
  • gratuitous verbal abuse or name-calling is not an ad hominem unless its used as a reason to dismiss an argument
28
Q

Appeal to popularity

A

Is committed when a speaker or writer “attempts to justify a belief on the basis that most people believe it” or “justify an action on the basis that most people do it”

  • “if everyone jumped off a bridge..”
29
Q

Appeal to tradition

A
30
Q

Anecdotal evidence

A

Fallacy committed when a speaker or writer “uses an anecdote as if it were adequate evidence for broad generalization”

31
Q

False dilemma

A

An attempt to force people to consider only 2 choices on of which is usually repugnant

  • ex. “Either you’re with us, either you love freedom, and with nations which
    embrace freedom, or you’re with the enemy.”
32
Q

Arguments form absence of evidence

A

Committed when a speaker or writer “concludes that their position is correct on the basis of a lack of evidence refuting the position”

  • argument from ignorance ;involves using the lack of evidence as affirmative evidence
33
Q

slippery slope

A

Fallacy is committed when a speaker or writer “argues against an action on the grounds that the long run consequences of such an action will be disastrous, without supplying sufficient evidence”

  • fallacy is committed when the consequences are assumed
  • plays on fear of disaster puts consequences as a reason to reject the claim or position
34
Q

Equivocation

A

Committed when a speaker or writer misleadingly “uses a word in two senses” in the context of an argument

  • ex. Noisy children are a headache. Aspirin makes he aches go away. So aspirin makes noisy children go away
35
Q

problematic premise

A

Fallacy committed when a speaker or writer introduces “a premise that is neither credible nor acceptable”

  • credible: believed by any well-informed and reasonable person
  • acceptable: believed by a particular person or group of people
36
Q

Begging the question

A

Using a premise that is identical to their conclusion or assume the truth of the claim central to the controversy

  • ex. “This whole abortion debate about when human life begins is ridiculous. We should be thinking about the rights of the baby”
37
Q

Affirming the consequent

A

Invalid inference

If i jump in the river, the i will be wet
I am wet
Therefore, i am in the river
(Invalid)

38
Q

Denying the antecedent

A

Invalid deductive inference

If I jump in the river, then i will be wet
I am not in the river
Therefore i am not wet
(Invalid)

39
Q

Deductive arguements

A

Arguments whose conclusions contain NO NEW INFORMATION than contained in the premises

40
Q

Inductive arguments

A

Arguments whose conclusions contain SOME NEW INFO that is not contained in the premises

41
Q

Abductive

A

Inferences to the best explanations; often explanations NOT ARGUMENTS

CT TST 2 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions