SCI 100 Critical Thinking Exam

Argument

a set of statements in which the conclusion is supported by the premises

Logical fallacies

Errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument

Fallacies of relevance

Mistakes in reasoning that occur when an

argument's premises are not logically related to its conclusion

Personal attack (Ad Hominem)

Rejecting someone’s argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person’s argument or claim.

Attacking the motive

Criticizing a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.

Look Who’s Talking

An arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim because that person fails to practice what she/he preaches.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Occurs when an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or

worse.

Scare Tactic

An arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener if he or she does not accept the arguer’s conclusion and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion

Appeal to Pity

An arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion from her/his listeners or readers

Bandwagon Argument

Plays on a person’s desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than appealing to logically relevant reasons or evidence

Straw Man Fallacy

When an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or claim to make it easier to attack

Red Herring

when an arguer tries to sidetrack her/his audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has effectively been settled by the irrelevant diversion (or ignores the original issue altogether)

Equivocation Fallacy

The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a key word is used in two or more senses in the same argument and the apparent success of the argument depends on the shift in meaning.

Begging the Question

an arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing he or she is trying to prove as a conclusion

Fallacies of insufficient evidence

Mistakes in reasoning in which the premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority

When an arguer cites a witness or authority who, there is good reason to believe, is inappropriate for the topic.

Appeal to Ignorance

An arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false or, conversely, that a claim must be false because no one has proven it true.

False Alternatives

Committed when an arguer poses a false either/or choice.

Loaded Question

When an arguer asks a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted presupposition.

Questionable Cause

when an arguer claims, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of something else

Post hoc fallacy

An arguer assumes, without adequate evidence, that because A occurred before B, A is the cause of B.

Oversimplified cause fallacy

When we assume, without adequate evidence, that A is the sole cause of B when, in fact, there are several causes of B.

Mere correlation fallacy

When an arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that because A and B regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B or vice versa.