Midterm Review Flashcards
Learn terms of Rhetoric and Fallacies--differentiate between the two
euphemisms
convey a positive tone
- the company is deciding to downsize (instead of deciding to fire employees)
- improvement=learning opportunity
dysphemism
convey a negative tone
- company is going to fire employees
- screw up=mistake
rhetorical definition
defining terms and providing explanations
rhetorical explanation
defining terms and providing explanations can also convey rhetoric–after the fact
- the WHY
- Jane made it through MLS program because she has what it takes to be a good student
stereotypes
all people in the same group act, think, or believe similarly
innuendo
attributing a behavior to someone without explicitly stating it (indirect accusation or attribution)
loaded questions
type of innuendo posed as a question designed to implicate by its asking
-Ty was cheating on his chem test yesterday. Jack, weren’t you siting by Ty during the test?
weaseling
watering down a response by not taking a specific stance, or giving yourself an “out”
-Jack’s response: I usually sit by Ty in chem, but I don’t remember if I sat by him that day
downplaying
an attempt to diminish the importance of someone or something
-I didn’t hit him THAT hard (sibling fight)
ridicule
to laugh at someone in a condescending manner, which discredits position or standing
-talking down to someone
hyperbole
excessive exaggeration in explanation or definition
–It’s so fluffy I’m doing to die
rhetorical analogies/proof surrogates
improper comparisons and/or improper descriptions of evidence
–when comparing something, the comparison is something completely separate and not related
cultural competency
having the knowledge, skills, and abilities to understand how history, culture and context frame decisions
–includes gender/sexual orientation, economic background, sociologic, race/ethnicity, religion
cultural awareness
knowing that other cultures exist, are different than yours, and affect how interactions are interpreted
cultural sensitivity
altering how you interact with others to alleviate any possible misinterpretation
cultural education
working to gain a greater awareness of others culture, verbal and non-verbal difference in communications, and self knowledge of how your verbal and nonverbal patterns are perceived by others
outrage argument
inflammatory words followed by a conclusion, that may or may not follow from the inflammatory words (anger substituted for logic)
scapegoating
assigning blame to a person or group for a large or persistent problem
scare tactics
using fear in place of logic to make an argument (alternative to scapegoating)
pity tactics
same but with compassion as the response
subjectivist fallacy
believing something is true because one thinks it is true
rationalization
using a false pretext to satisfy our own interest
relativism
assuming one society’s culture is as good as another, and so if that one culture’s claims are true it must be true in our culture as well
red herrings
adding a new topic to the conversation to distract from the original point
-includes Straw Man and Appeal to Emotion, Argumentum Ad Hominem
smoke screen
adding a new topic to conversation making it more difficult to focus on original point
ad hominem
accusing someone making a claim of a law or misdeed–by making the accusation you hope to reduce the credibility of the person making the claim, even if the flaw has nothing to do with the claim
fallacy
is a mistake in reasoning, an argument that doesn’t really support or prove the contention it it supposed to support/prove
relevance fallacy
when speaker tries to support/prove a point by brining up something irrelevant
Argumentum Ad Hominum
speaker attempts to dismiss someone’s position by dismissing the person
poisoning the well
occurs when speaker or writer attempts to dismiss what someone is going to say by talking about the person’s character/circumstance
guilt by association
when a speaker tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we don’t like has that belief
genetic fallacy
speaker argues that the origin of a contention in and of itself automatically renders it false
-view should be rejected b/c of its origin
straw man
occurs when speaker attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misrepresenting it
-someone transforms your position into one that nobody would accept
false dilemma
someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
-speaker does not present all the options
line drawing
when speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal-clear line can be drawn b/w two things, or else there is no difference b/w them
-speaker can assume that–since we cannot say exactly how many dollars a person must have in order to be ‘rich’, then we can never say that person is ‘rich’
misplacing burden of proof
when people try to support or prove their position by misplacing the burden of proof
-depends on context–if the issue is factual, the side making the more outlandish claim has the burden of proof
appeal to ignorance
someone asserts that we should believe a claim b/c nobody has proved it false
-nobody has proved ghosts don’t exist; therefore they do
begging the question
speaker is guilty of begging the question logically when he or she tries to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amount to repackaging of the very contention in question
appeal to emotion
speaker “supports” a contention by playing on our emotions rather than by producing a real argument
argument from outrage
attempts to convince us by making us angry rather than by giving us a relevant argument
scare tactics
occurs when a speaker trues to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion
appeal to pity
occurs when speaker tries to convince us of something by arousing our pity rather than by giving relevant argument
irrelevant conclusion
relevance fallacies that do not fit comfortably into the above categories
-“I don’t think I missed too many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better lately”
building blocks of critical thinking
claims, issues, arguments
claim
statements that are true or false, sentence or explanation that is fact
issues
always need to turn into a claim, aren’t precise
3 parts of arguments
- premise: sets up what you need to know
- conclusion: what they want you to believe
- information: is in between
inductive reasoning
perspective that is specific to general–patients and students think this way
inductive reasoning process
- start with problem: ONE PERSON’S EXPERIENCE
- look at specific outcome that person had
- assess comparability–how if this person like others?
- generalizing up–one person becomes example–other people can watch this person in order to avoid something bad or achieve something good
- general rule of outcome–applies to someone else
can inductive experience be wrong?
NO–never wrong
strong inductive reason
if premise provides more support for conclusion
weak inductive reason
if they don’t fit you personally
deductive reasoning
general to specific–advisors and providers think this way
deductive reasoning process
- start with general experience
- leads to general outcome that should apply to everyone
- assess comparability
- scale down–see where everyone fits
- specific conclusion based on where they fit
can deductive reasoning be right or wrong?
yes–general conclusion applies to everyone–can be inaccuracies or be right–it depends
valid deductive reason
if it is impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false–internal consistency
sounds deductive reason
if the premise of a valid argument is true–if its right at the beginnings its sound–argument has been demonstrated
