Logic 3 Flashcards

1
Q

The arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader

A

Appeal to pity or argumentum ad misericordiam

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used

A

Equivocation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Because the parts have a certain attribute it follows that the whole must have it

A

Composition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Either or statement with two unlikely alternatives

A

False dichotomy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

From whole to parts. The conclusion depends on the transference of an attribute from a whole or a class onto its parts

A

Division

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The authority may lack credibility

A

Appeal to unqualified authority or argumentum ad verecundiam

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Incapable of being proved or not yet proved so it’s dismissed

A

Appeal to ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Uses desires like love esteem and value to get the reader to accept conclusion

A

Appeal to the people/ argumentum ad populum

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Reasonable likelihood that the sample is not the representative group

A

Hasty generalization

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Distorts the opponents argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, and concludes the opponents real argument has been distorted

A

Straw man

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

When a general rule is applied to a specific case it wasn’t intended to cover

A

Accident

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Whenever the arguer poses a conclusion and tells that person that some harm will come unless they accept the conclusion

A

Appeal to force or argumentum ad baculum

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Involves two arguers. One advances a certain argument. The other responds by directing his or her attention to the first person instead of the argument.

A

Argument against the person or argumentum ad hominem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject. Sometimes in a closely related way

A

Red herring

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Irrelevant. When the premises go with one conclusion then a different conclusion is drawn

A

Missing the point ignoratio elenchi

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Argument depends on analogy. Analogy isn’t strong enough to support conclusion.

A

Weak analogy

17
Q

Conclusion of the argument leads to chain reactions and there’s no reason to think it can happen.

A

Slippery slope

18
Q

The link between the premises and conclusion depends on some imagines causal connection that probably doesn’t exist

A

False cause.

19
Q

Argumentum ad verecundiam

A

Appeal to unqualified authority

20
Q

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

A

Appeal to ignorance

21
Q

Jane is in favor of increased safety inspections for planes. But Jane is the owner of a safety company & would beg millions if this new regulation went into law. Therefore there is no reason to increase inspections.

A

Argumentum ad hominem

22
Q

Obviously Rolex watches are the best! Look how few people can afford them!

A

Argumentum ad populum

23
Q

We should always respect people’s personal property. Therefore you should give that psychotic man his knife.

24
Q

So many people are on welfare. Therefore welfare must cause property.

A

False cause.

25
Chickens are small, flightless birds and Americans love to eat them. Penguins are also small, flightless birds. Therefore Americans probably also love to eat penguins.
Weak analogy
26
If we defund education, then our society will crumble. But we didn't defund education. Thus our society will not not crumble after all!
Denying the antecedent
27
If I study then I pass. I passed the test. Therefore I must have studied
Affirming the consequent
28
Florida is a tropical state. Therefore many states must be tropical.
Hasty generalization
29
Alex is in favor of vegetarianism. But I don't think it is right to say that humans are no better than animals. This sort of thinking totally undermines humans. Therefore Alex is wrong in his beliefs
Straw man.
30
You can't prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in God
Argumentum ad ignorantiam