Flaws Flashcards
Causal language in conclusion
Causation flaw
The argument concludes that because two things are associated, or happen in sequence, that one of them must have caused the other.
Think about this if the argument: Has a conclusion that brings up a causal relationship. This is among the most common flaws on the test, and it’s particularly prevalent in Strengthen and Weaken questions.
Typical answer phrasing - it confuses causation for mere correlation
Also- fails to address a highly plausible alternative explanation for all instances of the observed phenomenon
Very strong language in conclusion
Exclusivity flaw
Typical answer phrasing - it takes for granted that there are only two possible alternatives
New term in conclusion
Equivocation flaw
Typical answer phrasing- illicitly presumes that two distinct concepts are interchangeable
Also - trades on the ambiguity of a particular term
Comparative/ judgement in conclusion
Incomplete comparison flaw
Typical answer phrasing- relies on a faulty analogy
Conditional language in premises
Converse/ inverse flaw
Description: The argument treats a conditional statement like it can be reserved or negated.
Why this is a flaw: All puppies are cute. Does that mean all things that are cute are puppies? Nope. Does that mean that if something isn’t a puppy, it isn’t cute? No again.
Think about this if the argument: Includes any conditional statements.
Typical answer phrasing - treats a condition that is necessary as of this condition were sufficient
Study/ research/ poll/ etc in premises
Sampling flaw
Description: A survey/study reaches a conclusion about a group based on data from a sample that doesn’t really represent the group.
The argument jumps from facts about percentages to conclusions about amounts, or vice versa.
Typical answer phrasing- bases a generalization on a sample that may not be representative
Commonality w/ something else in premises , comparison
Analogy flaw
Description: The argument compares two things without considering all relevant factors
Think about this if the argument: Compares two things or uses an analogy
Typical answer phrasing - Relies on faulty analogy
Weak Language in premises
Logical force flaw
Says/ believes/ claims/ etc. in premises
Unproven vs untrue
Perception versus reality flaw
Description: The argument establishes that something is possible or probable, and then concludes that something is definitely going to happen.
An argument concludes that an opinion is false because there isn’t enough evidence to prove it.
Typical answer phrasing-confuses changes in our knowledge of objects and changes in the objects themselves
Time in Premises (past / present)
Temporal flaw 
Description: The argument assumes what is true in the past will continue to be true, or past odds influence future chances.
Typical answer phrasing - presumes without providing justification that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
Adhominem
Instead of addressing someone else’s argument, the author insults them or attempts to breed distrust in them, attacking the person rather than the argument the person made.
Why this is a flaw: “The study concluded that smoking was safe, but the study was undertaken by Marlboro. Clearly the results of the study are false.” If this were real, would we trust the results of this study? Absolutely not. But does this accusation address the actual substance of the study? Not at all. An Ad Hominem argument might give you a good reason to doubt the speaker, but it doesn’t actually address the substance of the speaker’s argument.
Typical answer phrasing- attacks the source of claim rather than the claim itself
Circular reasoning
Description: The argument’s conclusion is functionally the same as its premise. Or, less frequently, in order for the premise to be true you must assume the conclusion to be true as well.
Why this is a flaw: It’s meaningless to form an argument where your premise is the same as your conclusion. “I’m the best because I’m the best” doesn’t really make for compelling reasoning.
Think about this if the argument: Has two sentences that say literally the same thing.
Typical answer phrasing - presumes the truth of the claim that it is trying to establish
The argument switches between two definitions of the same word.
Equivocation flaw
Why this is a flaw: I like my steak rare. But I don’t care for aardvark steak, even though it’s the rarest steak in the world.
Think about this if the argument: Uses the same word multiple times but in different contexts.
Typical answer phrasing- illicitly presumes that two distinct concepts are interchangeable
Also - trades on the ambiguity of a particular term
The argument ignores other possible solutions/explanations; or it ignores the middle ground between two opposites.
False choice flaw
Why this is a flaw: If I can’t go to the dance with Maria, that doesn’t guarantee I’m going to the dance with Megan. Maybe I’m going to go with Marsha. And if the dinner I cook for my date doesn’t come out hot, that doesn’t mean it came out cold. Maybe it was Goldilocks-style just right. Or maybe it was…tepid.
Think about this if the argument: Makes a recommendation in the conclusion; or talks about extreme ends of a spectrum.
Typical answer phrasing- it takes for granted that there are only two possible alternatives
An argument treats people’s opinions as established fact.
Opinion vs fact flaw
Why this is a flaw: We are NOT LIVING IN A POST-TRUTH WORLD!
Think about this if the argument: Brings up what people think/believe/opine.
Typical answer phrasing - confuses changes in our knowledge of objects and changes in the objects themselves
