Flashcards in TASK 3 - FALLACIES + EVALUATION OF INFO Deck (48)
Loading flashcards...


= defect in argument consisting in something other than false premises alone
- comprise mistakes in reasoning or creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument look good) --> unsound/uncogent


formal fallacy

= identified by examining FORM or STRUCTURE of an argument (only for deductive with identifiable form)


informal fallacy

= identified by examining the CONTENT


fallacies of relevance

= arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion


fallacies of relevance
- appeal to force (argument ad baculum)

= threatens someone to accept conclusion; poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person implicitly/explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion
- always involves threat to physical/psychological well-being


fallacies of relevance
- appeal to pity (argument ad misericordiam)

= attempt to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader/listener
≠ arguments from compassion = evoke compassion on behalf of some person + supply info why person is deserving help


fallacies of relevance
- appeal to the people (argument ad populum)

= use desires (want to be loved, admired…) to get reader/listener to accept a conclusion


appeal to the people
- direct approach

= addressing a large group of people, excite emotions of crowd to win acceptance for conclusion
- evoke mob mentality (= large group)


appeal to the people
- indirect approach

= aim appeal to one or more individuals by focusing on some aspect of their relationship with the crowd
1) bandwagon argument = left behind/out if you do not support conclusion
2) appeal to vanity = associate conclusion with someone who is admired, so you will also accept it
3) appeal to snobbery = similar to 2


fallacies of relevance
- appeal against the person (argument ad hominem)

= response to an argument is directed at the person itself, not the argument
- place other person in bad light (2 arguers)


appeal against the person
- ad hominem abusive

= second person responds by verbal abusing


appeal against the person
- ad hominem circumstantial

= second person attempts to discredit opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent’s judgment
- ‘of course you would say that, just look at the circumstances’


appeal against the person
- tu quoque (you too)

= second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical
- ‘how dare you say that, when you do it yourself’


fallacies of relevance
- accident

= when a general rule is applied to a specific case that it was not intended to cover
- general rule is cited in premises --> wrongly applied to specific case in conclusion


fallacies of relevance
- straw man fallacy

= distort opponent’s argument to be able to more easily attack it + to conclude that original argument has been demolished (2 arguers)
- exaggerate first person’s argument + make it look more extreme


fallacies of relevance
- missing the point (ignoratio elenchi)

= when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but at the end a different conclusion, vaguely related to the correct conclusion --> support a conclusion but not the one that is drawn
- ignorance of proof: ignorant of logical implications of the premises --> draws conclusion that misses the point entirely
- not introducing new things


fallacies of relevance
- red herring

= divert attention of reader by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one + then draw a conclusion about this different subject OR merely presume that some conclusion has been drawn
(a) change subject without reader noticing it
(b) change subject to eye-catching topic that guarantees distraction (sex)
- generate new premises  changing subject
- may be more on purpose


fallacies of weak induction

= connection between premises + conclusion not strong enough; evidence is not good enough to cause a reasonable person to believe conclusion


fallacies of weak induction
- appeal to unqualified authority (argument ad verecundiam)

= cited authority/witness lacks credibility


fallacies of weak induction
- appeal to ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam)

= premise states that nothing has been proven one way --> conclusion is that it has to be the other way (definite)
- usually involves something incapable of being proven
- exceptions: research + courtroom (innocent until proven guilty)


fallacies of weak induction
- hasty generalisations (converse accident)

= sample probably is not representative of the group/population


fallacies of weak induction
- false cause

= link between premises and conclusion depend on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn’t exist
1) temporal succession: just because one event precedes another, first event causes second
2) not the cause of the cause
3) oversimplified cause: more causes than the one stated
4) gambler’s fallacy: conclusion depends on supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related


fallacies of weak induction
- slippery slope

= conclusion depends on alleged chain reaction --> not sufficient evidence that that will actually happen
- often attempts to trump up support or put down argument of opposition


fallacies of weak induction
- weak analogy

= analogy is not strong enough to support drawn conclusion


fallacies of presumption

= premises presume/suppose what they purport to prove


fallacies of presumption
- begging the question (petitio principii)

= create illusion that inadequate premise provide adequate support for conclusion by
- presumes that premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not
- request for the source: actual source of support for conclusion is not apparent --> beg the question where the support comes from


begging the question
1. miss premise

= leaving out possibly false key premise


begging the question
2. restate premise

= restating false premise in slightly different language


begging the question
3. circular reasoning

= first premise, possibly false --> conspiracy


fallacies of presumption
- complex question

= two/more questions are asked in a single question + single answer is given to them both
- presumes that a question can be answered by a simple yes/no when a more sophisticated answer is needed
≠ leading question = answer is in some way suggested in the question