Week 8 - Standard Form and Informal fallacies Flashcards
(17 cards)
What does it mean to put an argument in standard form?
It means clearly laying out the argument’s premises and conclusion(s), often numbered and stripped of extraneous material, to analyze its logical structure. This helps evaluate its validity, strength, or fallaciousness.
What are the steps to putting an argument into standard form?
List the seven steps to converting a natural language argument into standard form.
- Remove extraneous material (e.g., rhetoric)
- Identify all key sentences involved in the reasoning
- Identify the overall conclusion
- Identify all stated premises
- Identify any unstated (implicit) premises
- Identify the overall argumentative structure
- Evaluate each argumentative link (valid, strong, fallacious)
Why must rhetorical elements be removed when analyzing an argument?
Rhetoric aims to persuade emotionally rather than through logic. It can be manipulative and is irrelevant when evaluating the logical strength of an argument.
How do you identify the overall conclusion?
What question helps you find the conclusion of an argument?
Ask: “What is the author trying to persuade me to believe?”
Be careful not to confuse intermediate conclusions with the overall conclusion.
What is an unstated premise and what is the risk in adding them?
An unstated premise is a missing but assumed claim that makes the argument logically valid. Adding one improperly can make a weak argument seem valid (“spuriously valid”) and must be justified as something the author likely believed.
Also known as an enthymeme.
What do we call an argument with one or more unstated premises?
An enthymeme—a partially stated argument that assumes a missing premise to connect reasoning.
What are the conditions that make an unstated premise acceptable?
- It must be something the author presumably believes.
- It should not be added ad hoc (i.e., just to make the argument valid).
What is an intermediate conclusion, and how does it function in an argument?
It’s a conclusion drawn from some premises which then acts as a premise for a further conclusion. It helps build complex arguments in stages.
What tool can help represent the structure of an argument clearly?
An argument tree or diagram, showing how premises lead to intermediate conclusions and ultimately to the overall conclusion.
What is the main advantage of converting an argument into standard form?
It clarifies logical relationships between ideas, making it easier to identify fallacies, evaluate validity, and understand the argument’s structure.
What is an informal fallacy?
An informal fallacy is a fault in reasoning that does not stem from logical structure (as formal fallacies do) but from content, language, or assumptions in the argument. These fallacies are often more subjective and diverse in form, making them harder to categorize systematically
What is “Begging the Question” (Petitio Principii)?
This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is assumed in the premises, often in a disguised or rephrased way. The argument goes in a circle without providing independent justification.
Example: “The Bible is true because it is the word of God. We know it’s God’s word because the Bible says so.”
How can “Begging the Question” be disguised in arguments?
Through:
Rephrasing the conclusion in abstract terms
Hiding it in an unstated premise
Using persuasive language or complex syntax to obscure the repetition
Example: “Free trade is good for us. It’s clear that unrestricted commerce brings benefits to all.” (This assumes what it’s trying to prove)
What is Ignoratio Elenchi (Red Herring)?
This fallacy happens when an argument establishes a conclusion—but not the one it set out to prove. It may be a valid point but irrelevant to the main issue.
Example: Arguing the fraud is atrocious instead of proving the person committed it
What are real-world examples of Ignoratio Elenchi?
A: “Should people criticize politics on social media?”
B: “The president won’t read it anyway.”
➤ Misses the point that the criticism is for peers or public awareness.
A: “Is it legal to watch films on free streaming?”
B: “My neighbour says it should be legal.”
➤ Answer addresses opinion, not legality
.
What is the fallacy of Equivocation?
A fallacy where a word with multiple meanings is used ambiguously in an argument, shifting between senses without notice.
Example:
“Democracy is good because it supports the will of the people.”
➤ But “democracy” might mean electoral systems, equality, or popular opinion—used inconsistently.
Why are Equivocation fallacies difficult to spot?
Because many words lack precise definitions. Ambiguity allows for subtle shifts in meaning, often unnoticed by the audience. Words like “freedom,” “justice,” or “natural” are common targets of equivocation
