Lecture 7: Chapter 7

Question 1

Relevance fallacy

Answer 1

• most common fallacy
• it means dismissing someones’ position by dismissing the person
• dismissing the argument because the person does not have credibility or the argument is not credible

Question 2

inductive argument

Answer 2

• using something that is very general to make specific conclusion

Question 3

deductive argument

Answer 3

• going from specific to general
• good: if it is true and valid
• bad: if the premise does not support the conclusion

Question 4

types of ad hominem

Answer 4

1: poisoning the well
2: guilt by association
3: genetic fallacy

Question 5

poisoning the well

Answer 5

• speakers and writers try to get us to dismiss what someone is going to say by talking about their consistency, character, or circumstances
• it is an attempt to poison the well, hoping that we will dismiss whatever the person says.

Question 6

what is this an example of “when someone starts trash talking someone without actually addressing the arguement”

Answer 6

poisoning the well

Question 7

guilt by association

Answer 7

• refers to the concept that a person is judged by the company they keep
• in logic, it is a version of arguementum ad hominem where a speaker tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we do not like has that belief

Question 8

what is this an example of “ if someone is a friend of someone who has been lying, then you make the assumption that the friend is also lying”

Answer 8

guilt by association

Question 9

genetic fallacy

Answer 9

• it is committed when a speaker/writer argues that the origin of a contention renders it false
• in summary, the Genetic Fallacy involves attacking the source of an idea rather than the idea itself
• dismissing something based on its origin
• occurs when we try to “refute” a claim (or urge others to do so) on the basis of its origin or its history

Question 10

what is this an example of “father Jonathon’s views on abortion should be ignored because he’s a priest and priests are required to think that abortion is a mortal sin”

Answer 10

genetic fallacy

Question 11

straw man

Answer 11

• when someone distorts or misrepresents an argument in order to dismiss it
• common mistake in arguments
• it is important to accurately represent the other person’s argument in order to have a productive discussion
  -We get a straw man fallacy when a speaker or writer distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misrepresents an opponent’s position.

Question 12

what is the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and straw man?

Answer 12

ad hominem attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

Question 13

principle of charity

Answer 13

• always representing the opposite position at its best

Question 14

false dilemma (ignoring other alternatives)

Answer 14

• when someone presents a conclusion as the only alternative to something unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
• the speaker ignores other options, making it a fallacy
• saying “its either this or that”

Question 15

the perfectionist fallacy

Answer 15

• occurs when a speaker or writer ignores options between “perfection” and “nothing”
• its either 100% or 0% (if its 90% than they basically say that it does not matter)

Question 16

what is this an example of “ arguing that a single english course will not make someone a great writer, so we should not take one at all”

Answer 16

the perfectionist fallacy

Question 17

the line-drawing fallacy

Answer 17

• occurs when a speaker or writer assumes a clear line can be drawn between two things, or there’s no difference between them

Question 18

what is this an example of “ either a clear line can be drawn between violent and nonviolent videos, or there is no distinction between them”

Answer 18

the line-drawing fallacy

Question 19

misplacing the burden of proof

Answer 19

• is on the person making a claim to provide evidence to support it
• occurs when someone tires to shift the responsibility of providing evidence onto the other party
• generally falls on the side making the more outlandish claim or seeking to change something

Question 20

appeal to ignorance

Answer 20

a version of misplacing the burden of proof and occurs when someone argues that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false

Question 21

begging the question (assuming what you are trying to prove)

Answer 21

• begging the question is a logical fallacy where the speaker tries to support their argument by repackaging the same contention in question
• it is not evidence, and it assumes what it’s trying to prove
• key words: assuming, likely

Question 22

what is this an example of “someone saying the president would not lie, so he must have told the truth about a specific topic “

Answer 22

begging the question

Question 23

appeal to emotion

Answer 23

• occurs when a speaker or writer tires to support a contention by playing on our emotions rather than producing a real argument
• different types
  
  1. the argument from
     outrage
  2. scare tactics
  3. the appeal to pity

Question 24

the argument from outrage

Answer 24

it attempt to convince us by making us angry rather than giving a relevant argument
- apart of an appeal to emotion

Question 25

score tactics

Answer 25

• when a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion
• apart of appeal to emotion

Question 26

ad hominem

Answer 26

• we commit this fallacy when we think that considerations about a person “refute” his or her assertions
• basically point to the person making the claim and accuse him or her of some flaw, evil deed, or other negative feature

Question 27

the inconsistency ad hominem

Answer 27

• The fact that people change their minds has no bearing on the truth of what they say either before or after
• Sometimes a person’s claim seems inconsistent, not with previous statements but with that person’s behaviour.
• This type of reasoning, where we reject what somebody says because what he or she says seems inconsistent with what he or she does

Question 28

slippery slope

Answer 28

• Such claims are fallacious when in fact there is no reason to think that X will lead to Y
• The slippery slope fallacy has considerable force because psychologically one item does often lead to another, even though logically it does no such thing.

Question 29

types of misplacing the burden of proof

Answer 29

• 1: initial plausibility
• 2: affirmative/negative
  -3: special circumstances

Question 30

initial plausibility

Answer 30

• The general rule that most often governs the placement of the burden of proof is simply this: The less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater the burden of proof we place on someone who asserts that claim.
• i.e. we are quite naturally less skeptical about the claim that Charlie’s now-famous eighty-seven-year-old grandmother drove a boat across lake Michigan than we are about the claim that she swam across Lake Michigan

Question 31

affirmative/negative

Answer 31

• Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side.

Question 32

appeal to ignorance

Answer 32

• a burden-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do not believe in ghosts.

Question 33

special circumstances

Answer 33

• One important variety of special circumstances occurs when the stakes are especially high.