FLAW ANSWER CHOICE VOCAB

Bad Conditional Reasoning Example

Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation for something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation

Bad Conditional Reasoning Keywords

Necessary / precondition / required; Sufficient / enough / ensure

Bad Causal Reasoning Example

Mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon

Bad Causal Reasoning Keywords

Effect

Whole-to-Part / Part-to-Whole Example

Assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself

Whole-to-Part / Part-to-Whole Keywords

Individual member of a group; Parts of a whole; Group as a whole

Overgeneralization Example

Makes a sweeping generalization based on evidence drawn from a limited number of atypical cases

Overgeneralization Keywords

Generalizing illegitimately; Few instances to all instances; Particular case / atypical cases

Survey Problems Example

Uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative

Survey Problems Keywords

Small / biased / unrepresentative sample

Possibility ≠ Certainty Example

Confuses an absence of evidence for a hypothesis with the existence of evidence against the hypothesis

Possibility ≠ Certainty Keywords

Merely possible… actual; Probably true… certainty; Has not been shown… not true

False Dichotomy Example

Assumes without warrant that a situation allows only two possibilities

False Dichotomy Keywords

Excludes alternative explanation; Only two possibilities

Straw Man Example

Misdescribing the position

Straw Man Keywords

Misdescribes; Easier to challenge

Ad Hominem Example

Rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself

Ad Hominem Keywords

Impugns / questions / attacks; Character / motives of proponents; Source argument

Circular Reasoning Example

Presupposes what it sets out to prove

Circular Reasoning Keywords

Presupposes what it seeks to establish; Restates claim / conclusion

Equivocation Example

Relies on two different uses of the term

Equivocation Keywords

Term / word in two senses; Imprecise / ambiguous / vague

Appeal Fallacies Example

Cites the evidence in direct support of a claim that lies outside their area of expertise

Appeal Fallacies Keywords

Appeals to / cites; Outside area of expertise

Irrelevant! Example

Uses irrelevant facts to justify a claim

Irrelevant! Keywords

Irrelevant / not relevant

Percentages ≠ Numbers Example

Takes no account of the relative frequency of something in the population as a whole

Percentages ≠ Numbers Keywords

Percentages / absolute numbers; Relative frequency

"overlooks possibilities that" / "ignores the possibility" / "fails to consider"

False Dichotomy

Doesn't think about another possible explanation.

"assumes only one possibility when more exist"

False Dichotomy

Acts like there is only one option when there are others.

"treats one explanation of many as though it were the only one"

False Dichotomy

Picks one explanation and ignores all the others.

"mistakes a correlation for causation"

Bad Causal Reasoning

Thinks because two things happen together, one caused the other.

"presumes that because one event was followed by another the first event caused the second."

(Bad Causal Reasoning: Thinks "after this" means "because of this.")

"ignores the possibility that two things that occur together may only be coincidentally related"

(Bad Causal Reasoning: Doesn't consider they could just be a coincidence.)

"confuses a result with a condition that is required to bring about that result"

(Bad Conditional Reasoning: Mixes up the outcome with something that is required to get it.)

"mistakes something that is necessary for a particular outcome for something that is merely sufficient for that outcome"

(Bad Conditional Reasoning: Treats a requirement as if it alone guarantees the outcome.)

"ignores the possibility that a particular outcome may be sufficient but not necessary for another"

(Bad Conditional Reasoning: Assumes something is the only way when it's just one possible way.)

"facts that are not directly related to the case are used to support a conclusion about it"

(Irrelevant!: Uses information that doesn't matter.)

"draws an analogy between two things that are not alike enough in the ways they need to be in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn"

(Bad Analogy: Treats two things as similar when the important differences matter.)

"draws a general conclusion from a few isolated instances"

(Overgeneralization: Goes from a few examples to everyone.)

"generalizes from an unrepresentative sample"

(Survey Problems: Uses a biased group to represent everyone.)

"treats the children living in County X as though they were representative of all children that age living in State Y"

(Survey Problems: Assumes one small group represents a much bigger group.)

"relies on ambiguity in the term plant"

(Equivocation: Uses the same word with two different meanings.)

"allows a key phrase to shift in meaning from one use to the next"

(Equivocation: Changes what a word means halfway through the argument.)

"fails to provide a sufficient definition of a key term"

(Equivocation: Never clearly explains what an important word means.)

"the conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence used to support it"

(Circular Reasoning: The conclusion just repeats the premise.)

"restates its conclusion without providing sufficient justification for accepting it"

(Circular Reasoning: Says the same thing again instead of proving it.)

"presupposes the truth of what it seeks to establish"

(Circular Reasoning: Assumes what it's trying to prove.)

"the evidence given actually undermines the argument's conclusion"

(Inconsistency / Internal Contradiction: The evidence hurts the conclusion instead of helping it.)

"some of the evidence given is inconsistent with other evidence presented"

(Inconsistency / Internal Contradiction: The premises contradict each other.)

"draws a recommendation that is inconsistent with the evidence given to support it"

(Inconsistency / Internal Contradiction: The recommendation doesn't fit the evidence.)