Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Critical Thinking > Module 7A and 7B > Flashcards

Module 7A and 7B Flashcards

1
Q

What are the conditions of a COGENT argument?

(2)

A
  1. Premises are ACCEPTABLE

2.PREMISES STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION.

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

“A cogent argument’s premises are acceptable and strongly support the conclusion. “

What does ‘premise strongly support conclusion’ mean?

How is that possible?

A
  1. RELEVANT: Premises’ truth bears on the truth of the conclusion.
  2. ADEQUATE GROUNDS: Premises make it RATIONAL TO ACCEPT the conclusion.
    - Statement may offer some support without having adequate grounds. BUT—- Adequate grounds ensure rational acceptance of the conclusion.

Key Point:

  • Relevance and support are inseparable in constructing cogent arguments.
  • Recognition of relevance is crucial for effective support in reasoning.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the relationship of RELEVANCE AND SUPPORT?

A
  1. Relevance and support are INTERCONNECTED
    - IRRELEVANT premises provide NO SUPPORT
  • Relevance and support are INTERLINKED in ARGUMENTATION.

– Premises must be RELEVANT TO the — CONCLUSION — FOR THE SUPPORT.

– RELEVANT premises SUPPORT the CONCLUSION TO SOME DEGREE.

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

Relevance and Support in Argumentation:

UNDERSTANDING THE DEGREE OF SUPPORT

A
  1. IRRELEVANT premises provide support of degree 0.
  2. ADEQUATE GROUNDS are necessary for MEANINGFUL SUPPORT.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Relevance and Support in Argumentation:

understanding RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATEMENTS.

A

Statements may positively or negativelyIMPACT EACH OTHER

  • POSITIVE: SUPPORT or count in FAVOUR.
  • NEGATIVE: OPPOSE or count AGAINST.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Relevance and Support in Argumentation:

UNDERSTANDING

Support vs. Adequacy:

A

1.A statement may offer some support without having adequate grounds.

  1. Adequate grounds ensure rational acceptance of the conclusion.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

understanding the FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE.

Why is it hard to identify? (2)

A

POSITIVE AND PRECISE ARTICULATION of relevance challenging because

  1. Identifying relevance challenging; SOME FORMS RESIST EASY LABELLING.
  2. DECEPTIVE FALLACIES require DISCERNMENT; CONTEXTS MAY RENDER SOME NON-FALLACIOUS.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are some COMMON FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE?

A
  1. Appeal to Popularity
  2. Guilt by Association
  3. Fallacious Appeal to Authority [Genetic Fallacy]
  4. Fallacious Appeal to Ignorance
  5. Straw Man
  6. Fallacious Ad Hominem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Fallacies of Relevance:

Understanding THE CHALLENGES IN LABELLING

A
  1. Identifying COMMON ARGUMENT FORMS (deductively valid, inductive, analogy).
  2. Not all reasoning fits neat labels or categories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Fallacies of relevance:

Understanding FALLACIOUS REASONINGS have DISTINCTIVE FORMS

A

FALLACIOUS REASONINGS have DISTINCTIVE FORMS

— Some reasoning forms are fallacious.

—- Common, recognizable patterns labeled (e.g., Straw Man, Genetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem).

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

Fallacies of relevance:

understanding SPECIAL Contextual considerations

A

Special Contextual Considerations:

  • Fallacious patterns in ANALOGICAL and CASUAL REASONING.
  • Best discussed within specific contexts.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Fallacies of IRrelevance:

Understanding the STRICT DEFINITION

A

Understanding the strict definition of fallacies of irrelevance:

Strict Definition:

  1. Fallacy involves REASONS IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSION
  2. ALL FALLACIES CATEGORIZED AS FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Some common fallacies of relevance can be DECEPTIVE:

A

Common Fallacies:

  1. Some fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem) ARE COMMON.
  2. DECEPTIVE; CONTEXT MAY ALTER THIER FALLACIOUS NATURE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Fallacies of relevance:

Recognizing Circumstances

A

ECEPTIONAL CASES:

  1. Some fallacies have EXCEPTIONS.
  2. Importance of RECOGNISING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEIR EFFECTS.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are Fallacies to Clarity?

A

In addition to fallacies of relevance, consider fallacies of clarity.

INVOLVE SERIOUS FLAWS UNDERMINING REASONING, OFTEN THROUGH MISREPRESENTATION.

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

List the common Fallacies of Clarity = 4

A
  1. Equivocation
  2. Slanting
  3. False Dichotomy
  4. Vagueness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

why is fallacies to clarity significant?

A
  1. Not strictly fallacies but CRUCIAL DUE TO SERIOUS FLAWS
  2. FLAWS UNDERMINE OR ELIMINATE THE COGENCY OF REASONING.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the nature of flaws?

A
  1. Flaws involve MISREPRESENTATION.

2.REASONING HAS RHETORICAL POWER, MASKING BAD REASONING AS GOOD.

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

understanding EQUIVOCATION

A
  1. Type of FALLACY OF CLARITY
  2. Involves USING AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE LEADING TO A MISLEADING INTERPRETATION.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

understanding SLANTING

A
  1. Fallacy of clarity.
  2. PRESENTS INFORMATION IN A BIASED MANNER —- DISTORTING ITS TRUE MEANING
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Understanding FALSE DICHOTOMY

A
  1. A fallacy of clarity.
  2. PRESENTS A SITUATION AS HAVING ONLY 2 ALTERNATIVE WHEN MORE OPTIONS EXIST.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Understanding Vagueness

A
  1. Fallacy of clarity.
  2. Involves using IMPRECISE OR UNCLEAR LANGUAGE, LEADING TO CONFUSION OR MISINTERPRETATION.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What re the 2 types of THE FALLACY OF FALSE DICHOTOMY?

A
  1. Seductive; DISTRACTS FROM FALSE BELIEF, drawing STRENGTH FROM IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS.
  2. Illustration: COMPARING CURRENT SYSTEM TO A PAST OF “golden age” WITHOUT EXPLICIT STATEMENT.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

FALSE DICHOTOMY: Illustration and example

A

Case Illustration:
— Example of evaluating the current university system.
— The assumption: Either the current system is better or the previous one was a perfect “golden age”.

  1. Tom is either my friend or my enemy.
  2. No friend of mine would refuse me a small loan.
  3. Therefore, Tom is my enemy.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Understanding the SEDUCTIVE NATURE OF THE FALLACY OF FALSE DICHOTOMY

A
  1. Highly CAPTIVATING REASONING.
  2. FORM may dDISTRACT FROM the UNDERLYING FALSE BELIEF.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Understanding False Belief vs. Fallacy

A
  1. Strictly a false belief, not a fallacy in a technical sense.
  2. Form of reasoning can lead to acceptance of a conclusion based on the false belief.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Implicit Assumption (Fallacy of False Dichotomy)

A
  1. Often draws strength from implicit, unstated assumptions.
  2. Effective in the context of a dialogue.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Strength in Dialogue: Fallacy of False Dichotomy

A
  1. Unstated assumption controls discussions effectively.
  2. Highlights the power of implicit assumptions in shaping opinions.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Uncompelling Stated Baldly (Fallacy of False Dichotomy)

A
  1. Stated explicitly, the claim may not be compelling.
  2. Left unstated, it can significantly influence the discussion.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Impact on Belief Acceptance - (False Dichotomy)

A
  1. The form of reasoning can beguile one into accepting the conclusion based on the false belief.
  2. Underlines the persuasive nature of this fallacy.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What is Genetic Fallacy? (Fallacy of Relevance)

A

OCCURS WHEN ATTACKING A BELIEF BASED ON ITS CASUAL ORIGINS.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Genetic Fallacy ..Understanding BASIS OF REJECTION. = 2

A

Reasons for Rejection:

  1. BELIEF ATTACKED because OF IRRATIONAL HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS.
  2. Rejecting a belief based ON NON-RATIONAL ACQUISITION BY ANOTHER PERSON
33
Q

Illustrative examples of GENETIC Fallacy

A

Illustrative Examples:

Religious Belief:

— Rejected due to its historical connection with irrational beliefs.

Example: “Religious belief arose from the fear of the unknown, hence has no basis.”

Attack on Feminism:

— Persuasive until discovering the person’s bitter divorce.

Example: “Raymond’s attack on feminism loses credibility due to personal issues.”

34
Q

Rejecting Religious Belief (GENETIC FALLACY)

A

Example: “Religious belief arose from the fear of the unknown, hence has no basis.”

Claim: Religious belief has no basis.

Reasoning: Arises from the fear of the unknown.

35
Q

GENETIC FALLACY

Rejecting feminism critique due to a bitter divorce.

A

“Raymond’s attack on feminism loses credibility due to personal issues.”

Claim: Raymond’s attack on feminism lacks credibility.

Reasoning: Persuasion diminishes upon discovering his bitter divorce.

36
Q

GENETIC FALLACY — NON RATIONAL ACQUISITION

A

BELIEF REJECTED IF ACQUIRED THROUGH NON-COGENT REASONING OR NON-RATIONAL MEANS

Examples: Conditioning or fallacious reasoning.

37
Q

Persuasiveness vs. Validity (GENETIC FALLACY)

A
  1. A belief may be PERSUASIVE but LACKS VALIDITY if BASED ON A GENETIC FALLACY.
  2. EVALUATING ARGUMENTS for BOTH PERSUASION AND LOGICAL SOUNDNESS IS CRUCIAL.
38
Q

GENETIC FALLACY : CAUTION IN EVALUATIONS.

A
  1. AWARENESS NEEDED when EVALUATING BELIEFS BASED ON THIER ORIGINS.
  2. CRITICAL THINKING INVOLVES ASSESSING THE MERIT OF ARGUMENTS INDEPENDENT OF THIER CASUAL HISTORY.
39
Q

Recognizing the Fallacy OF GENETIC FALLACY

A
  1. Identifying the Genetic Fallacy involves SPOTTING ATTACKS ON BELIEFS DUE TO THEIR CASUAL ORIGINS.
  2. IMPORTANT FOR SOUND REASONING AND AVOIDING ILLOGICAL DISMISSALS
40
Q

The Appeal to Ignorance

A
  1. Fallacies generally APPEAL TO IRRELEVANT ELEMENTS.
  2. Appeal to Ignorance may have valid uses, depending on context.

DEFINITION: FALLACY WHERE AN ARGUMENT RELIES ON LACK OF EVIDENCE OR KNOWLEDGE AS SUPPORT FOR A CONCLUSION.

41
Q

Fallacies of Relevance; NATURE OF THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

A
  1. Fallacies LABELED as such because THEY APPEAL TO IRRELEVANT ASPECTS.
  2. Some OCCASIONS EXIST WHERE THE APPEAL MAY NOT BE IRRELEVANT
42
Q

Appeal to ignorance:

Evaluating Fallacies

A
  1. RECOGNISE the FORM of fallacies
  2. ASSESS REASONABILITY IN SPECIFIC CONTEXTS
  3. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE CAN IMPACT THE EVALUATION.
43
Q

Appeal to Ignorance Examples

A

A

[A] Lack of Evidence in Other Galaxies:

No evidence of intelligent life in other galaxies.
Therefore, no life in other galaxies.

Argument Assessment:
(A) Lack of Evidence in Other Galaxies:

Evaluation: Bad argument.

44
Q

Appeal to Ignorance Examples

B

A

[B] Lack of Evidence for Tasmanian Tigers:

  1. No evidence of Tasmanian tigers in Tasmania.
  2. Therefore, no Tasmanian Tigers in Tasmania

Argument Assessment:

Evaluation: Bad argument.
(B) Lack of Evidence for Tasmanian Tigers:

Evaluation: Reasonable argument.

45
Q

Reasonability in Context: APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

A

Contextual Reasonability:

CONSIDERATION: Depends on the likelihood of having relevant evidence if the conclusion is false.

Tasmanian Tigers Scenario:
Scenario: Lack of evidence supports the claim of no Tasmanian Tigers.
Reasoning: Unlikely to be around without being detected.

46
Q

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE:

Relevance of Lack of Evidence

Relevance criteria = 2

A

Relevance in Lack of Evidence:

Relevance Criteria:

(a) LIKELIHOOD OF EVIDENCE IF THE CONCLUSION WERE FALSE.

(b) EFFORTS IN LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO FIND IT.

47
Q

Importance of Background Knowledge - significance and impact APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

A

SIGNIFICANCE: Extra background knowledge crucial for evaluating the relevance of lack of evidence.

IMPACT: Can make a difference in the assessment of an appeal to ignorance.

48
Q

Definition of AD HOMINEM (fallacy of relevance)

A
  1. ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AGAINST THE PERSON PRESENTING AN ARGUMENT.
  2. Typically TARGETS the PERSON’S CHARACTER OR BELIEFS.
49
Q

Understanding the Reputability of Ad Hominem

(fallacy of relevance)

A
  1. NOT ALL ad hominem arguments ARE DISREPUTABLE.
  2. FALLACIOUS when the ATTACK ON CHARACTER OR BELIEFS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.
50
Q

Ad Hominem CRUCIAL DISTINCTION:

Testimony vs Argument

A

A: TESTIMONY:
Relevant to attack the witness’s character.

B: ARGUMENT:
Not relevant to attack the source’s character when assessing reasoning quality.

51
Q

Ad Hominem:

understanding Assessing Premise vs. Support

A
  1. Premise Acceptability:
    Relevant to assess the reliability of the source.
  2. Support Evaluation:
    Source’s reliability is irrelevant when assessing how well reasons support the conclusion
52
Q

Ad Hominem: RESPECTABLE USE IN INCONSISTENCY

A

Respectable Use:

Ad hominem arguments RESPECTABLE WHEN POINTING OUT INCONSISTENCY IN BELIEFS

EXAMPLE: Using live animals for research vs. eating meat.

53
Q

Ad Hominem UNDERSTANDING LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS = 2

A
  1. Ad hominem argument WORKS AGAINST THE PERSON HOLDING THE BELIEFS
  2. INEFFECTIVE IN CONVINCING A 3RD PERSON (C) WITH DIFFERENT BELIEFS.
54
Q

AD HOMINEM SCENARIO EXAMPLE

A

A’s Argument:
Live animal use for research should be banned.

B’s Ad Hominem Response:
You eat meat without worrying about animal suffering.

—–Force of B’s Argument:
B’s aim is to show A’s inconsistency.
A forced to make a rational choice to maintain consistency.

—–A’s Argument Cogency:
B’s ad hominem doesn’t disprove the cogency of A’s argument.
B highlights inconsistency but doesn’t invalidate the argument itself.

55
Q

What is the Fallacy of Irrelevant Reason:

A
  1. Occurs when a fallacious ARGUMENT DOESN’T FIT NEATLY INTO SPECIFIC CATEGORIES.
  2. Described as a ‘catch-all’ phrase for fallacies without distinct labels.
56
Q

Importance of Handy Labels - Handy Labels for Fallacies: 2

A
  1. Valuable for frequently encountered fallacies.
  2. Not all fallacious arguments easily fit into these labels.
57
Q

Catch-All Phrase:

A

Phrase:
“The Fallacy of Irrelevant Reason.”

Purpose:
Used for fallacies that resist easy categorization.

Utility of Catch-All Phrase

Usefulness:
Valuable for addressing fallacies resisting specific categorization.

Allows for a more comprehensive understanding of diverse fallacious arguments.

58
Q

Appreciating Diversity - FALLACY OF IRRELEVANT REASON

A

Appreciating Diversity:

  1. Not all fallacious arguments are neatly labeled.
  2. Diversity in fallacious reasoning requires a broader categorisation.
59
Q

Uniqueness of Fallacies

A
  1. Some arguments don’t conform to standard fallacy labels.
  2. Require a broader understanding and recognition.
60
Q

Limitation of Neat Labels:

A

Challenge:
Not all fallacies fit neatly into predefined labels.

Solution:
Fallacy of Irrelevant Reason serves as a flexible categorization

61
Q

Fallacy of irrelevant reason: Recognizing Complexity

A

Complexity Recognition:

  1. Acknowledging that fallacies can be complex and varied.
  2. Fallacy of Irrelevant Reason accommodates this complexity.
62
Q

Emphasis on Broad Understanding - fallacy of irrelevant reasoning

A

Broad Understanding:

  1. Emphasizes the need for a broad understanding of fallacious reasoning.
  2. Facilitates effective identification and analysis of diverse fallacies.
63
Q

Another definition of slanting:

A

Slanting is trying to get people to draw conclusions, without their recognising what is happening

64
Q

Equivocation is one form of

A

Equivocation is one form of SLANTING

65
Q

TRUE OR FALSE?

Euphemisms are sometimes logically harmless

A

TRUE

66
Q

TRUE OR FALSE

“Euphemisms never constitute the use of loaded language.”

A

FALSE

67
Q

“Fallacies of clarity are also fallacies of relevance.”

TRUE OR FALSE

A

TRUE

68
Q

One should never use emotionally-charged words when reasoning

A

FALSE

If the issue being debated is emotionally-charged, it may be impossible to avoid emotionally-charged reasoning.

Further, there is no contradiction in some consideration being both reasonable and emotionally appealing.

69
Q

The straw man fallacy is a fallacy of relevance.

TRUE OR FALSE

A

TRUE

If you try to refute an argument by attacking a misrepresentation of that argument, no matter how cogent the refutation is, it will not be relevant. You have not addressed the argument.

70
Q

TRUE OR FALSE
With respect to arguments, the criterion of relevance is logically linked to the criterion of grounds.”

A

TRUE

71
Q

“Ad hominem arguments are always fallacious.”

A

FALSE

While ad hominem arguments are usually listed among the fallacies, it is not the case the every argument ad hominem will be fallacious.

When ad hominem arguments are fallacious, it is because remarks about the person are irrelevant to the conclusion being inferred from them.

Where such remarks are relevant an argument that proceeds from them is not fallacious.

72
Q

Contraries cannot both be false

A

FALSE

73
Q

Contraries cannot both be true

A

true

74
Q

“If a belief was accepted by a person because of some non-rational cause (e.g., emotional cause), then the person does not have good reason for holding that belief.”

A

false

75
Q

“The Fallacy of False Dichotomy is the same as the Fallacy of False Alternatives.”

A

true

76
Q

The Fallacy of False Dichotomy is often a Straw Man Fallacy as well.

A

true

77
Q

In some contexts, background knowledge can make an argument from ignorance a reasonable argument.

A

TRUE

78
Q

If the arguer has an interest in getting people to believe the thesis he is arguing for, then the argument is not a good one.

A

FALSE

Critical Thinking (18 decks)

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