Logic Chapter 3 - Informal Fallacies
About this set
Created by:
magicalnathan on September 21, 2011
Log in to favorite or report as inappropriate.
Order by
30 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Appeal to Force | Try to convince listener to accept a conclusion via threatening harm if the conclusion isn't accepted. |
| Appeal to Pity | Try to convince listener to accept a conclusion by making the listener feel sympathy/pity for someone. |
| Appeal to the People (Direct) | Arguer addresses the emotions/enthusiasm of crowd to win acceptance for their conclusion via mob mentality (whether positive or negative) ((also works with emotionally charged writing)) |
| Appeal to the People (Bandwagon) | "Everyone else is doing it, so you should too!" |
| Appeal to the People (Appeal to Vanity) | Associates something people respect/admire/imitate, with implication that if you agree, you will be all of those, too |
| Appeal to the People (Appeal to Snobbery) | Associates something with relating to an exclusive group, with implications that you'll be exclusive, too, if you agree |
| Ad hominem | Arguer attacks the opposition instead of countering their argument. (Abusive = verbal abuse; circumstantial = discrediting argument thru circumstances of person; tu quoque = highlights hypocrisy) |
| Accident | A general rule is applied to a specific situation it isn't designed to cover. |
| Straw Man | Arguer distorts the opposing argument, so as to make it easier to demolish, counters that argument, then concludes that they have defeated the original argument |
| Missing the Point | Setting up for a conclusion, then concluding something different that the premises don't have an inferential link to |
| Red Herring | Arguer changes the subject, often coming to a conclusion on another topic in the process |
| Red herring | Arguer changes subject to a different, but often closely related one, then draws a conclusion about that particular issue, purporting to have won the argument |
| Appeal to unqualified authority | Wherein a cited witness is not qualified to provide support for a conclusion. (Not a fallacy if they are credible.) |
| Appeal to ignorance | Premises state that nothing has been proven one way or another about something, then conclusion makes a definite assertion about said thing. |
| Hasty generalization | A generalization is made based on a specific sample that is not representative of the group (whether too small or not randomly selected) |
| False Cause | The link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn't exist. |
| Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause) | Because one event precedes another event, that event caused the other event. |
| Non causa pro causa (false cause) | In which the cause of something really isn't the cause at all, with a mistake besides temporal succession |
| Oversimplified cause (false cause) | Wherein a variety of things are responsible for a given effect, and just one of said things is singled out as the sole cause. |
| Gambler's Fallacy (false cause) | Supposition that the independent events in a game of chance are causally related. |
| Slippery slope | Connects likely results of a course of action until a catastrophic horrendous conclusion. |
| Weak analogy | In which an argument is dependent on an analogy that isn't strong enough to support a conclusion. |
| Begging the Question | The actual support for the conclusion is not apparent, so you ask, "why?" Inadequate premises in support of a conclusion. (1. leaving out a questionable premise and acting like what remains is enough for conclusion 2. shaky premise and conclusion that restates premise 3. shaky premise that leads into a series of circular conclusions) |
| Complex question | A question asked presumes more than what has already been established, so in answering it, the person answering acknowledges something they may not want to. Two questions in one! |
| False dichotomy | Disjunctive presents two unlikely alternatives, rules out one, concludes other is the only possible case (when there are in fact many more alternatives than what is given) ((If a premise is true, not a fallacy)) |
| Suppressed evidence | Conclusion depends on some evidence that would lead to a different conclusion if included in reading. ( |
| Equivocation | Conclusion depends on the fact that a word/concept is used differently in multiple places in the argument. (Either invalid or have a false premise--either way, are unsound) |
| Amphiboly | Arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and concludes from it (taking advantage of a grammatical ambiguity) |
| Division | Fallaciously transferring characteristics of the parts of the whole to the whole's parts (class statement -- Predicated to the class as a whole, not to each individual member of the class) |
| Composition | Fallaciously transferring characteristics of whole's parts to the the whole itself (Class statement -- predicated collectively to class as a whole, as opposed to each individual member of the class, as the latter is hasty generalization) |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.