Final Review Flashcards Preview

Critical Reasoning > Final Review > Flashcards

Flashcards in Final Review Deck (43):

List all fallacies of induction

1. hasty generalizations
2. accident
3. weak analogy
4. appeal to authority
5. appeal to population
6. post hoc ergo propter hoc
7. cum hoc, propter hoc
8. slippery slope


List the 2 formal fallacies

1. affirming the consequent
2. denying the antecedent


List the 3 miscalculating probabilities

1. Gambler's fallacy
2. overlooking prior probabilities
3. overlooking false positives


A fallacy that is a weak argument based on debatable or unimportant similarities between 2 or more things

weak/false analogy


A fallacy in which a speaker or write commits fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that one event came after another established that it was caused by another

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc


Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

when a speak or write commits this fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that 2 events happen at the same time established that one caused the other


Slippery Slope

a fallacy in which an argument resets on an unsupported warning that is controversial and tendentious, to the effect that something will progress by degrees to an undesirable outcome


Fallacious appeal to authority

when he or she tries to support a contention by offering as evidence the opinion of a nonauthoritative source


What 5 ways to commit a hasty generalization?

1. anecdote
2. exceptional cases
3. biased sample
4. too small of sample
5. self-selected


What are 2 ways to commit fallacy of popular belief?

1. fallacious appeal to common practice
2. bandwagon fallacy


Accident fallacy

occurs when a speak or write assumes that a general statement automatically applies to a specific case


Type of hasty generalization that occurs when someone generalizes about members who are included by their own decision

self-selection fallacy


Type of hasty generalization that occurs a generalization about a large population on an atypical or skewed sample

fallacy of biased sample


In an induction argument what are the premises suppose to do to conclusion?

the premise(s) support(s) the conclusion


How are inductive arguments evaluates?

whether they are strong or weak


What are 3 to reason inductively?

1. argument from analogy
2. generalize from a sample
3, cause and effect


What makes an argument by analogy strong?

the more numerous and diversified the similarities between the premise and conclusion analogues and if there are more than one premise-analogues that are numerous and diversified


What makes an argument by analogy weak?

the more numerous and diversified the differences between the premise analogue and conclusion analogue and too few premise analogues that are more numerous and diversified in differences


What fallacy is associated with argument from analogy?

weak/false analogy


Explain generalizing from a sample

when you reason that all, most or some percentage of all members of a population have an attribute because all, most, or some percentage of a sample of the population have that attribute


What are 3 ways that generalizing from a sample is weak?

1. the more atypical (biased) the sample the weaker the generalization
2. the less diversified the sample. the weaker the generalization
3. if the sample is too small to mirror the overall the population, the generalization is weak


Which types of samples are best to generalize about a population?

if a sample is unbiased, large and diversified


Which type of fallacy is best associated with generalize from a sample?

hasty generalizations


What are 3 principles often used to arrive at a cause and effect relationships?

1. paired unusual event principle
2. covariation
3. common variable principle


Paired Unusual Event Principle

if something unusual happens look for something else unusual that has happened and consider whether it might be the cause



when a variation in 1 phenomenon is accompanied by a variation in another phenomenon


Common Variable Principle

a variable common to multiple occurrences of something may be related to it causally


How do we evaluate cause and effect?

1. use common sense and background knowledge
2. confirm the hypothesis


What fallacy is associated with cause and effect relationships?

post hoc, ergo propter hoc


Which 3 ways can we confirm cause and effect hypothesis?

1. randomized controlled experiments
2. prospective observational studies
3. retrospective observational studies


What is the significance of a retrospective observational study?

going backwards, people already have the effect . the purpose is to observe if they have the same cause


What is the significance of a prospective observational study?

going forward, looking to see if people will have the same effect


What is the significance of a randomized controlled group?

to control who is in which group


T/F All moral judgments expresses a moral value judgment



What is a value judgment?

assesses the merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness of someone or something


What is a moral value judgment?

a claim assessing the moral rightness of a person or action


What is the consistency principle?

the first principle of moral reasoning which states that if separate cases aren't different in any relevant way, they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way


Gambler's Fallacy

past events and future events are independent


overlooking False positives

cannot determine probability that are x's are y's without knowing proportion of non-x's that are y


Legal Moralism

if x is immoral then x is illegal


Harm principle

the only legitimate basis for forbidding X is it does harm to others


Offense Principle

a law forbidding X is justifiable if X is offensive to others


Legal Paternalism

A person should/can be forbidden to do X for that person's own good