fallacies

Question 1

what are fallacies?

Answer 1

a defect in an argument

-> that arises from either

• a mistake in reasoning or
• the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good

Question 2

what are formal fallacies?

Answer 2

• may be idenified by merely examining the structure of an argument
• only found in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms

Question 3

what are informal fallacies ?

Answer 3

can be detected only by examining the conent of the agrument

-> require extra information

Question 4

what are examples of fallacies of relevance?

Answer 4

• appeal to force
• appeal to pity
• appeal to the people
• argument against the person
• accident
• straw man
• missing the point
• red herring

Question 5

what is the appeal to force?

Answer 5

• arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person that harm will come to them if they do not accept the conclusion
• threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter
  –> argument based on that is fallacious
• accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the listener from acknowledging a missing premise that would be seen as false or questionable

-> often occurs when children argue

Question 6

what is the appeal to pity?

Answer 6

occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the audience

• conclusion of this argument is not logically relevant to agruers set of pathetic circumstances
• arguments from compassion:
  supply information about why that person is genuinely deserving of help or special consideration

Question 7

what is a fallacy of relevance?

Answer 7

arguments have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion but may appear psychologically relevant, so that the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises

Question 8

what is the appeal to the people?

Answer 8

uses the desire to be loved, and valued to get the audience to accept a conclusion

> direct approach
= arguer addresses a large group of people and excites their emotions to win acceptance for a conclusion
= appeal to fear

> indirect approach
= arguer aims their appeal not at the crowd but at one or more separate individuals focusing on some aspects
= bandwagon argument
= appeal to vanity
= appeal to snobbery
= appeal to tradition

Question 9

appeal to the people:
what is the appeal to fear?

Answer 9

= direct

fear mongering:
occurs when an arguer ** trumps up a fear** of something in the mind of a crowd and then uses that fear as a premise for a conclusion

Question 10

appeal to the people:
what is the appeal to vanity?

Answer 10

= indirect

involves linking the love, admiration, and approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of
-> often used by advertisers

Question 11

appeal to the people:
what is the appeal to snobbery

Answer 11

= indirect

arguer appeals to a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way
-> if listener wants to be part of this group, they think in a certain way

Question 12

appeal to the people:
what is the appeal to tradition?

Answer 12

= indirect

arguer cites the fact that something has become tradition as grounds for some conclusion

Question 13

appeal to the people:
what is the bandwagon argument?

Answer 13

= indirect

everybody believes xy, therefore, you should believe in xy too

Question 14

what is an accident (fallacy)

Answer 14

committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Question 15

what is the straw man ?

Answer 15

committed when an agruer distorts an opponent´s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it,

demolishes the distorted argument

and then concludes that the original argument has been demolished

Question 16

what is missing the point?

Answer 16

special form of irrelevance:

occurs when the premise of an argument support one particular conclusion but then a different conclusionis drawn that is vaguely related to the correct conclusion

Question 17

what is the red herring fallacy?

Answer 17

occurs when the arguer diverts the attention of the audience by changing the subject to a different, but sometimes subtly related one

finishes by drawing a conclusion about the different issue/ presuming that some conclusion has been established

-> draws listener off track

Question 18

what are examples for fallacies of weak induction?

Answer 18

• appeal to unqualified authority
• appeal to ignorance
• hasty generalisations (converse accident)
• false cause
• slippery slope
• weak analogy

Question 19

what is the appeal to unqualified authority?

Answer 19

variety of argument from authority: occurs when cited authority lacks credibility

Question 20

what is the appeal to ignorance?

Answer 20

involves something that is incapable of being proven or something that has not yet been proven

Question 21

what are hasty generalisations/ composition ?

Answer 21

occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group:

argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence, that pertains to a selected sample

-> conclusion = general statement (= hasty generalisation)
-> conclusion = class statement (= composition)

Question 22

what is a false cause?

Answer 22

occurs when the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist

Question 23

what is the slippery slope?

Answer 23

variety of false cause fallacy:

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

-> rest on a mere emotional conviction on the part of the arguer

a policy is bad and they name many direct consequences that allegedly follow if the action is taken

Question 24

what is weak analogy?

Answer 24

affects inductive arguments from analogy:

committed when analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn

Question 25

what are the fallacies of presumption?

Answer 25

- begging the question - complex question - false dichotiomy - suppressed evidence

Question 26

what is begging the question?

Answer 26

committed when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion, by leaving out a possibly false key premise or by reasoning in a circle -> usually unsound because the premise that needs to provide adequate support for the conclusion is of uncertain truth value

Question 27

what is complex question?

Answer 27

committed when two or more questions are asked as a single question

Question 28

what are the fallacies of ambiguity?

Answer 28

- equivocation - amphiboly

Question 29

what is suppressed evidence?

Answer 29

if an argument ignores an important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion

Question 30

what is equivocation?

Answer 30

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two different senses in an argument

Question 31

what is amphiboly?

Answer 31

Arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation

Question 32

what is a composition

Answer 32

when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole? -> conclusion = general statement (= hasty generalisation) -> conclusion = class statement (= composition)

Question 33

what is a division?

Answer 33

exact reverse of composition: when the conclsuion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole class onto its parts

Question 34

what are the factors leading to fallacies in reasoning?

Answer 34

- intent: fallacies are committed intentionally - careless mental posture and emotional disposition favouring or opposing some person or thing - influence of the worldview of the arguer:

Question 35

what are intentional fallacies?

Answer 35

- appeal to force - appeal to pity - appeal to people - straw man - ad hominem (against the person) - complex question - false dichotomy - suppressed evidence

Question 36

what is false dichotomy?

Answer 36

- committed when a disjunctive (either or) premise presents two unlikely alternatives -> as if they were the only ones available - the arguer then elimitates the undesirable aternative -> leaving the desirable one as conlcusion - the argument is valid!! -> BUT since the disjunctive premise is false, the argument is typically unsound

Question 37

what is argument against the person?

Answer 37

when an arguer doesn´t respond the opponent´s argument but focuses to the opponent themselves: - abusive = verbally abusing the opponent - circumstantial = attempting to discredit opponent, by alluding to circumstances that affect the opponent - tu quoque = arguer makes the opponent appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith, for example by mentioning aspects from private life that conflict with the corrent discussion