Lesson 4: Common Argumentative Flaws (19)

Question 1

General (E) to Specific (C) pg. 143

the stereotype/generalization

Answer 1

Identification:
- stereotype, average, or generalization in the evidence
- assertion about an individual or a subset of a group in the conclusion
Find the assumption, flaw, how to strengthen and weaken the argument

Question 2

Specific (E) to General (C) pg. 144

Dominates and Representativeness

Answer 2

Identification:
- conclusion that is much broader than the evidence
- study, survey, sample, experiment
Strength: critical similarities
weaken: critical differences
Flaw: generalizes from a sample that may not be representative

Question 3

Argument by Analogy pg. 145

Answer 3

Identification:
- comparison of different items between evidence and conclusion

Time is often used to create this argument (past v present, past v future, present v future)

S: critical similarities
W: critical differences
F: offers an analogy in support of a conclusion w/out indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similarities

Note: Be sure to sort out pronoun references. TM use pronouns to distract you from the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion

Question 4

Bad Info from experts, studies, and data pg. 146

Answer 4

Identification: in the evidence
- experts say, studies say, data says, records say

note:
the evidence is the truth
- required to accept that the experts “believe” something. not required to take what they believe as the truth

when bad info flaw is based on a person or group’s thoughts/opinion, then the arguments also commits a jump from thought to reality flaw

Question 5

Jump from Reality to Though pg. 147

Answer 5

identification: in the conclusion

- knowledge, belief, intent

Question 6

Extreme Conclusion pg. 148

Answer 6

Identification:
- conclusion eliminates all other possibilities
or
- conclusion asserts that there is only one possibility, thereby eliminating all other possibilities

F: inappropriately treats two possible courses of action as if they were the only options

Question 7

Correlation (E) to Causation (C) pg. 149

Answer 7

Identification: in the conclusion
- if/then statements, verbs of change, explains/responsible/effect, because, genetic predisposition

Notes:

• causation: strong but not absolute
• correlation: weak
• also an extreme conclusion when the argument assumes that this casual relationship is the only relationship that explains the correlation from the evidence
• uses strong language when attempting the strengthen or weaken the argument
• uses an alternative explanation to weaken

More correlations include:

• no cause, no effect
• temporal (timing) and geographical correlation

Question 8

concept shift pg. 150

Answer 8

Identification:

• totally unrelated or related but different concepts between evidence and conclusion
• will share the same or similar word in both the evidence and conclusion

Notes:

• make an if/then statement from the chart you made (pg. 150. Example is the University of HI)
• Common way to weaken the if/then statement is to have an AC that indicates that the trigger is true and the result is false (trig true - result false)

Concepts in the conclusion include: Morals/ethics, obligation/duty

Question 9

Confusion of Sufficient and Necessary pg. 151

Answer 9

Flaw: treats the sufficient condition as a necessary condition
- note: if the argument does not have any if/then statements, then you can eliminate those answer choices

ID:

• false contrapositive
• conclusion matches the trigger of an if/then statement in the evidence
• conclusion matches the negative of the result of an if/then statement in the evidence

** also considered an extreme conclusion flaw

Question 10

Assuming the Trigger pg. 152

Answer 10

Assumes the trigger is true
ID:
- conclusion matches the result of an if/then statement in the evidence
- conclusion matches the negative of the trigger of an if/then statement in the evidence

Will look like:
E: X —> Y
C: Y

Question 11

Confusion of numbers and rates pg. 153

Answer 11

ID:
- rate in the evidence and raw numbers in the conclusion or vice versa

Rate Indicators:
- safety, danger, percentage, rate, prone, likelihood, more likely

** AC will deal with a lot of numeric issues. will need to know how fractions work

Question 12

Comparison Flaw/Net Effect Flaw/Recommendation pg. 154

Answer 12

• Comparison, net effect, and recommendation will all be in the conclusion

Question 13

Degree/Dichotomy

Answer 13

ID:
- dichotomy in the evidence and degrees in conclusion or vice versa

Flaw:

• treats a relative property as though it were absolute
• infers an incremental (degree) relationship between two characteristics from evidence that merely indicates that one is sufficient to warrant the other

Question 14

Different Baseline (starting point) pg. 156

Answer 14

ID:

• two different groups are compared in some way in the evidence. the groups may not start from the same point bc
  - they are self selecting groups
  - they are divided up into distinct groups due to a difference that already exists between the two groups

Baseline flaws include:

• correlation to causation
• comparison
• bad info

Question 15

Polar Opposite pg. 158

Answer 15

Two types:

1. you did not prove it true. thus, it must be false
2. you did not prove it false. thus, it must be true

ID: failure to prove

A: if you cant prove it, it must not be true
F: takes lack of proof for a claim to be proof of the claim’s falsity
F: concludes simply bc there is not evidence, that there is evidence against that point of view
F: infers from a failure to disprove a claim that the claim is true
F: confuses inadequate evidence for truth w/ evidence for falsity
W: a statement that was believed for questionable reasons may be true

Question 16

Weak (E) to Strong (C) flaw pg. 158

Answer 16

ID:
- weak evidence and strong conclusion

F: “might” is not strong enough to support “will”

Question 17

Vague term pg. 158

Answer 17

ID:
- a repeated term with multiple definitions or meanings

F: to go back and forth
F: illicitly shifts the meaning of a term
F: offers and ambiguous term
F: fails to provide a scientifically respectable definition for the term
F: never adequately defines what is meant by the term

Question 18

Circular Reasoning pg. 159

Answer 18

ID:
- parts of the evidence matches the entire conclusion

F: is circular
F: presupposes what it purports to establish
F: draws a conclusion that is logically equivalent to its premise

Question 19

Bad Character pg. 159

Answer 19

ID:
- attack of the character or actions of the person making the argument

F: attacks the character of the one making the argument rather than the argument itself
F: attacks a certain group rather than their positions