Logic Fallacies Test 2

  1. Ambiguity vs. Vagueness
    • Ambiguity - has 2 distinct meanings
    • Vagueness - big range of meanings
  2. Verbal vs Factual Disputes
    • Verbal - arise over the meaning of language. Delt in vagueness and ambiguity
    • Factual - arise over a disagreement about facts
  3. Fallacies of Relevance
    Fallacies that occur when the premises of an argument are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
  4. Appeal to Force
    This always involves a threat, either explicit or implicit. The threat is irrelevant to the conclusion.
  5. Appeal to Pity
    The arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader to listener.
  6. Appeal to the People
    Uses the readers desire for love, esteem, admiration, value, and similar emotions to get the reader to accept a conclusion.
  7. Appeal to the People Direct Approach
    Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd.
  8. Appeal to the People Indirect Approach
    Occurs when the arguer aims his or her appeal at one or more individuals in the crowd, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd.
  9. Appeal to Fear
    Arguer trumps up fear of something in the in the mind of the crows and then uses this fear alone as a premise for some conclusion.
  10. Bandwagon Argument
    Occurs when the arguer asserts that the reader should accept a conclusion because the majority of people accept it.
  11. Appeal to Vanity
    • Occurs when the arguer plays on the vanity of the reader.
    • Ex. Ladt Gagy wears Versace, If you want to be talented and iconic like her, you will wear Versace too.
  12. Appeal to Snobbery
    Arguer appeals to the readers desire to be part of a smaller group within the crowd that is supposed to be superior or elite in some way.
  13. Appeal to Tradition
    Occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for a conclusion.
  14. Argument Against the Person
    Arguer verbally attacks the person of a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting his or her argument.
  15. Ad hominem abusive
    Arguer verbally abuses a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting that persons argument
  16. Ad hominem circumstantial
    Arguer cites circumstances that affect a second arguer, for the purpose of discrediting that persons argument.
  17. Yu Quoque "You too"
    Arguer shifts the burden of guilt onto a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting the argument.
  18. Accident
    The arguer misapplies a general rule to an atypical specific case
  19. Straw Man
    • Arguer misinterprets an opponents position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the original argument has been demolished.
    • Requires two arguers
  20. Missing the Point
    Arguer draws a completely different conclusion than the particular conclusion that the premises of the argument actually entail.
  21. Red Herring
    Arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one and finishes by presuming that some conclusion, either about this different issue or something else, has been established.
  22. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
    The cited authority or witness lacks credibility
  23. Appeal to Ignorance
    Occurs 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.
  24. Hasty Generalization
    • Occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from atypical specific cases. 
    • Opposite of Accident
  25. False Cause
    Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
  26. Post Hoc ergo propter hoc
    • After this, therefore on account of this.
    • Occurs when the arguer presupposes that just because one event occurred after another event, the first event must have caused the second.
  27. Non causa pro causa
    • Not the cause for the cause
    • Occurs when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession.
  28. Oversimplified Cause
    Occurs when there are multiple causes responsible for a certain effect but the arguer chooses only one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.
  29. Gamblers Fallacy
    • Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related.
    • Ex. I know this is a fair coin, but it has come up rails five times in a row, so heads is due on the next toss.
  30. Slippery Slope
    Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction, and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.
  31. Weak Analogy
    Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an analogy that is not strong enough to support it.
  32. Begging the Question
    The arguer creates an illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for he conclusion by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premises or by reasoning in a circle
  33. Complex Question
    Occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions
  34. False Dichotomy
    Aruger presents two nonjointly exhaustive alternatives as if they were jointed exhaustive and the eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion.
  35. Suppressed Evidence
    Arguer ignores relevant evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.
  36. Equivocation
    Arguer uses some word or group of words either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses
  37. Amphiboly
    Occurs when the conclusion depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect.
  38. Composition
    Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.
  39. Division
    Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the whole onto its parts.
Card Set
Logic Fallacies Test 2
Logic Fallacies Test 2