Flaws LR Flashcards
Causation Fallacy
MOST COMMON
1) Conclusions assumes
- correlation in premises is grounds for causation
- absence of alternative causes (note close to exclusivity but key is causal language)
- reversal of cause and effect relationship
2) Correct answer choices will say variations of
- infers causation from correlation
- fails to consider potential alternative causes
- reverses the cause and effect relationship
3) Clues
Conclusion contains
- causal language, explanations, predictive statements
- verbs indicating one thing led to another (e.g. increased)
- claims an outcome was produced
EX: Jill broke up with Derek because he cheated. Therefore Derek probably cheated because he thought jill would break up with him.
Exclusivity
SECOND MOST COMMON
1) lists options or concludes that one option is the only option
FOUR VARIATIONS
a) exhaustive list (could be more) - assumes listed option are only possibilities when their could be more
b) Mutually exclusive (Could be both) - assumes two factors cannot occur together when maybe they could
c) ignores middle ground (could be middle) - assumes only two extreme possible scenarios e.g. black vs white
d) false conjunction (not both)- assumes two factors act together when maybe they cannot
2) Clues
Strong conclusion - solely, only, entirely, purely, wholly, no
Factors or options discussed in the argument
Rejecting alternatives argument structure
Nature vs nurture argument structures
EX: Bob lifts weights and runs a lot, so the fact that is not here means he is working out.
Equivocation Fallacy
1) Meaning of a key term changes
2) TWO VARIATIONS
- shift in meaning of word in premises and conclusion (rare)
- making a false equivalency between two related but distinct words or concepts (more common e.g. not mad = happy)
3) Clues
- repetition of a key word (esp across arguments)
- introduces new ideas in conclusion
EX: My dog was tired this morning so he was sick this morning.
Converse and Inverse
1) confusing sufficient and necessary conditions
2) converse - assumes nec cond is suffient
3) inverse - Assumes that not
satisfying the sufficient condition completely
prevents the necessary condition from occurring
4) clues
- conditional statements in stimulus. DiAGrAM!
ex: If you are a dog you are loved
conv: if you are loved you are a dog
inv. If you are not a dog you are not loved
Sampling
1) sample for study cited is
a) too small not representative or unique (likely to skew results)
b) respondents are dishonest/biased
c) conclusion not related to survey
2) Clues - surveys, polls, research, and organizations
EXAMPLE: Red bull surveyed their own employees not anon.
Comparison Fallacy
1) Compares disparate things
2) Common Variations
a) faulty analogies - assumes two things share characteristics when they may be different in key ways
b) Incomplete comparison - comparing without having all of the information
c) Unfair comparisons - compares between things that are different in important ways.
3) Clues
- analogy argument form
- comparative/qualitative conclusions
- prescriptive conclusions
EX. Faulty Pro athletes are paid a lot if they win, so high schoolers should be paid a lot if they win.
Incomplete - The iceberg at left is bigger than the one at right because it rises higher above the ocean.
Unfair - alcohal and sugar have some negative health effects. So we should ban sugar under 21 like alcohol.
Ad Hominem Fallacy
1) attacking a person character or behavior
2) attacking a person for inconsistent behavior (to refute their claims)
3) NOT for attacking motives per say
EX:
Composition Fallacy
1) Comparing parts to whole or whole to parts
Part to whole: Deriving something about a whole from a premise about a part.
Whole to part: Deriving something about a part from a premise about a whole.
2) Clues
- presence of a “whole” e.g. teams, organizations, groups, averages, things with parts.
Absence of Evidence Fallacy
1) taking the lack of proof of something as a premise to conclude its existence (or lack there of).
2) Variations
- Cannot prove false, so true,
- cannot prove true, so false.
- your evidence is false, so your conclusion is false too!
3) clues
- failure of proof in premises
- refuting anothers evidence
Temporal Fallacy
1) Conclusion about one time period with evidence from another.
2) Variations
- assumes past conditions will remained unchanged in future
- assumes past will influence present or future (gambler’s fallacy)
3) Clues
- verbs changing tense
- premises about past patterns
Logical Force Fallacy
1) modality - conclusion is more certain that premises.
EX: the dog will likley run run or the dog will likely fart. Therefore the dog will fart or run.
2) quantification - conclusions refer to more things than the premises.
EX: some cats are blue and some cats are fat. Therefore most cats are blue or fat.
3) clues
- strong or moderate logical force language in the conclusion
Perception vs Reality
1) irrelevant opinions or beliefs - assumes beliefs can establish emprical truth
EX: Trump believes he was cheated in the election. 50% of american do too. Therefore he was.
2) Facts DNE beliefs - Assumes someone believes a fact or an implication of their belief.
EX: Flat - earther: If you walk in one direction forever you will fall off the earth.
3) Relies on authority (inappropriately) - cites an inappropriate source for the matter.
EX: Snookie thinks increases in milk per cow in California are primarily driven by farmers caressing their cows face before they go to bed.
4) Clues - cites authority (irrelevent authority), beliefs in conclusion (facts dne beliefs), beliefs in premises (irrelevant beliefs)
Percentage vs amount
1) premise about percentages used to justify conclusions about amounts
2) premises about amounts used to justify conclusions about percentages/ratios
3) clues - proportions, percenatages, ratios, likelihoods in argument
EX 40% californias hate tobacca, so 100 ca hate tobacca
Circular reasoning
1) conclusion simply restates one or more premises
2) shows up frequently as an incorrect answer choice.
3) be sure when selecting. premise and conclusion identified.
Other common fallacies
1) Unresponsive arguments / dad counter example - responder uses a counter example that does not address main issue in the argument
2) Straw man arguments - mischaracterizing another’s argument to make it seem weaker and easier to rebutt.
3) emotional appeals
