Studietaak 8 Flashcards
A defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone
Fallacy
Fallacy that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument
Formal fallacy
Fallacy that can be detected by examining the content of the argument
Informal fallacy
In which five groups can twenty-two fallacies be divided into?
- Fallacies of relevance
- Fallacies of weak induction
- Fallacies of presumption
- Fallacies of ambiguity
- Fallacies of grammatical analogy
Arguments have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically
Fallacies of relevance
Occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion
Appeal to force
(argument ad baculum)
Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener
Appeal to pity
(argumentum ad misericordiam)
Uses the readers or listeners desire to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognised and accepted, to get them to accept a conclusion
Appeal to the people
(argumentum ad populum)
Argument that states you will be left behind or out of the group if you do not use the product
Bandwagon argument
Argument that associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it
The appeal to vanity
Fallacy that involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to he first person’s argument but to the first person himself
Argument against the person
(argumentum ad hominem)
In which three forms does the argument against the person occur?
- Ad hominem abusive
- Ad hominem circumstantial
- Tu quoque
The second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person
Ad hominem abusive
The second person attempts to discredit the first person’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent
Ad hominem circumstantial
The second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith
Tu quoque
Committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover
Accident
Committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished
Straw man
Occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn
Missing the point
(ignoratio elenchi)
Committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one
Red herring
Occur because the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion
Fallacies of weak induction
Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility
Appeal to unqualified authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)
When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing
Appeal to ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group
Hasty generalisation
Occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist
False cause
