Fallacies

Question 1

Relevance- appeal to populace (ad populum)

Answer 1

• correct reasoning is replaced by devices calculated to elicit emotional and non-rational support for the conclusion
• bandwagon

Question 2

Relevance- appeal to emotion (appeal to pity)

Answer 2

-correct reasoning is replaced by appeals to specific emotions, such as pity, pride, or envy

Question 3

Relevance- the red herring

Answer 3

-correct reasoning is manipulated by the introduction of some event or character that deliberately misleads the audience and thus hinders inference

Question 4

Relevance- the straw man

Answer 4

-correct reasoning is undermined by the deliberate misrepresentation of the opponent’s position

Question 5

Relevance- argument against the person (ad hominem)

Answer 5

-correct reasoning about some issue is replaced by an attack upon the character or special circumstances of the opponent

Question 6

Relevance- appeal to force (ad baculum)

Answer 6

-reasoning is replaced by threats in the effort to win support or assent

Question 7

Relevance- missing the point (ignoration elenchi)

Answer 7

-correct reasoning is replaced by the mistaken refutation of a position that was not really at issue

Question 8

Relevance- poisoning the well

Answer 8

• continued rational exchange is undermined by attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent
• variety of ad hominem (abusive)

Question 9

Defective Induction- argument from ignorance (ad ignorantiam)

Answer 9

-a proposition is held to be true just because it has NOT been proven false, or vice versa.

Question 10

Fallacies of Defective Induction

Answer 10

-the premises are too weak or ineffective to support the conclusion

Question 11

Fallacies of Relevance

Answer 11

-the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion

Question 12

Defective Induction- appeal to inappropriate authority (verecundiam)

Answer 12

-the premises of an argument appeal to the judgment of some person or persons who have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand

Question 13

Defective Induction- false cause (non causa pro causa)

Answer 13

-one treats as the cause of a thing that which is not really the cause of that thing, often relying merely on the close temporal succession of two events

Question 14

Defective Induction- slippery slope

Answer 14

-a change in a particular direction is asserted to lead inevitably to further changes (usually bad) in the same direction

Question 15

Defective Induction- hasty generalization (converse accident)

Answer 15

-when a principle that is true to a particular case is applied carelessly or deliberately to all or most cases

Question 16

Defective Induction- post hoc ergo propter hoc

Answer 16

• an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event
• after this, therefore, because of this

Question 17

Presumption- Accident

Answer 17

-a generalization is applied to individual cases that it does not govern

Question 18

Presumption- Complex Question (plurium interrogationum)

Answer 18

-one argues by asking a question in such away as to presuppose the truth of some assumption buried in that question

Question 19

Presumption- Begging the Question (petitio principii)

Answer 19

-the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in one of the premises

Question 20

Ambiguity- Equivocation

Answer 20

-the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings, deliberately or accidentally, in formulating an argument

Question 21

Ambiguity- Amphiboly (“two in a lump”)

Answer 21

-arising from the loose, awkward, or mistaken way in which words are combined, leading to alternative possible meanings of a statement

Question 22

Ambiguity- Accent ( emphasis)

Answer 22

-a shift of meaning arises within an argument as a consequence of changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts

Question 23

Ambiguity- Composition

Answer 23

-an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself

Question 24

Ambiguity- Division

Answer 24

-a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the whole

Question 25

Relevance- Non sequitur

Answer 25

-the conclusion does not follow from the premises

Question 26

Fallacies of Presumption

Answer 26

-too much is assumed in the premises

Question 27

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Answer 27

-equivocal use of words or phrases in different parts of the argument