Logical Fallacies and Syllogism Debate Test

debate

hypothetical syllogism

"if P, then Q; P; therefore, Q."

categorical syllogism

is/are is used

disjunctive syllogism

either/or is used

pure hypothetical syllogism

is a logical argument that consists solely of conditional statements, leading to a conclusion based on the implication of the premises.

mixed hypothetical syllogism

is a type of syllogism that combines conditional statements with categorical premises, allowing for a conclusion that may involve both types of reasoning.

modus tollens

is a form of argument that asserts if a conditional statement is true, and its consequent is false, then its antecedent must also be false. if p then q, not q, therefore, not p

modus ponens

is a form of argument that states if a conditional statement is true, and its antecedent is true, then its consequent must also be true. If p then q, p, therefore, q.

affirming the consequent

is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument incorrectly assumes that if a conditional statement is true, then its converse must also be true. It takes the form: if p then q, q is true, therefore p is true.

denying the antecedent

is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument incorrectly assumes that if a conditional statement is true, then its inverse must also be true. It takes the form: if p then q, not p, therefore not q.

valid syllogism

is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

invalid syllogism

is a form of reasoning in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, meaning that it is possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.

appeal to ignorance

is a logical fallacy that asserts a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.

appeal to majority

is a logical fallacy that argues a proposition is true simply because a majority of people believe it to be true.

circular argument

is a logical fallacy where the conclusion is included in the premise, creating a loop in reasoning that does not provide valid support for the argument.

hasty generalization

is a logical fallacy that draws a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence, leading to a broad conclusion that may not accurately reflect reality. it often involves making assumptions about a group based on limited examples.

subjectivism

a logical fallacy that occurs when someone claims that something is true for one person but not for another, even though it is objectively true for all people

appeal to an invalid authority

is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone cites an authority figure who is not a legitimate expert on the subject at hand, leading to a flawed argument.

ad hominem

is a logical fallacy that attacks an opponent's character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument or position, often diverting attention from the actual issue.

you’re another (tu quoque)

logical fallacy that responds to criticism by turning it back on the accuser, implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same issue.

poisoning the well

is a logical fallacy that occurs when adverse information about a target is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting the target before they have the opportunity to present their argument.

false alternative (false dichotomy)

is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or outcomes in a situation, ignoring other viable alternatives, thereby misleading the audience into thinking they must choose between them.

post hoc (post hoc ergo proctor hoc)

a logical fallacy that assumes that if one event occurs after another, the first event must be the cause of the second.

composition/division

is a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes that what is true for the parts is also true for the whole (composition) or that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts (division).

diversion

is a logical fallacy that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic or argument, often to shift attention away from the original argument.

equivocation

a logical fallacy that uses ambiguous language to mislead or confuse by allowing a word or phrase to have multiple meanings.

slippery slope

is a logical fallacy that asserts that a relatively small first step or action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in significant and undesirable consequences.

straw man

a logical fallacy that misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute.

non-sequitur

a logical fallacy where a conclusion does not logically follow from the preceding arguments or statements.

formal fallacy

is an error in the structure of an argument, which renders it invalid regardless of the content or context. also when put into a syllogism it breaks a logical rule

informal fallacy

is an error in reasoning that occurs due to the content or context of the argument, rather than its form. also any unjustified leap between premises

valid argument

is a type of argument where if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. conclusion follows premises

sound argument

is a valid argument with true premises, ensuring the conclusion is also true.

universal subject distributed + affirmative predicate undistributed

all S is P

universal subject distributed + negative predicate distributed

no S is P

particular subject undistributed + affirmative predicate undistributed

some S is P

particular subject undistributed + negative predicate distributed

some S are not P

distributed term

a term within a proposition that is considered to encompass the entire class it represents

middle term

the term that appears in both premises of an argument but not in the conclusion