Argument Quiz: AP Lang

Bandwagon

evidence boils down to “everyone is doing it so it must be good”

circular reasoning

its conclusion is among its premises, assumes either explicitly or not what it is trying to prove

stack the deck

only one side of the story and refuses to acknowledge the existence of the other side

hasty generalization

not enough evidence to support a particular conclusion, anecdotes

equivocation

when an argument hinges on ambiguous meanings of key words or phrases, faith, humanity, natural, etc.

non sequitur

claim where the reason and conclusion do not logically connect

slippery slope

a claim that one action will lead to another, more extreme action, scare tactic

false dilemma

presenting two extreme options as if they are the only two possibilities

post hoc ergo propter hoc / faulty causality

assuming that because one event or action follows another, the first causes the second

straw man

over simplifying/misinterpreting an example in order to ridicule an refute an oponent

false authority

using someone as an expert who is not actually an expert

red herring

introducing a new and unrelated topic before addressing the argument topic, diversionary tactic

ad hominem

“against the man” attacking the character of the speaker instead of addressing the topic

faulty analogy

drawing a comparison that is not logically relevant

claim

an assertion/proposition that states the arguments main idea or position. must be arguable

claim of fact

asserting that something is true or not true. asserts that a condition has existed, exists, or will exist

claim of policy

proposes a change

claim of value

good, bad, right, wrong, based on personal tastes

open thesis

does not list the points of the argument

closed thesis

lists the points of the argument

counterargument thesis

acknowledges the other side’s argument and disproves it

deductive reasoning

Mental process of moving from one statement through another to a conclusion, reasons and premises offered are supposed to contain within themselves, the conclusion extracted from them.

syllogism

the joining of two premises used to produce a conclusion

premise

stated assumption used as a reason in an argument

valid argument

the conclusion follows from the premises

sound argument

a syllogism that is truthful and valid

inductive reasoning

a logical process wherein you reason from particulars to universals, using specific cases in order to draw a (highly probable) conclusion, which is also called a generalization.

support

data used as evidence, reason, or grounds for the claim

qualifier

restricts the terms of the claim and limits its range, indicating the strength delivered by the warrant

warrant

the assumption that links the evidence to the claim

backing

without this the warrant lacks authority

reservation

explains the terms and conditions of the qualifier