Capter 6: Fallacies

Question 1

Begging the question/Arguing in a Circle

Answer 1

The fallacy of attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise. Also called arguing in a circle.
UP

Question 2

Apple polishing

Answer 2

The attempt to persuade people to accept a conclusion by flattering them.

Question 3

What is the difference between fallacies with irrelevant premises and fallacies with unacceptable premises?

Answer 3

Irrelevant premises are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with the conclusion. Meanwhile, unacceptable premises are relevant, but don’t support the conclusion.

Question 4

not sure how important Tu quoque (“you’re another”)

Answer 4

ad hominem fallacy that argues that a claim must be true (or false) just because the claimant is hypocritical.
IP

Question 5

Appeal to pity

Answer 5

Flavor or appeal to pity. It is the attempt to persuade people to accept a conclusion by evoking their pity, compassion, or empathy.
IP

Question 6

What is a fallacy?

Answer 6

Common and flawed arguments. comes in 2 categories: those with irrelevant premises, and those with unacceptable premises.

Question 7

Appeal to the person (or ad hominem, meaning “to the man”)
IP

Answer 7

The fallacy of rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself.
-The person (good or bad) is separated from their argument.
IP

Question 8

Faulty analogy

Answer 8

An argument in which things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways.
UP

Question 9

False dilemma

Answer 9

The fallacy of asserting that there are only two alternatives to consider when there are actually more than two.
UP

Question 10

Hasty generalization

Answer 10

The fallacy of drawing a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate sample size.
UP

Question 11

Composition

Answer 11

Arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The error is thinking that the characteristics of the parts are somehow transferred to the whole, something that is not always the case.
IP

Question 12

Scare tactics

Answer 12

The attempt to persuade people to accept a conclusion by engendering in them an unwarranted fear.
IP

Question 13

Appeal to tradition

Answer 13

The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true just because it’s part of a tradition.
IP

Question 14

Two wrongs make a right

Answer 14

Arguing that you’re doing something morally wrong is justified because someone else has done the same (or similar) thing.

Question 15

Appeal to popularity (or to the masses)

Answer 15

The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.
IP

Question 16

Genetic fallacy

Answer 16

Arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its abstract or nonhuman origins
IP

Question 17

Straw man

Answer 17

The fallacy of distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone’s position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.
IP

Question 18

Appeal to emotion

Answer 18

The fallacy of using emotions in place of relevant reasons as premises in an argument.
IP

Question 19

Appeal to ignorance

Answer 19

The weight of evidence or argument required by one side in a debate or disagreement.
IP

Question 20

Equivocation

Answer 20

The fallacy of using a word in two different senses in an argument.
IP

Question 21

Decision-point fallacy

Answer 21

Arguing that because a line or distinction cannot be draw at any point in a process, there are no difference or gradations in that process.
UP

Question 22

Slippery slope

Answer 22

The fallacy of arguing, without good reasons, that taking a particular step will inevitable lead to further, undesirable steps.
UP

Question 23

Division

Answer 23

The fallacy of arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. The error is thinking that characteristics of the whole must transfer to the parts or that traits of the group must be the same as traits of individuals in the group.
IP

Question 24

Red herring

Answer 24

The fallacy of deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument. The basic pattern is to put forth a claim and then couple it with additional claims that may seem to support it but in fact are mere distractions.
IP