one or more premises that lead to one conclusion
statement that is true or false that is offered in support of the claim
appeal to emotions
appeal detemined by ones character and ethical issues
premises appears to provide complete support for the conclusion. pretty close to guarnteed
premises appear to have some support but less than complete support of the conclusion. meerly a possibility
true premises or seem to be true with a likely conclusion
one or more of the premises leads to a false conclusion
when the premises offered do not support the conclusion
false dilemma (either/or)
limited number of options are given while in realuty there are more options. called cardstacking. one side of a multifaceted issue
the size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion
an irrlevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue
against the man/person. a claim or arguement is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of the argument
two objects or events (A & B) are shown to be similar. it is then suggested that object "a" has property "p", therefore, object "b" must also have property "p". this argument fails when a & b are different in ways which effect whether they each have property "p".
all parties feel that their side has been fairly represent and consider
replacing a part with a whole or a whole with a part
a form of understandment (meiosis) that emphasizes the magnitude of a statement by denying its opposite
replacing an idea with an associated idea
omission of conjuntions between related clauses
repetition of conjunctions
the juxtaposition of opposing or contrasting ideas
the reptition of the same word or group of words at the beginnings of sucessive clauses
repition of a word at the end of a clause at the beginning of another
the jutaposition of two contradictory terms
reversal of grammatical structures in sucessive clauses
use of exaggerated terms for emphasis
the use of apparently contradictory ideas to point out some underlying truth
the grammatical arrangement of words in sentences
begging the question
the truth of the conclusion is assumed in the premises. often, the conclusion is simply restated in a slightly different form in the premises
coincidental correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
after this terefore because of this. in this argument, the author assumes that because one thing follows another that the one thing was cause by the other
the sample used is an inductive inference is relevantly different from the population as a whole
the repetition of the same word or group of words at the ends of succesive clauses
Please allow access to your computer’s microphone to use Voice Recording.
We can’t access your microphone!
Click the icon above to update your browser permissions above and try again
Reload the page to try again!
Press Cmd-0 to reset your zoom
Press Ctrl-0 to reset your zoom
It looks like your browser might be zoomed in or out. Your browser needs to be zoomed to a normal size to record audio.
Your microphone is muted
For help fixing this issue, see this FAQ.