Critical Thinking ch7

Question 1

are fallacies arguments

Answer 1

yes, but not very good ones. they do have premises and conclusions tho.
they are mistakes in reasoning.

Question 2

formal fallacies =

Answer 2

geen logische connectie. dus altijd invalid

Question 3

substantive/informal fallacies

Answer 3

unjustified assumptions or inferences, we need to make the premises explicit to find out that they are false.
unsound

Question 4

wat zijn de meeste fallacies in het dagelijkse leven

Answer 4

substantive/informal fallacies.

Question 5

simply having false premises does not make an argument fallacious. Nor does having true premises guarantee that an argument is not fallacious.

Answer 5

oke

Question 6

P1) If Colonel Mustard killed the victim with the candelabra, then there is blood
on the candelabra.
P2) There is blood on the candelabra.
C) Colonel Mustard killed the victim

welke fallacy is dit

Answer 6

affirming the consequent

Question 7

many types of fallacious argument are effective as rhetorical ploys

Answer 7

Someone might be aware that their argument commits a fallacy, but will use it anyway to try to persuade us because they are aware of its rhetorical power: they are aware, that is, that it does tend to persuade people

Question 8

affirming the consequent: wat is de argumentvorm

Answer 8

P) P -> Q
P) Q
C) P

even if the premises are true, the conclusion does not have to be true: invalid

Question 9

denying the antecedent of a conditional: wat is de argumentvorm

Answer 9

P -> Q
not - P
not Q

als de premises waar zijn hoeft de conclusie nog niet waar te zijn: invalid

Question 10

deriving ought from is=

Answer 10

a prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly derived from purely descriptive premises.

a conclusion making a claim about something that should or ought to be done/believed -> is deduced only on the basis of a descriptive premis

Question 11

wat is de duimregel voor de fallacy deriving ought from is

Answer 11

we moeten echt waken voor het te snel interpreteren met de ought from is, door the principle of charity.

Question 12

dus de formal fallacies

Answer 12

1. affirming the consequent of a conditional
2. denying the antecedent of a conditional
3. deriving ought from is

Question 13

substantive/informal fallacies

Answer 13

1. the fallacy of majority belief
2. common practice
3. the gamblers fallacy
4. ad hominem
5. ad hominem circumstantial
6. tu quoque
7. appeal to authority
8. the perfectionist fallacy
9. conflation of morality with legality
10. weak analogy
11. causal fallacies:
    - post hoc ergo propter hoc
    - fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause
    - inversion of cause and effect
12. epistemic fallacies:
    - appeal to ignorance
    - epistemic fallacy

Question 14

kunnen formal fallacies valid zijn? en informal falacies?

Answer 14

formal fallacies kunnen nooit valid zijn.

informal fallacies kunnen wel valid zijn, maar nooit sound

Question 15

common practice =

Answer 15

This is the tactic of attempting to persuade someone to do something they
shouldn’t do by giving them the justification that ‘everyone does it’.

Question 16

dus verschil majority belief en common practice

Answer 16

majority belief = belief
common practice = doing

Question 17

P1) Everyone claps at public events.
P2) Any act that everyone performs is morally acceptable.
C) It is morally acceptable to clap at public events.

welke fallacy

Answer 17

common practice

Question 18

P1) Most people believe that the defendant was set up and is not guilty.
P2) Any belief held by the majority is true.
C) The defendant is innocent

welke fallacy

Answer 18

majority belief

Question 19

P1) The British monarchy has existed for a thousand years.
P2) Anything that has existed for a thousand years should be retained.
C) The British monarchy should be retained

welke fallacy

Answer 19

deriving ought from is

Question 20

P1) If someone is a philosopher (P), then they are wise (Q).
P2) Jon is not a philosopher (not-P).
C) Jon is not wise (not-Q).

welke fallacy

Answer 20

denying the antecedent of a conditional

Question 21

P1) If someone is a philosopher (P), then they are wise (Q).
P2) Jon is wise (Q).
C) Jon is a philosopher (P).

welke fallacy

Answer 21

Affirming the consequent of a conditional

Question 22

termen bij:

general -> specific
specific -> general
specific -> specific
inference to the best explanation

Answer 22

general -> specific = statistical syllogism
specific -> general = inductive generalisation
specific -> specific = inductive analogy
inference to the best explanation = abduction

Question 23

waardoor komt de gamblers fallacy

Answer 23

door de misunderstanding van factors that influence probability.
denken dat, hoe meer je iets niet win, the meer likely het is dat je wel een win krijgt

Question 24

P1) I buy five raffle tickets every year.
P2) I never win anything.
P3) Not winning anything for a long time makes it more likely that I’ll win
this time.
P4) If my chances of winning are increased, it makes sense to buy tickets.
C) I’m going to buy five tickets again this year

welke fallacy

Answer 24

gamblers fallacy

Question 25

voorbeelden gamblers fallacy

Answer 25

met gokken kinderen: hoe meer jongens, hoe meer kans nu op een meisje

Question 26

ad hominem

Answer 26

1. responding to someones argument by making an attack to that person 2. rejecting a claim because of diapproval or dislike for the person who makes it

Question 27

P1) Jeremy Corbyn wants to increase taxes on the highest earners and abolish nuclear weapons. P2) Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t wear a tie and has a beard. C) We should not increase taxes on the highest earners and abolish nuclear weapons. welke fallacy

Answer 27

ad hominem en hij is nu ook nog invalide

Question 28

on what does the ad hominem fallacy depend

Answer 28

All instances of the ad hominem fallacy will depend upon similar underlying general assumptions referring to certain characteristics or beliefs of arguers.

Question 29

ad hominem circumstantial

Answer 29

This is a sub-species of the ad hominem fallacy and occurs when someone’s argument in favour of doing or believing something is discounted on the grounds that they would allegedly benefit from our doing or believing it. dus tegen iemand zeggen van ja dat zou je wel willen he, dit is in jouw voordeel

Question 30

P1) The Conservative Party leadership argues in favour of decreasing the top rate of taxation. P2) The leadership of the Conservative Party will benefit from the enactment of this policy. P3) Whenever someone would benefit from something they propose, we should reject their arguments in favour of it. C) We should reject the Conservative Party leadership’s arguments in favour of the proposal to decrease the top rate of taxation welke fallacy en wat is er mis aan

Answer 30

ad hominem circumstantial

Question 31

P1) This witness is currently serving a prison sentence for fraud. P2) This witness has several previous convictions for fraud. P3) Anyone convicted of fraud is likely to be dishonest. P4) Evidence provided by witnesses who are likely to be dishonest should always be treated with scepticism. C) The evidence provided by this witness should be treated with scepticism wat is dit voor argument

Answer 31

een non-fallicous argument met een ad hominem claim

Question 32

tu quoque=

Answer 32

when you attack the other person for being hypocritical (inconsistency between acts and claims)

Question 33

P1) My dad says one shouldn’t talk on the mobile phone while driving. P2) My dad talks on his mobile phone while he’s driving. P3) Whenever someone’s behaviour is inconsistent with their advice, that advice is false. C) It is okay to talk on the mobile phone while driving wat voor fallacy

Answer 33

tu quoque

Question 34

wat is de gedachte achter tu quoque

Answer 34

whether someones areguments are sound does not depend on whether they themselves adhere to these arguments

Question 35

dus hoe zou je tu quoque gebruiken in real life

Answer 35

iemand: ja, maar hij doet het zelf ook niet jij: ja, maar dat betekent niet dat zijn argument niet goed is. dat is de tu quoque fallacy die je nu aanneemt

Question 36

We might well think that people ought to follow their own advice and principles; in fact in most cases it is irrational for them not to do so, but it is equally irrational of us to discount their arguments solely on the grounds that they themselves don’t heed the conclusions of those arguments. Of course, the fact that someone in the public arena behaves inconsistently or hypocritically does undermine their credibility and may lead us to withdraw our trust and respect, but it is not in itself a reason to reject their arguments.

Answer 36

dus het is irrationeel als mensen hun eigen advies niet aanhouden, maar het is ook irrationeel voor ons om hun argumenten te discrediteren, uitsluitend op basis van dat ze het zelf niet doen.

Question 37

appeal to authority=

Answer 37

when people make an unjustified appeal to an alleged authority, but.... 1. authority is not authorative over this matter 2. claimed authority may not be adequately informed about the facts

Question 38

P1) Mr McKay says that alcohol education should be introduced for five-yearolds. P2) Mr McKay has 30 years’ experience as a whisky blender. P3) If someone has 30 years’ experience as a whisky blender, they must be an expert on alcohol education. P4) If someone is an expert on a subject, we have good reason to accept their opinion on that subject. C) Alcohol education should be introduced for five-year-olds welke fallacy

Answer 38

appeal to authority

Question 39

perfectionist fallacy=

Answer 39

wanneer iemand een idee afschrijft, alleen gebaseerd op basis van dat het niet het probleem helemaal kan oplossen

Question 40

P1) Politicians’ proposals to cut carbon emissions by 20 per cent will not solve the problem of climate change completely. C) We should reject politicians’ proposals to cut carbon emissions by 20 per cent. welke fallacy

Answer 40

the perfectionist fallacy

Question 41

wat is de uitleg van de perfectionist fallacy

Answer 41

The assumption driving this instance of the perfectionist fallacy is that solutions should only be pursued if they will completely solve the problems they are intended to solve; more generally, the perfectionist assumption is that no measure aimed at solving or reducing a problem is justified unless it solves or reduces it completely. This is really quite silly if you think about it. It is obvious that many measures are intended to reduce a problem, not completely eradicate it, and are justified if they do reduce the problem sufficiently

Question 42

conflation of morality with legality

Answer 42

This is the mistake of assuming that anything legal must be moral or, conversely, that anything illegal must be immoral.

Question 43

confliction of morality and legality

Answer 43

legal -> moral illegal -> immoral

Question 44

welke fallacy: ‘there’s no law against it, so it’s acceptable’

Answer 44

conflicting morality with legality

Question 45

weak analogy=

Answer 45

1. analogy is too weak to sustain the argument 2. analogy itself has not been argued for: question begging

Question 46

wat is de standaard vorm van een analogy

Answer 46

P1) An object X is similar to an object Y in respect of characteristic A. P2) Whenever an object X is similar to an object Y in one respect, it is similar in all respects. P3) Y has characteristic B. C) X has characteristic B

Question 47

post hoc ergo propter hoc=

Answer 47

inferring that X caused Y because it came before it.

Question 48

which fallacy if often commited in public discourse, over responsibility for a policy

Answer 48

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Question 49

P1) Since the administration took office four months ago the economy has been performing well. C) The administration caused the economy to perform well. welke fallacy

Answer 49

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Question 50

the fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause

Answer 50

when one event is found in conjunction with another, they think its the cause.

Question 51

Sales of ice cream are correlated with higher levels of crime. But it is almost certainly false that ice cream is causing crime to go up, or vice versa. Instead, it is much more plausible that there is a third factor whose occurrence causally explains their co-occurrence: warm weather

Answer 51

The fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause

Question 52

inversion of cause and effect =

Answer 52

if X causes Y, an absence of X will prevent Y

Question 53

P1) Vitamin E deprivation causes hastened ageing. P2) If a lack of something X is the cause of a phenomenon Y the presence of X will cause of the opposite of Y. C) Vitamin E causes the ageing process to slow. which fallacy

Answer 53

inversion of cause and effect

Question 54

Contrary to what the healthy-eating lobby dictates, traditional British cooking is good for you. Remember the good old days when we ate bacon, eggs, sausages, fried tomatoes, potatoes, toast and marmalade? And that was just for breakfast. Well, in those days, people didn’t succumb to anorexia or bulimia and the incidence of obesity was much lower. Seems the ‘experts’ have got it wrong again.

Answer 54

inversion of cause and effect

Question 55

3 causal fallacies

Answer 55

1. post hoc ergo propter hoc 2. the fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause 3. inversion of cause and effect

Question 56

2 epistemic fallacies

Answer 56

appeal to ignorance epistemic fallacy

Question 57

appeal to ignorance =

Answer 57

because a claim has not been proven, it must be false (negative) because it has not been disproved it must be true (positive)

Question 58

P1) No one has proved that UFOs don’t exist. P2) All propositions that have not been disproved are true. C) UFOs do exist. welke fallacy

Answer 58

appeal to ignorance

Question 59

epistemic fallacy

Answer 59

wanneer iemand van de 3rd person point of view inferences maakt over wat iemand wel of niet gelooft. hij gelooft dit, dus hij vind ook dat we dit en dit en dit moeten doen????

Question 60

propositional attitude verbs=

Answer 60

knows, believes, wants, desires etc

Question 61

faulty argument techniques

Answer 61

equivocation red herring slippery slope straw target false dilemma begging the question

Question 62

equivocation=

Answer 62

accepting the conclusion of an argument, on the basis of an equivocation (dubbelzinnig/ambiguous) iets.

Question 63

verschil equivocation en rhetorical ploy of trading on an equivocation

Answer 63

bij rhetorical ploy of trading on an equivocation gaat het gewoon om een unsupported claim. bij equivocation gaat het om een conclusie accepteren op de basis van een argument die ambiguous is

Question 64

red herring =

Answer 64

irrelevant premise is given as a reason for accepting the conclusion.

Question 65

verschil red herring en smoke screen

Answer 65

red herring = irrelevant premis smoke screen = irrelevant information

Question 66

dus waar moet je naar kijken bij red herring

Answer 66

echt kijken naar welke informatie wel in de premise wordt gegeven maar niet in de conclusie.

Question 67

dus red herring depends on....

Answer 67

our knowledge about the subject

Question 68

slippery slope

Answer 68

when an arguer wrongly assumes that to permit or forbid a course of action will inevitably lead to the occurrence of further related and undesirable events

Question 69

P1) If cannabis were to be decriminalised, the use of hard drugs would increase. C) Cannabis should not be decriminalised. welke fallacy

Answer 69

slippery slope

Question 70

straw target =

Answer 70

when an arguer ignores their opponent’s real position on an issue and sets up a weaker version of that position by misrepresentation, exaggeration, distortion or simplification. dus iemands argument verdraaien zodat het minder goed lijkt

Question 71

welke rhetorical ploy lijkt op straw target

Answer 71

op appeal to ridicule

Question 72

false dilemma

Answer 72

technique of limiting consideration of positions on an issue to fewer alternatives than are actually available to be considered. dus doen alsof er 2 opties zijn maar dat er eigenlijk veel meer zijn

Question 73

begging the question =

Answer 73

circular reasoning. dus de truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises, and the truth of the premise depends on the truth of the conclusion

Question 74

P1) I’m the leader of the gang. P2) Gang leaders should always get the biggest share of their gang’s haul. C) I should get the biggest share of the haul.

Answer 74

begging the question

Question 75

3 types of faulty reasoning due to misinterpretation of statistics

Answer 75

1. confusing absolute and relative differences 2. margin of error 3. base rate fallacy

Question 76

confusing absolute and relative differences=

Answer 76

er zit een verschil tussen absolute and relative differences. relative risk is een percentage van the absolute risk. dus 80% improvement betekent eigenlijk het een 80% verschil tussen de controle en de interventiegroep Absolute risk refers to the actual probability of an outcome occurring in a specific group regardless of any other factors. Relative risk on the other hand, compares the risk of an outcome between exposed and unexposed groups. dus relative risk is in het experiment, en absolute is in het echte leven

Question 77

waar zie je confusing absolute and relative differences vaak

Answer 77

bij medical trials

Question 78

margin of error =

Answer 78

misrepresentation in margin of error. margin of error = the test predicts the actual percentage within n percentage points with 95 per cent probability of being correct. maar vaak wordt het gezien als: het ligt binnen de margin of error, dus het is sowieso zo

Question 79

waar heb je de base rate fallacy vaak

Answer 79

bij minority groups: even though there may be a high incidence of criminality among one group, there are way less people in that group. dus de probability dat iemand die in criminality zit uit die groep komt is veel kleiner.

Question 80

wat als je even niet weet welke fallacy

Answer 80

kan het red herring zijn? dus extra, overbodige informatie geven

Question 81

wat is er met de informal fallacies

Answer 81

ze kunnen ook legitimate zijn. je hebt bijvoorbeeld een legitimate slippery slope (niet je tanden poetsen = gaatjes = tand laten trekken), en een legitimate analogy en een legitimate ad hominem etc.