TASK 3 - FALLACIES + EVALUATION OF INFO

Question 1

fallacy

Answer 1

= defect in argument consisting in something other than false premises alone
- comprise mistakes in reasoning or creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument look good) –> unsound/uncogent

Question 2

formal fallacy

Answer 2

= identified by examining FORM or STRUCTURE of an argument (only for deductive with identifiable form)

Question 3

informal fallacy

Answer 3

= identified by examining the CONTENT

Question 4

fallacies of relevance

Answer 4

= arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion

Question 5

fallacies of relevance

- appeal to force (argument ad baculum)

Answer 5

= threatens someone to accept conclusion; poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person implicitly/explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion
- always involves threat to physical/psychological well-being

Question 6

fallacies of relevance

- appeal to pity (argument ad misericordiam)

Answer 6

= attempt to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader/listener
≠ arguments from compassion = evoke compassion on behalf of some person + supply info why person is deserving help

Question 7

fallacies of relevance

- appeal to the people (argument ad populum)

Answer 7

= use desires (want to be loved, admired…) to get reader/listener to accept a conclusion

Question 8

appeal to the people

- direct approach

Answer 8

= addressing a large group of people, excite emotions of crowd to win acceptance for conclusion
- evoke mob mentality (= large group)

Question 9

appeal to the people

- indirect approach

Answer 9

= aim appeal to one or more individuals by focusing on some aspect of their relationship with the crowd

1) bandwagon argument = left behind/out if you do not support conclusion
2) appeal to vanity = associate conclusion with someone who is admired, so you will also accept it
3) appeal to snobbery = similar to 2

Question 10

fallacies of relevance

- appeal against the person (argument ad hominem)

Answer 10

= response to an argument is directed at the person itself, not the argument
- place other person in bad light (2 arguers)

Question 11

appeal against the person

- ad hominem abusive

Answer 11

= second person responds by verbal abusing

Question 12

appeal against the person

- ad hominem circumstantial

Answer 12

= second person attempts to discredit opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent’s judgment
- ‘of course you would say that, just look at the circumstances’

Question 13

appeal against the person

- tu quoque (you too)

Answer 13

= second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical
- ‘how dare you say that, when you do it yourself’

Question 14

fallacies of relevance

- accident

Answer 14

= when a general rule is applied to a specific case that it was not intended to cover
- general rule is cited in premises –> wrongly applied to specific case in conclusion

Question 15

fallacies of relevance

- straw man fallacy

Answer 15

= distort opponent’s argument to be able to more easily attack it + to conclude that original argument has been demolished (2 arguers)
- exaggerate first person’s argument + make it look more extreme

Question 16

fallacies of relevance

- missing the point (ignoratio elenchi)

Answer 16

= when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but at the end a different conclusion, vaguely related to the correct conclusion –> support a conclusion but not the one that is drawn

• ignorance of proof: ignorant of logical implications of the premises –> draws conclusion that misses the point entirely
• not introducing new things

Question 17

fallacies of relevance

- red herring

Answer 17

= divert attention of reader by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one + then draw a conclusion about this different subject OR merely presume that some conclusion has been drawn

(a) change subject without reader noticing it
(b) change subject to eye-catching topic that guarantees distraction (sex)
- generate new premises  changing subject
- may be more on purpose

Question 18

fallacies of weak induction

Answer 18

= connection between premises + conclusion not strong enough; evidence is not good enough to cause a reasonable person to believe conclusion

Question 19

fallacies of weak induction

- appeal to unqualified authority (argument ad verecundiam)

Answer 19

= cited authority/witness lacks credibility

Question 20

fallacies of weak induction

- appeal to ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam)

Answer 20

= premise states that nothing has been proven one way –> conclusion is that it has to be the other way (definite)

• usually involves something incapable of being proven
• exceptions: research + courtroom (innocent until proven guilty)

Question 21

fallacies of weak induction

- hasty generalisations (converse accident)

Answer 21

= sample probably is not representative of the group/population

Question 22

fallacies of weak induction

- false cause

Answer 22

= link between premises and conclusion depend on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn’t exist

1) temporal succession: just because one event precedes another, first event causes second
2) not the cause of the cause
3) oversimplified cause: more causes than the one stated
4) gambler’s fallacy: conclusion depends on supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related

Question 23

fallacies of weak induction

- slippery slope

Answer 23

= conclusion depends on alleged chain reaction –> not sufficient evidence that that will actually happen
- often attempts to trump up support or put down argument of opposition

Question 24

fallacies of weak induction

- weak analogy

Answer 24

= analogy is not strong enough to support drawn conclusion

Question 25

fallacies of presumption

Answer 25

= premises presume/suppose what they purport to prove

Question 26

fallacies of presumption

- begging the question (petitio principii)

Answer 26

= create illusion that inadequate premise provide adequate support for conclusion by

• presumes that premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not
• request for the source: actual source of support for conclusion is not apparent –> beg the question where the support comes from

Question 27

begging the question

1. miss premise

Answer 27

= leaving out possibly false key premise

Question 28

begging the question

2. restate premise

Answer 28

= restating false premise in slightly different language

Question 29

begging the question

3. circular reasoning

Answer 29

= first premise, possibly false –> conspiracy

Question 30

fallacies of presumption

- complex question

Answer 30

= two/more questions are asked in a single question + single answer is given to them both
- presumes that a question can be answered by a simple yes/no when a more sophisticated answer is needed
≠ leading question = answer is in some way suggested in the question

Question 31

fallacies of presumption

- false dichotomy

Answer 31

= disjunctive “either…or…” premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available –> eliminate undesirable alternative
- presumes that ‘either…or’ statement presents jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not

Question 32

fallacies of presumption

- suppressed evidence

Answer 32

= ignores important piece of evidence

- presumes that no important evidence has been overlooked

Question 33

fallacies of ambiguity

Answer 33

= occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion

Question 34

fallacies of ambiguity

- equivocation

Answer 34

= conclusion of argument depends on fact that word/phrase is used in two different senses in the argument
- AMBIGUOUS WORD

Question 35

fallacies of ambiguity

- amphiboly

Answer 35

= misinterpret AMBIGUOUS STATEMENT, then draws conclusion based on faulty interpretation

Question 36

fallacies of grammatical analogy

Answer 36

= grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect

Question 37

fallacies of grammatical analogy

- composition

Answer 37

= erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something to the whole
- from parts to the whole

Question 38

fallacies of grammatical analogy

- division

Answer 38

= the opposite of composition

- from whole to parts

Question 39

ARG conditions

Answer 39

= basic elements of a cogent argument
- cogent argument = if the premises of an argument are rationally acceptable and are ordered so as to provide rational support for the conclusion

Question 40

ARG

- A

Answer 40

= Acceptable premises

• reasonable + acceptable to whom the argument is addressed to believe these premises + to yourself
• good reason to accept the premises + no good evidence indicating that the premises are false

Question 41

ARG

- R

Answer 41

= Relevant premises for the conclusion
- premises state evidence, offer reasons that support the conclusion, or can be arranged into a demonstration from which the conclusion can be derived

Question 42

ARG

- G

Answer 42

= premises provide Good Grounds for the conclusion

- premises give sufficient reason to make it rational to accept the conclusion

Question 43

CRAAP test

Answer 43

= evaluate sources

1. answer the questions
2. rank each of the 5 parts from 1 to 10 (1 = unreliable, 10 = excellent)
3. add up the scores to give you an idea of the quality of the resource

Question 44

CRAAP

- C

Answer 44

= Currency

• when was the information published/posted?
• has the information been revised or updated?
• is the information (also links) current or out of date for your topic?

Question 45

CRAAP

- R

Answer 45

= Relevance

- does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?

Question 46

CRAAP

- A

Answer 46

= Authority

• who is the authority/publisher…?
• are the author’s organisations given?
• contact information, qualifications…

Question 47

CRAAP

- A

Answer 47

= Accuracy

• is the information supported by evidence?
• has the information been reviewed?
• can you verify any of the information in another source?

Question 48

CRAAP

- P

Answer 48

= Purpose

• what is the purpose of the information?
• is the info a fact, an opinion or propaganda?