Flaws

Question 1

The nature of

Correlation causation (CC)

Answer 1

Stating a link between 2 variables (correlation) the flaw is that the arg does not present evident to prove that causal conclusion. there argument has to identifiy a link between 2 variables that implies or states a cause and effect. this means that the evid in argument could be explained by something else

Question 2

What is causality?

Answer 2

It is a type of strong language that is a link between or among variables that implies or states cause and effect

Question 3

Types of causality

Answer 3

striaght up casual terms
verbs of change
blame

Question 4

Types of causality

Straight up casual terms

Answer 4

directly indicate cause and effect
results in/from, affect,effect, influence, cause, causes, casual, produce leads too

Question 5

Types of causality

verbs of change

Answer 5

indicate that one thing changes another- promotes, benefits, induces, boost, raise, solve, solution

Question 6

types of causality

blame

Answer 6

words that indicate that one thing is responsible for producing a given result- genetic predisposition, preisposes, responsible for, successful, explains, enable

Question 7

correlation

the evidence of the correlation causation flaw

Answer 7

any link between two variables that does not express causation no matter how weak

Question 8

types of correlation

Answer 8

temporal, geographic, entity based

Question 9

types of correlation

temporal

Answer 9

two characteristics in the same time fram

Question 10

types of correlation

geographic

Answer 10

2 characterisitcs in the same geographic area

Question 11

types of correlation

entity based

Answer 11

2 characteristics in the same species population, person, age group ect

Question 12

The assumption of

Correlation causation (CC)

Answer 12

Stating a correlation between two variables amounts to saying something like, “these two things go together in
some way, but I have no idea why.”
Stating a causal statement is akin to getting more cocky about your knowledge of the situation because you are
asserting to know the reason that those two characteristics are correlated.
So, the flaw is that the ARG does not present EVID to prove that particular Causal CONC. This means that the
correlation in the EVID could actually be explained by some other causal relationship.

Correlation (EVID) Causation (CONC)

Question 13

the more better approach (CC FLAW)

Answer 13

scientists try to isolate those
characteristics in other contexts to determine whether
the relationship between those characteristics is truly a
causal one. As scientists identify additional contexts in which the
correlation holds, scientists become increasingly certain of a causal relationship between the two characteristics.

Question 14

Competing causal explanations (CC FLAW)

Answer 14

In some situations, very often …
* one scientist says, “X causes the correlation.” while
* an other scientist says, “No, Y causes the
correlation.”
We will call X and Y, “Competing Causal Explanations” for the correlation.
These competing causal explanations are working against one another. The existence of each provides some reason to doubt the other.

Question 15

in correlation causation flaw

How alt causes WKN ARG

Answer 15

Putting forth an Alternative Cause for the
correlation (in Evid) would WKN the ARG
because it provides a Competing Causal
Explanation.

Question 16

in CC flaw

how does alt cause stn arg

Answer 16

ringing up an Alt Cause while
saying that this Alt Cause it NOT responsible
for the correlation will STN the ARG by
Eliminating a Competing Causal
Explanation for the correlation.

Question 17

control groups

Answer 17

When scientists try to prove that some
factor causes some other factor, they
experiment by creating a treatment group
and a control group.
A control group removes the factor that
scientists believe to be the cause. The
control group should be identical to the
treatment group in every other way to
control for potential Alt Causes.
Removing the cause of an effect should
result in the absence of that effect.

Question 18

treatment group

Answer 18

These groups have the Treatment (the
Cause), but can STN or WKN the argument,
depending on whether the effect is present

Question 19

Reverse Causality

Answer 19

Asserting that the causal relationship is
actually the reverse of the one asserted
in the CONC would WKN the Arg.

Question 20

When “the ARG has Causality in the CONC and Causality
in the EVID, what flaw should you think of

Answer 20

never think CC flaw instead look at
concept shift
argument by analogy
net effect

Question 21

The nature of the flaw

Argument by Analogy ( AA)

Answer 21

you are dealing with 2 different situations. soemtimes those situations are similar enough to produce the same result and sometimes they are not

Question 22

the assumption of

Argument by Analogy ( AA)

Answer 22

the 2 situations [groups/people/times] are similar enough to attain the same results

all CACs will adress the assumption in some way

Question 23

Nature of the flaw

Comparasons (CNR)

Answer 23

knowing that one option is truly better than the other requires us to know ALL the factors that may tip the balance in favor of one option over the other. the speaker making this flaw OMITS certain aspects that would ensure that the chosen option is better.

Question 24

Nature of the flaw

Extreme Conclusion (EXTC)

Answer 24

the conclusion must be absolute YES OR NO. the evidence will eliminate one or 2 options other than the one chosen in CONC. the evidence will eliminate one or two options in situations where potentionally numerous more options are avaliable. then the conc will say something abosolute about the situation. the flaw is that the situatuation still has multiple options remaining.

Question 25

nature of the flaw

Concept shift (CS)

Answer 25

The TICNE and the concept in the target evid that is TRYING to prove the TICNIE to be true are simply not the same concept. so the flaw is that those concepts are not the same.

e/c table

Question 26

nature of the flaw

Sufficient and Necessary (CSN)

Answer 26

Confuses a sufficent term (tirigger) with a necarry term (result). false contrapositive, going against if then statement, reversing without negating, negating without reversing.
IF- then statemnts are one way relationships. in this flaw the trigger forces the result to be true but the result does not force the triguer to be true.

Question 27

nature of the flaw

Assuming the trigger (ASST)

Answer 27

the result of the if-then in the evid matches the fact in the conclusion. if then statements are hypotheticlal. so without proof that the trigger is true one cannot conclude anything from the if them statment. when the speaker ocncludes that the result fromt eh if then statement is true the speaker is assuming that the if then is not hypothetical.

Question 28

nature of the flaw

general to specific (g-S)

Answer 28

The charteristic that applies to the whole group may or may not apply to every individual part porton subset in that that group. the characterstici of the general the whole applies to the specidic part/.

Question 29

nature of the flaw

Specific to General (S-G)

Answer 29

The individual part or subgroup may or may not be represent the whole.

Question 30

the assumption for

Specific to general (S-G)

Answer 30

The specific is representative of the GENERAL

Question 31

the assumption of the faw

General to Specific (G-S)

Answer 31

The characteristic of the general (whole) applies to the specific (part)

Question 32

nature of the flaw

Baseline (BL)

Answer 32

a differnece in the starting point for the two groups may explain the different or similar outcomes of the two groups. bu tthe speaker will attribute the difference in the outcomes to some other explanation

Question 33

assumption

Baseline (BL)

Answer 33

the starting point for each group is roughly the same

Question 34

nature of the flaw

Bad Information (BI)

Answer 34

Studies, experiments, data, and records can be flawed and thus fail to provide the truth. these arguments ignore the possibiliity that the source of the information may be providing bad information.

Question 35

assumption

bad information

Answer 35

the data/person/theory/records are CORRECT

Question 36

nature of the flaw

thought v reality (T v R)

Answer 36

the fact that something is true in reality tells us nothing about whether a person beleives intends, or knows the truth
the fact that someone beleives or intends somethign tells us nothing about the truth in reality.

Question 37

nature of the flaw

Polar opposite

Answer 37

if someone failed to prove an idea true, then that idea may be true or false we DO NOT KNOIW
if someone failed to prove an idea FALSE, then that idea may be true or it may be falsse we DONT KNWO
in both cases the speaker instead of concluding that they dont knwo they conclusde that they do know the truth or falisty of the claim.