Problem 3

Question 1

Fallacy

Answer 1

Refers to a defective pattern of arguing in an argument

ex.: mistakes in reasoning, creation of an illusion

‘it doesn’t follow’

Question 2

Formal fallacy

Answer 2

Refers to a fallacy that may be identified merely by examining the form/structure of the argument

–> found exclusively in deductive arguments

Question 3

Informal fallacy

Answer 3

Refers to a fallacy that may be identified merely by examining the content of the argument

Question 4

Fallacies of relevance

Answer 4

Refers to fallacies where the connection between premise + conclusion is emotional

–> various form of emotional appeal

Question 5

Appeal to force

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 5

Telling the opposing party that some harm will come if he/she doesn’t accept the conclusion

–> threat, agreeing because frightened doesn’t mean the argument is true

Question 6

Appeal to pity

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 6

Involve evoking pity from the opposing party

–> agreeing due to compassion doesn’t make the argument true

Question 7

Appeal to the people

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 7

Using peoples needs to be loved, esteemed + valued to accept a conclusion

–> direct vs indirect approach

a) Bandwagon argument
b) Appeal to vanity
c) Appeal to snobbery

Question 8

Bandwagon argument

Answer 8

Suggesting that one will be left out of the group if you don’t agree

Question 9

Appeal to vanity

Answer 9

Associating the product to someone who is admired

–> if you use it you will also be admired

Question 10

Appeal to snobbery

Answer 10

Associating the product to someone who is rich

Question 11

Argument against the person/ Ad hominem

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 11

a) abusive
- -> involves directing ones attention to the opposing party itself rather than the opposing party’s argument

b) circumstantial
- -> by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent

c) tu quoque/you too
- -> hypocritical or arguing in bad faith by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter conclusion

Question 12

Straw man

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 12

Distorting the opponents argument to attack it more easily

ex.:
A: This is the 3rd bowl of cereal you’re eating
B: Are you suggesting I’m fat ?!

Question 13

Red Herring

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 13

Diverting the opponents attention to a slightly different but subtle related subject, by ignoring the opponents argument

–> then drawing the conclusion based on the different subject

Question 14

Missing the point

Fallacy of relevance

Answer 14

When the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, only vaguley related to the correct conclusion is drawn

Question 15

Fallacies of weak induction

Answer 15

Connection between premise + conclusion isn’t strong enough to support the conclusion

Question 16

Appeal to unqualified authority

Fallacy of weak induction

Answer 16

Using a citation of an authority who lacks credibility

Question 17

Appeal to ignorance

Fallacy of weak induction

Answer 17

Occurs when the premise of an argument states that it hasn’t been proved/no evidence for it

–> therefore one must conclude that it is BS

ex.: No evidence for astrology - so non-sense

Question 18

Hasty generalizations

Fallacy of weak induction

Answer 18

Drawing a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence of one member of it

–> neither small nor large sample guarantees its typicality

Question 19

Slippery slope

Fallacy od weak induction

Answer 19

Suggesting that the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction

BUT: there is no sufficient reason to think the chain reaction will actually take place

ex.: if you are willing to eat horse meat you will also eat hamsters and dogs

Question 20

Weak analogy

Fallacy of weak induction

Answer 20

Occurs when the analogy isn’t strong enough to support the conclusion

ex.: can’t compare australia to switzerland

Question 21

False cause

Fallacy of weak induction

Answer 21

Occurs when the link between the premise + conclusion is false/not related at all

–> premise doesn’t support the conclusion

ex.: Every time the team lost the cheerleaders wore black, should thus not wear black anymore

Question 22

Fallacies of presumption

Answer 22

Occurs when the premise already presumes what they try to prove

Question 23

Begging the question/Circular reasoning

Fallacy of presumption

Answer 23

Presuming that the premise provides adequate support for the conclusion, when they don’t

ex.: iPhone is the best smartphone because apple makes the best smartphones

Question 24

False dichotomy

Fallacy of presumption

Answer 24

Refers to an “either .. or “ statement, suggesting only either option is available

–> when in fact others also may be or these 2 are even unlikely

Question 25

Fallacy of ambiguity

Answer 25

Occurs when there is ambiguity in the premise or conclusion

Question 26

Equivocation | Fallacy of ambiguity

Answer 26

Occurs when the conclusion results from a word/phrase that was use in 2 different senses ex. : 1. We have a duty to do what is right 2. we have a right to speak out 3. we have a duty to speak out

Question 27

Amphiboly | Fallacy of ambiguity

Answer 27

Involves misinterpreting an ambiguous statement, then drawing a false conclusion due to this

Question 28

Fallacies of grammatical analogy

Answer 28

Refer to arguments that are grammatically analogous/the same to other arguments --> when logically they are not

Question 29

Composition | Fallacy of grammatical analogy

Answer 29

Drawing a conclusion by wrongly transferring attributes from parts of something onto the whole ex.: Mia likes ice cream and fish thus she'll like ice cream topped with fish

Question 30

Division | Fallacy of grammatical analogy

Answer 30

Drawing a conclusion by wrongly transferring attributes of the whole onto its parts ex.: Airplane was made in seattle so every component of the airplane was made in seattle

Question 31

Name the 7 factors of when premises are acceptable.

Answer 31

1. Supported by a cogent sub argument 2. Supporten elsewhere - -> another person 3. Common knowledge - -> known by everyone 4. Testimony 5. Claim is known A priori to be tue - -> claims that are knowable w/o experience ex.: no one can steal his own property 6. Proper authority - -> expert makes claim in his field 7. Accepting premises provisionally - -> cannot say if its acceptable or unacceptable

Question 32

Name the 5 factors of when the premises are unacceptable

Answer 32

1. Easy refutability/Counterexample 2. Claim is known A priori to be false - -> ex.: there was time before time began 3. Inconsistency between premises 4. Vagueness or ambiguity 5. Fallacies

Question 33

ARG-Method

Answer 33

Is used to evaluate the premises of an argument + the way in which the premises are related to the conclusion --> then the argument is cogent

Question 34

Name the basic elements of a cogent argument meaning the ARG conditions.

Answer 34

A. The premise is acceptable --> good reason to believe its true R. The premise is relevant to its conclusion --> provides evidence to support it G. Premises provide good ground for the conclusion --> sufficient reason