Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Logic > Formal Logic > Flashcards

Formal Logic Flashcards

1
Q

Define fallacy

A

Also called “quart room trick,“ an identifiable category of argument that does not support its conclusion. 

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

Circular argument

A

The conclusion is identical to the premise. When the premise and the conclusion are the same proposition. As opposed to sentence.

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

What’s the point of an argument?

A

The point of an argument is to provide independent support of a conclusion. 

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

When is an argument considered unsound

A

If we don’t have independent reason that a conclusion is valid.

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

How does the integrity of the argument affect the validity of the conclusion?

A

It doesn’t. If the argument is unsound, it does not mean that the conclusion as follows.

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

Why is “begging the question” a form of circular argument?

A

 because it tries to disguise the conclusion as the premise

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

“Begging the question”

A

Unfairly using the conclusion in support of itself

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

What is a question

A

A question is the request for information

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

What is a leading question

A

A sentence that looks like a question what is designed to elicit a desired response?

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

What are some examples of begging the question

A

Ask a question that’s not really a question.

Use the connotative power of language to frame questions unfairly. 

 use ambiguous words

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

Equivocation

A

Using ambiguous words

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

Is there anything inherently wrong with using ambiguous words?

A

 Not as long as each ambiguous word S’  meaning is consistent throughout the argument. 

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

Distinction

A

Linguistic separation of two concepts that are different 

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

What is the distinction without a difference?

A

It’s the fallacy of seeing two things are distinct when they are not 

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

Where will you find distinction without a difference most often

A

You’ll find it in people who are holding onto a belief that they know they shouldn’t. 

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

What’s required before an authority is considered legitimate? In other words, what are the requirements for a legitimate authority?

A
  1. Material existence must be real. Must exist in the real world.
  2. Expertise. It should be an expert in the field.
  3.  Impartial.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Appeal to common opinion. Ad populum . Give some examples.

A

Movie ratings, polls, morality of slavery

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

Why does “mothers bridge fallacy” perfectly describe ad populum?

A

Ever hear the saying, “if everyone jumped off the bridge, would you jump off too?”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

When does appealing to common opinion appropriate?

A

If I am in a building that I am not familiar with, and an alarm goes off, it would be appropriate for me to follow the crowd because one, I can see them all going in one direction all following each other two, most of these people work here. They would know how to get out of here three they’re not biased they all just want to go home. After the show is over I need to find my way back to my car which is in the garage I will probably end up exactly where I need to play a piano version of people who are local how to get through the nearby garage everyone else please 

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Appeal to tradition (intellectual inertia)

A

“It’s always been done that way“

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Fallacy of novelty

A

Suggesting something is better because it’s newer. New does not mean improved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Give a list of reasoning errors

A

– faulty authority, claiming something based on an authority when that authority is not legitimate

– appeal to come in opinion. arguing, some thing is true, because it is widely believed, 
Dash appeal to tradition. Claiming something is true because we have long thought it to be.

– Novelty. Asserting that something is true or better because it is newer.

-fallacy of faulty analogy. When we argue using an analogy and that analogy is flawed. 

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Can you infer competence in business as evidence of competence for politics?

A

No.

The goal of running a business is to defeat competition in the marketplace and create monetary profits for only your shareholder.

In contrast, politicians, supposed goal is to Create laws that will bring More than monetary benefits to all of society. 

There’s no correlation between the two because neither structures of the two do not share the requisite commonality.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Shooting heroin is like drinking a glass of wine. He goes straight into the bloodstream, impairs your judgment, and is addictive.

A

The analogy fails despite the similarities  because of radical differences in degree. 

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Correlation does not entail causation 

A

Just because you can find two things together. We cannot assert ,with any degree of certainty, prove that one cause the other. Does that mean one caused the other? 

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How can you be certain that a causes b?

A

 the mechanism by which event A brings about event B .

27
Q
A

Cause must come before effect.

“Post hoc ergo promoter hoc”
“After this, therefore, because of it“
Post hoc fallacy



28
Q

Explain, “causation does not entail correlation”

A

Ring to the strongest are those that bar before falling in love does not mean that walking into the strongest are those that do not correlate single events but when we notice most of the time we observe events in Taipei events be seen, the repetition of the correlation strengthens our belief in the causation 

29
Q

Fallacies

A

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 Neglect of a common cause

Casual oversimplification

difference between necessary and sufficient conditions

Slippery, slope, fallacy 

30
Q

What is the principle of charity?

A

Assessing the strongest possible version of an argument .

See attacking the straw man

31
Q

What is attacking the strawman?

A

Attacking the strawman is widening, or narrowing the scope of an argument in order to weaken the point . It’s the premise that is attacked.

“So you’re saying this, but the real reason is “..” and because of that, I don’t agree.

32
Q

What is a red herring

A

Where the conclusion is attacked. It’s a way of distracting us from what we were originally pursuing comes from the fox hunt when they used a baked red herring to cleanse the nasal palate so to speak.

33
Q

Validity

A
34
Q

What is deduction?

A

Sticking with you already know, and rearranging it to see it from a different perspective 

35
Q

What is the one thing you need for rational belief?

A

High probability

36
Q

What is a deductive argument?

A

 when the conclusion is non-ampliative. The conclusions scoop is never greater than the scope of the premise.

37
Q

What is an inductive argument?

A

An inductive argument contains a ampliative conclusion.

In other words:
The conclusion moves past the scope of the premise giving us rational belief in something not yet observed.

You basically take what you already know and give yourself logical permission to believe new things that we did not know before 

There’s no guarantee that the results must be true. the best we get from induction is “likely truth. “ therefore, there is no guaranteed certainty. In fact, there’s no certainty at all. What you can do is believe it though.

38
Q

Give me an example of inductive analogy

A

When Item number one “P1” has a property labeled “A”

An item number two “P2” has properly labeled “A”, and item number three “P3” has properly labeled “A” all the way to the end label “Pn”

If I’ve only seen n instances of P then the next P will have property label “A“. 

39
Q

Universal generalization

A

When item P has property, having n many P and there is a set of 10 labeled x.
Universal generalization claims then that every item, even items that have not been observed, will have property a.

40
Q

Statistical generalization

A

If x% of all observed items Pn have property “a” then x% of all items have property “a”

41
Q

What is the requirement for complete information?

A

When all observed p has property a

42
Q

What are the fallacies associated with inductive reasoning?

A

Exaggerated accuracy

43
Q

Define monotonocity

A

Additional premises does not invalidate the argument 

44
Q

Define cherry picking

A

Choosing only supporting evidence when making an inductive argument

45
Q

The key to avoiding ______ is in the sample selection procedure. 

A
46
Q

Unrepresentative data

A

To make a good induction, the samples have to be representative of the population over which we are making the inference. 

47
Q

What is the key to obtaining a good sample group within a homogenous pool? 

A

The key is to cover the general subgroups in proportion to their general representation 

48
Q

What are the four Inductive fallacies

A

Selective

Insufficient sample

Unrepresentative data

Gamblers fallacy

49
Q

What is the gamblers fallacy?

A

Arguing that past experience has in any way, shape or form and effect on future events

50
Q

What if there’s a question of the relationship between variables?

A

Look at inductive argument, get a random sample of instances, and see if there’s a statistical relationship between them. 

51
Q

What constitutes the internals of a polll?

A

Sample size and distribution


52
Q

Anecdotal evidence

A

Generalized from 1 or 2 experiences

53
Q

Social desirability bias

A

The Bradley affect named after Tom Bradley 

54
Q

What is a hypothesis? 

A

I suppose statement of purported fact.
Basically, apropos statement of possible truth.

55
Q

What are scientific theories?

A

Scientific theories are sets of general axioms, which form a system of thought, providing a picture of the workings of some part of nature

56
Q

What makes a hypothesis scientific?

A

A hypothesis is scientific only if it’s falsifiable. 

57
Q

What is retro diction?

A

A theory that accounts for everything we already knew was unexplained.

58
Q

Consilience

A

A theory design to account for phenomenon of type a turns out also to account for phenomena type B 

59
Q

Syllogism

A

An argument with two premises 

60
Q

Conclusion has two parts

A

Major term is the predicate of the conclusion

Minor term is the subject of the conclusion 

61
Q

Atomic sentences

A

 Simple, declarative sentences that are either true or false

62
Q

What is tautology?

A

Tautology is a sentence that is always true

63
Q

What is a contradiction?

A

A sentence that is always falls

64
Q

What is a contingency?

A

A contingency is a sentence whose truth – value is contingent on how the world is

Logic (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions