Fallacies Flashcards

1
Q

Phases in a discussion

A
1 = Confrontation phase 
2 = Opening phase
3 = Argumentation phase
4 = Conclusion phase
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Confrontation phase

A

One party fields a position and the other party calls it into question

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

Argumentation phase

A

The protagonist offers arguments to defend his or her position, to which the antagonist responds

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

Fallacy of ambiguity

A

Phase 1/2/3/4
Party P/A
Misuse of ambiguous language

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

Argumentum ad baculum

A

Phase 1
Party P/A
Fallacy of the stick: Applying pressure to the opposition by threatening violence or other sanctions

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

Argumentum ad consequentiam

A

Phase 3
Party P
Rejecting a (descriptive) position on the ground of undesired consequences (evaluative)

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

Argument ad hominem / Personal attack

A

Direct (“abusive”)
Indirect (“indirect”)
Tu quoque
Generalizing the success of a defense

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

direct (abusive) personal attack

A

Phase 1
Party P/A
Calling the opponents’ knowledge of the facts, intelligence or integrity into question

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

indirect (circumstantial) personal attack

A

Phase 1
Party P/A
Casting doubt on the opponents’ motives

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Argumentum ad hominem tu quouque

A

Phase 1
Party P/A
Pointing out a contradiction in the opponent’s past or current ideas and actions

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

Generalizing the success of a defense

A

Phase 4
Party P
Concluding, after a successful defense, that the position is valid; disregarding the role and status of the antagonist’s concession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

A

Shifting the burden of proof

Generalizing the failure of a defense

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

Shifting the burden of proof

A

Phase 2
Party P
The antagonist has to show why the protagonist’s position is wrong

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

Generalizing the failure of a defense

A

Phase 4
Party A
Concluding that a position is correct because the opposite has not been defended successfully

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

Argumentum ad misericoridam

A

Appeal to pity

Exaggerated modesty

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

Appeal to pity

A

Phase 1
Party P
Applying pressure to the opposition by appealing to their emotions

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

Exaggerated modesty

A

Phase 3
Party P
Manipulating the audience by charming them with a posture of modesty (ethical fallacy: reverse argumentum ad verecundiam)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Pathetic fallacy

A

Phase 3
Party P
Playing on the sentiments of the audience instead of offering arguments in support of a position

19
Q

Populist fallacy

A

Phase 3
Party P
A large number of people believing something is seen as a sign that it is true (the masses as the authority: argumentum ad verecundiam)

20
Q

Evading the burden of proof

A

Phase 2
Party P
Personally guaranteeing the validity of a position

21
Q

Ethical fallacy

A

Phase 3
Party P
Trotting out one’s own qualities instead of offering arguments in support of a position (reverse argumentum ad miscericordiam)

22
Q

Fallacy from authority

A

Phase 3
Party P
The expertise, authority or special status of a person or an institution is seen as a sign that a position originating with this source is true, while the antagonist rejects the argument from authority or denies the expertise or authority of source

23
Q

Affirming the consequent

A

Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect argumentation in which a sufficient condition is taken to be a necessary condition

24
Q

Fallacy of composition

A

Phase 3
Party P
A (relative or structurally dependent) quality of a part of a whole is wrongly attributed to the whole (incorrect conflation)

25
Fallacy of division
Phase 3 Party P A (relative or structurally dependent) quality of a whole is wrongly attributed to a part of the whole (incorrect division)
26
False dilemma
Phase 4 Party A Portraying a contrast as a contradiction: from the fact that it has not been proved that one thing is the case
27
Declaring a position to be unassailable
Phase 1 Party P Prohibiting or preventing a position from being called into question
28
Ignoratio elenchi
Phase 3 Party P The argumentation refers to a different position from the one being discussed (irrelevant argumentation)
29
Denying a shared principle
Phase 3 Party A Calling a proposition into question that is clearly a shared principle
30
Denying a concealed argument
Phase 3 Party P Denying that one is bound to a correctly construed argument
31
Many questions (Compound question, trick question)
Phase 3 Party P Question in which a position appears as a presupposition and is unfairly presented a a shared principle
32
Evading the burden of proof
Phase 2 Party P With regard to a position Phase 3 Party P With regard to an argument - to present a position or an argument as self-evident - personally guaranteeing the correctness of a position or an argument - to immunise a position or an argument to criticism
33
Denying the antecedent
Phase 3 Party P Incorrect argumentation in which a necessary condition is taken to be a sufficient condition
34
Vagueness
Phase 1/2/3/4 Party P/A Misuse of vagueness: in explicit, unspecific, unfamiliar, or vague use of language
35
Petitio principii
Phase 3 Party P Circular reasoning, Begging the question offering an argument tat amounts to the same as the position
36
Post hoc ero propter hoc
Phase 3 Party P Incorrect suggestion of cause and effect Inffering a causal relation from a chronological order: "following, so caused by"
37
Secundum quid
Phase 3 Party P Rash generalisation Reaching a general conclusion on the basis of too few, or unrepresentative, observations
38
Slippery slope
Phase 3 Party P Incorrectly suggesting that a position will make a bad situation worse
39
Straw man
Phase 1/2/3/4 Party P/A Attacking fictional position - incorrectly attributing a position to the opponent; creating a fictional opponent Attacking a distorted position - twisting the opponent's words by taking them out of them context, simplifying them or exaggerating them Attacking weak arguments or opponents - ignoring the opponent's stronger arguments or ignoring stronger opponents Attacking an inflated or concealed argument - voicing a concealed argument, taking it further than the argument that can be ascribed to the opponent
40
Declaring a position to be taboo
Phase 1 Party A Prohibiting or preventing a position from being presented
41
Generalizing the success of a defense
Phase 4 Party P Concluding, after a successful defense, that the position is valid; disregarding the role and status of the antagonist's concessions
42
Wrong analogy
Phase 3 Party P A position on a certain issue is defended by comparing it with a different issue, although the antagonist denies the analogy and there are essential differences between the issues
43
Shifting the burden of proof
Phase 2 Party P ... in an unmixed dispute: the antagonist has to show the protagonist's position to be untrue ... in a mixed dispute: only the opponent has to defend his or her position, as one's own position has the status of a presumption or is harder to defend