Aice Thinking Skills Paper 2

Main Conclusion

The main claim, what the author is arguing for. Must be supported by reasons and evidence. Some words that can help you identify conclusions are if these words come before it: therefore, so, consequently, etc;

Intermediate Conclusion

Another conclusion which then leads on to a main for final conclusion. Made from one or more supporting reasons that form sub-arguments. There may be two or more sub-arguments within the larger argument.

Reasons

Lead to the conclusion; needed to support an argument/conclusion

Reliability

Trustworthy and unmotivated to falsify evidence

Credibility

objective and subjective components of the believability of a source

Irrelevance

Lack of connection between evidence and the conclusion that it is intended to support

Assumptions

An assumption is a claim or belief that is accept as true, even if it hasn't been proven or justified aka presumption.

Anecdotal evidence

just one story (of an unusual circumstance) EX: My grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99."

Counter-assertion

If the writer presents a reason that would support an opponent's argument, rather than a counter-argument, then the writer is making a counter-assertion/ claim.

Arguments

reason(s) supporting a conclusion for or against a point of view

Explanations

a reason or justification given for an action or belief.

Circumstantial evidence

highly suggests the truth it's indirect evidence: it points to it, but it might not be true

Fallacies/Flaws

any various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically UNSOUND.

Argumentum ad antiquities

saying something is good or right because its old or has always been that way

Argumentum ad crumenam

saying money means correctness and those with more money are more correct

Argumentum ad hominem

attacking the person

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

true because it hasn't been proven false or false because it hasn't been proven true

Argumentum ad Lazarum

saying someone who is poor is more virtuous than someone who is rich

Argumentum ad nauseam

saying something is more likely to be true because it is said repeatedly

Argumentum ad populum

appealing to a large group of people

Argumentum ad verecundiam

using a famous person for support

Bifurcation

having only 2 options when there could be more

Complex question/interrogation/presupposition

begging the question ***Ex: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This implies that he was, at some point, beating his wife, when he might not have been at all.

Hasty generalization

using only a few cases to make an assertion **Ex: "Blondes are dumb. She's blonde. She must be dumb." When she definitely might not be!!!

Converting a conditional

if A is B, then B is A

Sweeping generalization/Dicto simpliciter/accident

a particular situation applies to everyone Just like hasty generalization but applies to a bigger group of people EX: Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a christian, so you must dislike atheists.

No true Scotsman Fallacy

disregarding a contradiction because it is not true. changing your argument

Non sequitur

premises dont logically connect to conclusion DOESNT MAKE SENSE AT ALL

Plurium interrogationum

demanding a simple answer to a complex question. yes/no?

Red Herring

irrelevant material to distract DISTRACTION

Slippery slope argument/domino fallacy

should one event occur, so will other harmful events; NO PROOF THAT THE HARMFUL EVENTS ARE CAUSED BY THE FIRST EVENT

Straw man fallacy

misrepresent someone else's position Ex: "Sunny days are good" "If every day were sunny, we wouldn't have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death!"

Tu quoque

"you too!" meaning you can do it because your opposition did it Think: tu means you in spanish.

Counter Assertion

Consists of a simple claim. Expresses an alternative opinion which an author introduces in order to explain why it is wrong.

Counter Argument

Claim is supported by reasoning. Expresses an alternative opinion which an author introduces in order to explain why it is wrong.

Unstated Assumption

A step in a piece of reasoning which is required in order for a conclusion to be validly drawn, but it is not explained explicitly

Validity

Quality of the structure of an argument, irrespective of its relation to truth or fact. If the structure of an argument is valid, it means that if the reasons happened to be true, the conclusion would have to be true.

Necessary Conditions

Something which must happen or be true in order for something else to happen or be true.

Sufficient Conditions

Happens, or is true,then something else must also happen to be true.

Equivocation

Consists of using ambiguous language to conceal a step in reasoning by shifting (without mentioning it) from one meaning of a word or expression to another (manipulating meaning of the words)

Conflation

Consists of concealing a step in reasoning by treating two words or expressions as if they were interchangeable even though their meanings are different.

Circular Argument

Consists of relying on a claim in order to prove it. Person repeats what they already assumed.

Begging the question

Consists of focusing an argument on an uncontroversial aspect of an issue while stipulating or assuming a key point. (assumption)

Causal Flaw

Unjustified inference that phenomena which occur together must have a causal relationship.

Rash Generalization

One based on small quantity of evidence, selected to support the claim. (cherry-picked, not enough evidence)

Sweeping Generlization

A claim which is generally true by applied in such way as to exclude exceptions

Slippery Slope

Consists of opposing an apparently moderate proposal by alleging that it will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences. Claim that consequences of an action or opinion will be far worse than may appear

Straw Man

Consists of misrepresenting opponents' arguments in order to respond to them more easily (distorted version of an opponents' argument)

Ad hominem (personal attack)

Criticising opponents personally instead of responding to their arguments

Tu quoque (counter attack)

Consists of rejecting criticisms on the grounds that opponents or other people are guilty of the same or equally objectionable conduct.

Appeal to authority

A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for a famous person or institution.

Appeals to popularity

The fallacy that a popular or widely believed argument is true.

Appeal to history

Arguing that what has happened in the past will happen in the future. Which is not necessarily true as circumstances change and developments occur. The idea can be probable at best.

Appeal to tradition

a fallacy which assumes that something old is automatically better than something new

Appeal to novelty

a fallacy which assumes that something new is automatically better than something old

Appeal to emotions

When something is associated with good/bad feelings, then it must be true/wrong (manipulates people's emotions)

Analogy

Comparison of an unfamiliar concept or questionable proposal with something more familiar and acceptable. Done to provide clarification, or for the purpose of persuasion.

False Dichotomy

Consists of a consideration of only the two extremes when there are one or more intermediate possibilities. THere is also a version where there is a choice of alternatives without admitting that both can be chosen. WIthout a difference is an apparent choice is offered but they are in fact the same.

Restricting the options

A fallacy that presents a false and/or limited version of the choices available to encourage a particular course of action. Denies the possibility of certain actions