Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

FIRST SEMESTER > Philosophy > Flashcards

Philosophy Flashcards

1
Q

A defect (mistake error) in an argument but the defect is anything other than merely having false premises.

A

Fallacy

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

Two Types of Fallacies

A

Formal and Informal Fallacies

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

A type of fallacy where the mistake is in the form or structure of an argument.

A

Formal Fallacies

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

A type of fallacy where the mistake is in the content of an argument

A

Informal Fallacies

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

Five types of Informal fallacies

A

Fallacies of Relevance, Weak Induction, Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy

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

The premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion

A

Fallacies of Relevance

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

Fallacy is committed whenever the person giving the argument in some way THREATENS the listener.

A

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

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

WHAT TYPE OF FALLACY? I’m the best man for the job. Anyone who says otherwise is in for a world of hurt.

A

Appeal to Force

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

I guess you will be testifying that I am innocent tomorrow. After all, neither of us wants anything to happen to your children, do we?

A

Appeal to Force

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

Fallacy is committed whenever someone tries to support a conclusion by evoking pity.

A

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

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

“But, I really need to pass this class. I need this class in order to graduate this semester, and I can’t afford to pay for more classes in the future. I already work 60 hours a week and supporting four children all by myself, and I’m barely scraping as it is, you should give me a passing grade”

A

Appeal to Pity

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

Fallacy is committed whenever the cause of the listener’s acceptance is that they are made to feel like they are part of something.

A

Appeal to the People

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

This occurs whenever the speaker implies to the listener(s) that
they will be left out or left behind if they do not agree with the speaker.

A

Appeal to the People (Indirect; Bandwagon Argument)

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

“Really? You don’t own a car? But EVERYONE owns a car.”

A

Appeal to the People (Indirect; Bandwagon Argument)

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

This occurs whenever the speaker associates the conclusion they are putting forward with some desirable person or feature. This puts in the listener’s mind the idea that, if they believe the conclusion, they will be JUST LIKE this desirable person, or they will HAVE this desirable feature too!

A

Appeal to the People (Indirect; Appeal to Vanity)

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

“You should buy a Ferrari. That’s what Tom Cruise drives.”

A

Appeal to the People (Indirect; Appeal to Vanity)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

This occurs whenever the speaker associates the conclusion with being in an elite class or a lucky member of a select few.

A

Appeal to the People (Indirect; Snoberry)

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

“You should accept the offer at the summer internship.
How many people actually get accepted into that program?
SO many apply, and only a few get in.
You’ve got a one in a million opportunity right in front of you—
I can’t believe you’re even considering turning it down.”

A

Appeal to the People (Indirect; Snoberry)

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

This fallacy is committed whenever, someone, rather than providing EVIDENCE for their view, merely resorts to attacking their listener instead.

A

Argument Against the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

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

This occurs when one person, rather than supplying REASONS for why their opponent is wrong, instead resorts to directly verbally abusing the other.

A

Argument Against the Person (Abusive)

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

PEGGY: “I think you should slow down a little bit.”
SUE: “Well, you’re an idiot.”

A

Argument Against the Person (Abusive)

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

This occurs whenever someone, rather than supplying REASONS for why someone is mistaken, instead merely tries to make that person seem like a hypocrite.

A

Argument Against the Person (“You Too”, tu quoque)

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

PEGGY: “You shouldn’t eat fast food. I hear it’s really bad for you and could lead to health complications.”
SUE: “Whatever! You eat fast food all the time!”

A

Argument Against the Person (“You Too”, tu quoque)

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

This fallacy is committed whenever someone misapplies a general rule to one of the cases that is an exception.

A

Accident

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

POLICE OFFICER: “Are you lost? Where’s your Mom and Dad? Talk to me.”
CHILD: “I can’t talk to strangers.”’

A

Accident

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

This fallacy is committed whenever someone, in order to attack an opponent, attacks some WEAKER, DISTORTED VERSION of their opponent’s argument, rather than the actual argument, the opponent is giving. This often involves twisting an opponent’s words to be saying something much more absurd or ridiculous than they are actually saying. This ridiculous claim is much easier to refute, and (once it is refuted), the speaker then concludes that they have refuted their opponent’s ACTUAL argument.

A

Straw Man

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

PEGGY: “I’m just saying that nuclear energy would provide a lot of energy in a clean
way, so we should at least consider it as an option.”
SUE: “Oh, so you’re in favor of nuclear war? Is that what you want? For all of the countries to be nuking each other until we’re all dead? How ridiculous!”

A

Straw Man

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone takes certain premises which support ONE particular conclusion, and—rather than draw THAT conclusion—they instead draw a DIFFERENT (but somewhat related) conclusion instead; and it is one that the premises do NOT support. The fact that the mistaken conclusion is loosely related to the real conclusion that the premises ACTUALLY support often makes the mistake persuasive and difficult to detect.

A

Missing the Point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

“Our daughter got all D’s this semester at D University. Every single professor there should be fired!”

A

Missing the Point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

PEGGY: There is so much welfare corruption! They found out that some people
are using welfare checks for drugs and gambling.
SUE: I know! We should just get rid of the welfare program!

A

Missing the Point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone responds to their opponent by changing the subject to something completely different. Sometimes, the different topic can be loosely related to the actual topic that was being debated. When this happens, red herrings can be misleading in a very subtle way that is difficult to detect.

A

Red Herring

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

PEGGY: “The scientific community is in unanimous agreement. We are altering the climate, and if we continue on our present course, the results will be disastrous. Climate change is a real problem in this world.”
SUE: “You know what’s a problem in this world? People just believing everything they hear. People will believe just about anything, as long as it’s said on television.”

A

Red Herring

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

The premises only WEAKLY support the conclusion.

A

Fallacies of Weak Induction

33
Q

“Dr. Alex Santos, our child’s pediatrician, has stated that the creation of muonic atoms of deuterium and tritium hold the key to producing a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. In view of Dr. Santos’ expertise as a pediatrician, we must conclude that this is indeed true.”

A

Appeal to Unqualified Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

33
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone proposes that some conclusion is true
because someone who is NOT an authority on the subject SAID it was true.

A

Appeal to Unqualified Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

33
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone concludes that either (a) because they can’t see how something could be true, it must be false, or (b) because they can’t see how something could be false, it must be true. This fallacy occurs when someone uses their own IGNORANCE about something as evidence for some CONCLUSION.

A

Appeal to Ignorance

34
Q

No one has ever been able to prove the existence of extrasensory perception. We must therefore conclude that extrasensory perception does not exist.

A

Appeal to Ignorance

35
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone draws a conclusion about a WHOLE group after examining only SOME of the members of that group.

A

Hasty Generalization (converse accident)

36
Q

I’ve met three dogs and all of them were friendly. So, all dogs are friendly.

A

Hasty Generalization (converse accident)

37
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone bases a conclusion upon the imagined existence of a causal connection that probably does not exist.

A

False Cause

38
Q

Four varieties of false cause

A

Coincidence, Correlation, Oversimplified Cause, The Gambler’s Fallacy

39
Q

This occurs whenever someone observes one event followed by another, and then concludes that the first event CAUSED the second.

A

Coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc)

40
Q

It’s raining. And I left my umbrella at home. But, it’s only raining BECAUSE I left my umbrella at home. If I had brought the umbrella with me, it would be bright and sunny.

A

Coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc)

41
Q

This occurs whenever someone mistakes CORRELATION for CAUSATION.

A

Correlation

42
Q

All of the really fast runners wear Nike shoes. So, if I get some Nike shoes, I
will be a really fast runner too!

A

Correlation

43
Q

This occurs whenever some effect is the result of a fairly complicated system or chain of causes, but the observer selects only a small PART of that causal system and mistakes it for the ENTIRE cause.

A

Oversimplified Cause

44
Q

Throughout the 1960s, the youth culture experimented more and more with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It’s all The Beatles’ fault.

A

Oversimplified Cause

45
Q

This occurs whenever someone assumes that two independent events of random chance are connected because the events are both a part of the same game.

A

The Gambler’s Fallacy

46
Q

Wow, this coin has come up heads 5 times in a row. The next one is BOUND to come up tails!

A

The Gambler’s Fallacy

47
Q

I’ve been getting more and more scared to drive lately. I’ve never been in a traffic accident, so I just KNOW that one of these days an accident is bound to happen soon.

A

The Gambler’s Fallacy

48
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever someone concludes something based on an assumption about a chain-reaction that they think will occur—but the chain-reaction is actually (contrary to their assumption) very unlikely.

A

Slippery Slope

49
Q

The government shouldn’t regulate AR-15 assault rifles. If they do that, then pretty soon, they’ll be regulating ALL guns, and then probably knives too! And pretty soon, there will be a law for everything and you won’t be able to move an inch without breaking some law or other.

A

Slippery Slope

50
Q

This fallacy is committed whenever a conclusion is drawn about something because it is similar to something else.

A

Weak Analogy

51
Q

Meghan is my best friend. I can’t wait to meet her sister tomorrow. I just know we’re going to hit it off.

A

Weak Analogy

52
Q

the premises do NOT provide INDEPENDENT evidence for the conclusion.

A

Fallacies of Presumption

53
Q

This occurs when the very thing to be proven in the conclusion (or some crucial bit of evidence which supports it) is already assumed to be true at the outset of the argument.

A

Begging the Question

54
Q

Often, arguments that beg the question come in the form of enthymemes, where the crucial premise is left out.

A

(BTQ) Missing Key Premise

55
Q

Obviously, Philosophy should be removed from the curriculum because it’s a really difficult subject.

A

(BTQ) Missing Key Premise

56
Q

Begging the question also occurs whenever the conclusion says basically the same thing as the premise(s). This gives the illusion that something has been “proved” when in reality it is merely the case that the same thing is being said twice in a row.

A

(BTQ) Conclusion Restates the Premise

57
Q

Prostitution is clearly wrong because any case of selling sex is morally impermissible.

A

(BTQ) Conclusion Restates the Premise

58
Q

This is when a chain of inferences, or several steps, reasons in such a way that the last step ends up proving the initial assumption (i.e., the first step). We call this …..

A

(BTQ) Circular Reasoning

59
Q

CHILD: “Why is the sky blue?”
PARENT: “Because I said it’s blue.”
CHILD: “But, why do you say it’s blue?”
PARENT: “Because the sky IS blue.”
CHILD: “But, why is the sky blue?”
PARENT: Because I SAID so!

A

(BTQ) Circular Reasoning

60
Q

This is when a question is proposed as if a “yes” or “no” or some other short or one-word answer would suffice, when a longer, clarifying answer is actually needed.
This is due to the fact that the question being asked is actually TWO questions disguised as one.

A

Complex Question

61
Q

When did you decide to stop beating your children?

A

Complex Question

62
Q

This occurs whenever someone presents two options as if they were the ONLY two options (though they are not), and then, after eliminating ONE of them, concludes
that the second option must be true

A

False Dichotomy

63
Q

Either you’ll go out on a date with me, or you clearly hate my guts. But, I know you don’t hate my guts.

A

False Dichotomy

64
Q

This occurs when an argument purposely leaves out or ignores relevant evidence because that evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion being offered.

A

Suppressed Evidence

65
Q

I would be a great employee. You should hire me. I graduated magna cum laude with a degree in business from Harvard, I know about all of the procedures, and I have extensive experience in this line of work.

A

Suppressed Evidence

66
Q

The conclusion depends on some kind of linguistic ambiguity. Terms are ambiguous when it is unclear how to interpret them. This can lead us to draw erroneous conclusions from given premises.

A

Fallacies of Ambiguity

67
Q

This occurs whenever a single term is being used in two different ways within an argument.

A

Equivocation

68
Q

The pamphlet for this animal rescue organization says, ‘All former zoo animals are now free’. I think we should go get a free koala bear. After all, they’re just giving them away!”

A

Equivocation

69
Q

Everyone knows that it is wrong to discriminate or treat people differently on the basis of what race they are a part of. So, even though the 100-meter dash and the
long-distance marathon are different races, it is clear that we should hold the members of each to the same set of standards.

A

Equivocation

70
Q

This occurs whenever an ambiguous statement, which could be interpreted in different ways, is interpreted in the WRONG way in order to support some conclusion.

A

Amphiboly

71
Q

This newspaper headline says, ‘Local Children Make Nutritious Snacks’. I can’t
believe they’re eating children now!

A

Amphiboly

72
Q

They say that Peggy gave a lecture on drugs yesterday. I had no idea she was a
junkie!

A

Amphiboly

73
Q

Mistaken inferences are drawn from the parts of something to the whole, or from a whole to its parts.

A

Fallacies of Grammatical Analog

74
Q

This occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that, just because all of the PARTS of something have some feature, that the whole must ALSO have that feature.

A

Composition

75
Q

If you like cheese, bread, and tomatoes, then you’ll like pizza.

A

Composition

76
Q

Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.

A

Composition

77
Q

This occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that, just because a WHOLE has some feature, that all of its parts must ALSO have that feature.

A

Division

78
Q

Since the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting, it follows that each individual atom of paint in the Mona Lisa is beautiful too.

A

Division

79
Q

They say that the United States is a very wealthy nation. So, obviously, Sue was
lying when she said she was poor. She’s an American citizen, after all.

A

Division

FIRST SEMESTER (2 decks)

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