Phil 210 Exam 2 Study Guide

Fallacy

A defect in an argument that arises from either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.

Formal Fallacy

Fallacies that involve mistakes in the logical form (or structure) of a deductive argument.

Informal Fallacy

Fallacies that involve problems of language or inattention to some other important aspect of an argument (can only be detected by examining the content of an argument).

Undistributed Middle (Categorical Syllogism)

A = B

C = B

A are C

Denying the Antecedent

A > B

~ A

~ B

Affirming the Consequent

A > B

B

A

Affirming a Disjunct (Disjunctive Syllogism)

A v B

A

Not B

Fallacy of Relevance

Share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Premises can appear to be psychologically relevant although they’re not logically relevant.

Appeal to Force

Involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, whether an individual or a group of people.

Appeal to People

The arguer uses the reader or listener’s desire for love, esteem, admiration, value, and similar emotions to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion. There are two approaches involved: one of them direct, the other indirect.

Direct: The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd. (Also known as “appeal to the crowd”)

Indirect: The arguer aims his or her appeal at one or more individuals in the crowd, focusing on some aspect of the relationship to the crowd.

Appeal to the Crowd

Known as the direct approach of appeal to the people. Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd.

Appeal to Fear

Also known as fear mongering. Is a variety of the direct form of the appeal to the people that occurs when the arguer attempts to move the listener through raising irrational or poorly-justified fears that turn the listener against some view or action.

Bandwagon Fallacy

This tried to persuade by stating or insinuating that you should adopt some view because everyone else has adopted it.

Appeal to Vanity

This tries to convince by insinuating that you should adopt some position because doing so will make you popular, beautiful, or something along those lines. Form of the indirect approach.

Appeal to Snobbery

This tries to persuade the listener by implying that adopting some view or plan of action will make one superior to others - socially, economically, or in some other way.

Appeal to Tradition

This argues that something is correct simply because it is a long-standing practice or opinion. Variety of the indirect appeal to people.

Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument against the Person)

This fallacy always involved two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself.

Accident

This fallacy is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.

Straw Man

This fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or position for the purpose of attacking it more easily, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.

Missing the Point

This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn.

Red Herring

This fallacy occurs when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject of a different but sometimes subtly related one. Either a conclusion is then drawn about this different issue or it is simply presumed that a conclusion has been established.

Weak Induction

The premises provide some - but not sufficient - evidence supporting the conclusion. The premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case with the eight fallacies of relevance, but because the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. Like the fallacies of weak induction, these fallacies often involve emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.

Appeal to Authority

Occurs when an expert is cited whose expertise lies in a different field or when there is no consensus among experts in the field.

Appeal to Ignorance

Occurs when the premises of an argument imply that no conclusion has been proved about something, but the conclusion makes a definite assertion about that thing.

Hasty Generalization

Occurs in induction when the conclusion is based on insufficient evidence.

Lazy Generalization

Occurs in induction when the conclusion is weaker than what the evidence supports.

Forgetful Induction

Occurs when the speaker leaves out information that could and should affect the conclusion.

False Cause

This fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.

Post Hoc

This variety of the false cause fallacy presupposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the second.

Non Cause Pro Causa

This variety of the false cause fallacy mistakenly assumes that one event is the cause of another, but the mistake is not based on temporal succession.

Oversimplified Cause

This variety of the false cause fallacy occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.

Gambler’s Fallacy

This variety of the false cause fallacy is committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent antecedent events are causally related.

Slippery Slope

A variety of the false cause fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on a possible chain reaction that the speaker portrays as inevitable.

Weak Analogy

A fallacy affecting analogous induction that is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

Fallacies of Presumption

Includes begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence. These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to prove (or assume that which needs to be proven).

Begging the Question

This is committed whenever the argument given in support of a conclusion implicitly assumes that the conclusion is true.

Complex Question (Or a Loaded Question)

This is committed when a question is asked that presumes an answer to another, unexpressed question.

False Dilemma (Or “False Dichotomy” or “Bifurcation”)

This is committed when a disjunctive (“either… or…”) statement presents two or more options as if they are the only possibilities or presents as if it’s necessarily an exclusive disjunction.

Suppressed Evidence (Or “Forgetful Induction”)

This fallacy occurs in an inductive argument when the arguer ignores important evidence that could affect that conclusion.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Includes equivocation and amphiboly. These fallacies rely upon shifts in meaning between the premises and the conclusion (or arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both)).

Equivocation

This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two different senses in the argument.

Amphiboly

This fallacy is committed when the argument contains a grammatically ambiguous statement that leads to a mistaken interpretation.

Fallacies of Illicit Transference

Includes composition and division. Involves mistakenly concluding that attributes of one person or object are shared by another.

Composition

This fallacy is committed when the characteristics of the parts are erroneously attributed to the whole.

Division

This fallacy is committed when the characteristics are erroneously attributed to the parts.

Argument from Silence

Argues that something is true because it cannot be proven to be false.

Genetic Fallacy

Argues that a position is false because of some detail of its origin (its genesis).

Self-referential Incoherence

The statement does not live up to its own standard.

Confirmation Bias

The tendency that people have to value information that supports their preconceptions over information that is contrary to them.

Worldview

A set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality that influences how you interpret your experiences and live your life. Determines how we apprise the world in which we live and shapes what we find reasonable or unreasonable to believe.

Appeal to Pity

The arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader or listener, whether directed toward the arguer or toward some third party.

Ad Hominem Abusive

The second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person (or argues that a position is false by pointing out the failings of its proponent(s)).

Ad Hominem Circumstantial

Argues that a position is false by pointing out irrelevant details about its proponents (or the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent).

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (“you too”)

Accusing your opponent of being guilty of the same thing that she had criticized in you (or the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith).