Argumentation and Persuasion Test Terms (KILL ME NOW)

jennifer london will be my demise

opinions

views or judgments formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

plagiarism

presenting words or ideas of others as if they were your own

claim

main point of the essay

representative

represents a full range of opinions, not just one side

persuasion

attempts to get an audience to adopt a belief or change a course of action

relevant

information that relates to your argument

antithesis

statement that asserts the opposite position

skeptical

open to idea but needs to be convinced

facts

statements of truth

concede

to admit that an argument is valid

valid

conclusion follows logically

refutation

dealing with the opposing argument

red herring

the fallacy of using something that is intended to be misleading or distracting

common knowledge

information easily found in multiple sources

personal attack

the fallacy of diverting attention from the facts of an argument by attacking the character of the person

evidence

facts and opinions in support of your position

purpose

what you expect your argument to accomplish and how you wish the audience to respond

debatable

states a position that at least some people will disagree with

misleading statistics

the fallacy of using numbers to misrepresent or distort in an attempt to influence an audience

fallacies

illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true but are actually deceptive and dishonest

argumentation

primary purpose is to establish that certain ideas are valid and others are not

sound

both logical and true

pathos

appeal to emotion

logos

appeal to logic

ethos

appeal to credibility

appeal to doubtful authority

the fallacy of saying a statement is true simply because an unreliable authority figure supports it

argument from analogy

the fallacy of perceiving similarities and using as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet

begging the question

the fallacy of using an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it (arguing in a circle)

debatable thesis

the thesis must be something that people could reasonably have differing opinions on

deductive reasoning

drawing logical conclusions based on the information given in a text, using strict form, if all statements in argument are true, conclusion is true

distributed

some logical connectives of truth-functional propositional logic

equivocation

the fallacy of speaking intentionally unclear and confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth

false dilemma

the fallacy of presenting only two choices, outcomes, or sides to an argument as the only possibilities, when more are available

inductive reasoning

individual observations proceed to a more general conclusion using no strict form

inductive leap

using information about a specific observation to reach a general conclusion

it does not follow

the fallacy of having no logical connection that can be drawn between the premises of an argument and the conclusion.

jumping to conclusion

the fallacy of a speaker forming a specific conclusion without considering all of the variables involved

you also

the fallacy of avoiding engaging with the criticism of the argument by turning it back on the accuser: a criticism is answered with a criticism

undistributed

neither premise conveys information about all members of the class designated by the middle term

straw man

takes an opponent's point or stance and misrepresents it, often as an extreme or exaggeration

rogerian argument

requires you to identify the ideas, beliefs and arguments you and your audience share in common, therefore, you and your intended audience share common ideas

sufficient

something that is enough to satisfy whatever thing you are talking about

major premise

premise that is a general statement

minor

premise that is related but more specific statement

grounds

evidence used as support for the claim

deduction

moving from a general premise to a more specific conclusion

sweeping generalization

the fallacy of taking a general rule and applying it too broadly, even if it is inapplicable to specific situations

syllogism

logical reasoning where the conclusion is gotten from two linked premises (major, minor, conclusion)

toumin’s logic

3 essential parts of any argument as the claim, the grounds), and the warrant

warrant

logical and persuasive connection between a claim and the evidence

post oc reasoning

the fallacy of claiming that one thing caused another because the first thing preceded the other