Rhetoric, Logic and Argumentation

a precursor to deductive and inductive thought; the process of developing a hypothesis or a "hunch" based on a limited amount of information

a kind of red herring fallacy; suggests that an argument should be rejected on the basis of some irrelevant quality of the speaker

having more than one possible meaning or interpretation

compares two or more unlike objects on the basis of a shared quality

• claims that since two items have a given attribute in common, they must also share a second, distinct point of similarity; an argument of the form:
• 1. A is like B
• 2. B ha property X.
• 3. Therfore, A also has property X.

fallacy in which the differences between the objects of comparison in an analogy are so significant that they actually defeat the argument, and the comparison between the two items does not lead to the conclusion given

in logic, a set of connected statements (known as "premises") that are meant to prove a particular conclusion

an argument that places undue emphasis on the opinion of the speaker or another presumed expert, committed when a speaker gives great weight to the opinion of an "expert" who is not really an authority on the subject at hand, or when the speaker treats the mere opinion of the expert as infalliable proof

the person or people who receive the message (i.e., the readers, listeners, or observers)

the human tendency to make decisions on the basis of the majority opinion

the act of producing an effect (example: "Falling down the stairs caused Jennifer to break her arm.")

the human tendency to perceive patterns where no pattern exists

in inductive reasoning, an argument that is strong and consists of premises that are all true

hard-wired preferences for certain flawed reasoning patterns

the main idea that an argumentis designed to prove; an argument's thesis

the tendency to view information in a way that validates our existing opinions and belief

relationship between two factors (example: "The increase in temperature was correlated with a simultaneous increase in gas prices)

occurs when a speaker assumes there is a causal relationship between two factors simply because they occur at the same time

a type of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn as a logical consequence of the premises - it must be true if the premises are true; the conclusion will not add any new information to the argument, instead simply combining the principles stated in the premises

a type of red herring fallacy in which the speaker elicits strong emotions to distract the audience from the facts of the argument

moral character

an attempt to persuade by establishing the strength of the speaker's credibilitiy

a form of question that is logically flawed

occurs when an individual is presented with two identical options that are described in different terms and responds differently depending on how the issue is presented, or "framed"

a mistaken belief that the results of a random event, like a coin toss, will affect the probability of future outcomes

a type of ad hominem fallacy in which a speaker attempts to malign an opponent by associating him or her with a negative concept

occurs when an individual is exposed to a person who has one positive quality and automatically attributes other desirable traits to the individual

a fallacy in which the speaker draws a conclusion based on an unrepresentative sample; a type of weak analogy

the tendency to erroneously view oneself as superior to others

a kind of reasoning in which conclusions reach beyond the scope of the information provided in the premises, speculating about possibilities outside the facts that the premises establish

the process of drawing a particular conclusion from the available information

a multi-part question tha requires the respondent to concede a point that has not already been proven or conceded; a fallacy of interrogation

the formal study of reasoning

an error in reasoning that makes a deductive argument invalid or an inductive argument weak

a content-level error that makes an argument weak; informal fallacies usually apply to inductive arguments, but some can apply to deductive arguments as well

an error in the structure of an argument that renders a deductive argument invalid

reason, logic, words

an attempt to persuade through rational analysis and persuasive langauge

the information the speaker wishes to convey to the audience (i.e., the argument, topic, or thesis)

the fallacy of mistaken causation

an umbrella term for all formal (deductive) fallacies - "it doesn't follow"

factual; independent of personal opinion or experience

emotion, especially pity or compassion

an attempt to persuade by eliciting an emotional response from the audience

the act of convincing someone to accept a given opinion or to carry out a particular course of action

occurs when a speaker attempts to argue that one thing as caused anther simply because one event occurred after the other

a declarative statement that is used to support or prove the point (conclusion) of the argument

a fallacy in which the speaker diverts attention from the true issues of a debate by emphasizing irrelevant information

the technique or study of communication and persuasion

the three approaches to persuasive rhetoric - ethos, pathos, and logos; also referred to in the text as the "classical appeals" or "modes of persuasion"

occurs when an individual claims an undue amount of credit or a positive situation or an inadequate amount of blame for a negative condition

in deductive logic, a valid argument whose premise are all true

the individual who is delivering the message, wheter in writing, speech, r another medium (i.e., the writer, orator, or presenter)

a widely accepted, simplistic view of people who belong to a given group; this fallacy is type o hasty generalization, which is itself a sub-type of the weak analogy fallacy

occurs when a speaker avoids addressing an opponent's argument directly by instead creating and attacking a "dummy" argument that does not accurately represent the opponent's stance

in inductive reasoning, a measure of the degree to which the premises of an argument suggest its conclusion

subject to personal opinion; proceeding from an individual's mind or experience

a deductive argument composed of two premises (major and minor) and a conclusion

an idea that a speaker is putting forward for consideration or attempting to prove

a statement's relationship to the truth; must be either "true" or "false"

in deductive logic, an argument whose premises necessitate its conclusion; an argument in which it is impossible to affirm each of the premises and deny the conclusion without a contadiction

forming conclusions based o idealized imagined outcomes, rather than objectively examining the evidence at hand