Exam 2 Stuff

Question 1

Syllogism

Answer 1

simplest possible mediate inference; consists of 3 terms (minor, major, middle); consists of 2 premises; requires proper arrangement to be valid

Question 2

Middle Term

Answer 2

the term that is in both premises but not in the conclusion

Question 3

Minor Term

Answer 3

subject of the conclusion

Question 4

Major Term

Answer 4

predicate of the conclusion

Question 5

Minor Premise

Answer 5

the premise with the minor term

Question 6

Major Premise

Answer 6

premise with the major term

Question 7

Rule 1

Answer 7

can only have 3 terms

Question 8

Rule 2

Answer 8

can only have 3 propositions/statements

Question 9

Rule 3

Answer 9

the middle term must be distributed at least once

Question 10

Rule 4

Answer 10

an undistributed term in a premise can NOT become distributed in the conclusion

Question 11

Rule 5

Answer 11

cannot have two negative premises

Question 12

Rule 6

Answer 12

if there is one negative premise the conlusion must be negative

Question 13

If the subject is universal…

Answer 13

the subject is distributed

Question 14

If the subject is particular…

Answer 14

the subject is undistributed

Question 15

If the predicate is affirmative…

Answer 15

the predicate is undistributed

Question 16

If the predicate is negative…

Answer 16

the predicate is distributed

Question 17

Strong Argument

Answer 17

is one in which it is probable (but not necessary)
that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

Question 18

Weak Argument

Answer 18

is one in which it is not probable that, if the premises
are true, then the conclusion is true.

Question 19

Cogent Argument

Answer 19

is a strong argument in which all of the premises
are true(kinda like being sound)

Question 20

Uncogent Argument

Answer 20

is one that is either weak or strong with at
least one false premise.

Question 21

Deductive Logic

Answer 21

is the part of logic that is concerned with the study of methods
of evaluating arguments for validity and invalidity.

Question 22

Inductive Logic

Answer 22

is the part of logic that is concerned with the study of methods
of evaluating arguments for strength and weakness.

Question 23

Argument Against the Person/Ad Homien

Answer 23

Premises: Instead of providing a rational critique of a statement (or argument),
attack the person who advances it.
Conclusion: The statement is false or dubious. (Or the argument is unsound
or uncogent.)

Question 24

Straw Man Fallacy

Answer 24

Premises: A misrepresentation of the view is false.
Conclusion: The view itself is false.

Question 25

Appeal to Force / Ad Baculum

Answer 25

Premises: You can avoid harm by accepting this statement.
Conclusion: This statement is true

Question 26

Appeal to the People/ Ad Populum

Answer 26

Premises: You will be accepted or valued if you believe this statement.
Conclusion: This statement is true.

Question 27

Appeal to Pity or Ad Mesiercordiam

Answer 27

Premises: You have reason to pity this person (or group).
Conclusion: You should do X for the benefi t of this person (or group),
although doing X is not called for logically by the reason given.

Question 28

Appeal to ignorance or Ad Ignoriaium

Answer 28

Premises: This statement has not been proven true.
Conclusion: This statement is false (or may be reasonably believed false).
Premises: This statement has not been proven false.
Conclusion: This statement is true (or may be reasonably believed true).

Question 29

Red Herring

Answer 29

Premises: Something relevant to the topic at hand is described.
Conclusion: A distracting but often unnoticed change of subject occurs.

Question 30

Begging the Question or petitio principii

Answer 30

Assuming the point to be proved. ( The premises are similar in content to the
conclusion but not better known than the conclusion.)

Question 31

False Dilemma

Answer 31

Using a premise that unjustifi ably reduces the number of alternatives to be
considered

Question 32

Appeal to Unreliable Authority / ad verecundiam

Answer 32

Appealing to an authority when the reliability of the authority may reasonably
be doubted. ( The arguer assumes, without suffi cient warrant, that the authority in question is reliable.)

Question 33

False Cause Fallacy

Answer 33

Illegitimately assuming that one possible cause of a phenomenon is a (or the)
cause although reasons are lacking for excluding other possible causes

Question 34

Fallacy of Complex Question

Answer 34

Asking a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to
in the question

Question 35

An affirmative If Then is invalid if…

Answer 35

the consequent (part after then) is put first

Question 36

A negative If Then is invalid if…

Answer 36

antecedent (part after if) is put first

Question 37

Either/Or is invalid when…

Answer 37

you say yes to S but deny R

Question 38

First Formula

Answer 38

conformity to universible law; basically means that your view is right if it can be applied to everyone and be right

Question 39

Second Formula

Answer 39

treating others as ends in themselves; basically means to treat others as valuable and not as mere means

Question 40

Duties of Justice

Answer 40

things that we should never do; we should never do harm

Question 41

Duties of Beneficence

Answer 41

basically means helping others in some ways but depends on the situation and is not something that is always followed (unlike duties of justice)