Reasoning and Fallacies Flashcards
It is a movement of the mind whereby, starting with several judgments which we relate to one another, we arrive at a new judgment which necessarily follows from the preceding ones.
Reasoning
It is used to describe reasoning that involves using specific observations, such as observed patterns, to make a general conclusion. This method is sometimes called induction.
Inductive Reasoning
It involves starting from a set of general premises and then drawing a specific conclusion that contains no more information than the premises themselves, sometimes called deduction.
Deductive Reasoning
The conclusion of this argument is usually introduced by phrases like “it is likely that”, “it is probable that”, “it tends to show that” and other similar phrases.
Inductive Reasoning
It is when the truth of its premises is intended to guarantee the truth of its conclusion. The conclusion is already implied in the premises, hence if the premises are true the conclusion becomes necessarily true as well.
Deductive Reasoning
This type of reasoning is also known as “affirming the antecedent,” because only the first premise is a conditional statement, and the second premise merely affirms that the first part of the previous statement (the antecedent) applies.
Modus Ponens
It is another type of deductive reasoning is modus tollens, or “the law of contrapositive.” It is the opposite of modus ponens because its second premise negates the second part (the consequent) of the previous conditional statement.
Modus Tollens
These are errors or tricks of reasoning. It is an error of reasoning if it occurs accidentally; we call it a trick of reasoning if a speaker or writer uses it in order to deceive or manipulate his audience. It can be either formal or informal.
Fallacies
It is where rejecting an argument because the person advancing it fails to practice what he or she preaches.
Ex.
Doctor: You should quit smoking. It’s a serious health risk.
Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you quit.
Tu Quoque Fallacy or the ‘Who are you to talk?’, or ‘You Too’
It is where an arguer tries to sidetrack his or her audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has effectively been settled by the irrelevant diversion.
Ex.
Daughter: “I’m so hurt that Todd broke up with me, Mom.”
Mother: “Just think of all the starving children in Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then.”
Red Herring Fallacy
It refers to someone that distorts or caricatures an opponent’s arguments or views, and then attacks the weakened version rather than the real argument.
Ex.
Margaret: “We have to do something about greenhouse gases. The government should raise vehicle fuel efficiency standards to cut down the amount of CO2 we release over the next 20 years”.
Roger: “Margaret’s solution would be a disaster. It would kill the economy. How would people get to work without cars?”
Strawman Fallacy
It is rejecting someone’s argument by attacking the person rather than evaluating their argument on its merits.
Ex.
“Dear Editor, the current campaign against combining drinking with driving is terrorizing law- abiding people. Many law-abiding people are cutting their alcohol consumption because they are afraid of being caught by random breath testing. But research shows that the average drink-driver in a fatal accident has an average blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit.
The current campaign against drinking and driving is failing to achieve what should be our top priority; getting the heavy and hardened drinkers of the road.” Douglas Myers. CEO, Dominion Breweries.
“Dear Editor, I read Doug Myer’s letter yesterday but he is the CEO of a major brewing company! He has a vested interest in keeping alcohol sales up, and the anti-drunk-driving campaign threatens to reduce alcohol sales. We shouldn’t take any notice of his views about drinking and driving”.
Fallacy of Ad Hominem
It is where relying upon the view of apparent (as opposed to genuine) authorities to settle the truth of a statement or argument.
Ex.
God does not exist because Stephen Hawking said so.
“Albert Einstein, one of the smartest people ever, said that the best and healthiest breakfast is bacon and eggs, so it must be true.”
It also conflict with the basic tenet of good logical and critical
thinking which calls upon us to take responsibility for evaluating the grounds for our beliefs. Adopting a belief merely because someone else simply told us it was true is a way of avoiding good logical and critical thinking.
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority
It refers to the arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false, or that a claim must be false because no one has proven it to be true.
Ex.
There must be intelligent life on other planets: No one has proven there isn’t.
There isn’t any intelligent life on other planets: No one has proven there is.
Appeal to Ignorance / Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
It is where an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion, when such feelings are not logically relevant to the arguer’s conclusion.
Ex.
Daughter: Can we get a puppy?
Father: No.
Daughter: If you loved me, we’d get a puppy.
Appeal to Emotion
