Term
|
Definition
| true premises and conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| valid and premises are true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| premises provide good support for conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| strong, and has true premises |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| must have a counterexample provided (same argument form) with true premises and false conclusion |
|
|
Term
| vertical extended argument |
|
Definition
| premise 1 supports premise 2 which in turn supports the conclusion |
|
|
Term
| horizontal extended argument |
|
Definition
| premise 1 and premise 2 each separately support the conclusion |
|
|
Term
| conjoint extended argument |
|
Definition
| premise 1 and premise 2, together, support conclusion |
|
|
Term
| multiple conclusions extended argument |
|
Definition
| conclusion 2 and 3 are both supported by premise 1 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (expressed by emotive arguments) good, bad, right, wrong |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| different interpretations of the degree of the word (ex rich) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| words that have different meanings (ex light) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| using a term in different ways (can be ambiguity or vagueness) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| disagreement of actual state of affairs |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| premises don't support conclusion because they are irrelevent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| uses a threat to compel listener |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| asks listener to feel sorry for the speaker |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| suggests listener will be more popular if they agree |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| applies a general rule to an irrelevant case (ex cutting is bad, doctors cut people, therefore doctors are bad) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| premises support a conclusion, but not this one |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| changes the subject mid argument to distract the listener |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| directly attacks opponents character |
|
|
Term
| ad hominem circumstantial |
|
Definition
| cites circumstances to discredit opponent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| tries to make opponent seem like a hypocrite |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| mis characterizes opponent to make argument seem weaker (twists their words around) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| premises relevant, but not strong enough to support the conclusion |
|
|
Term
| appeal to an unqualified authority |
|
Definition
| faulty argument from authority |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| appeals to the listener's ignorance about the subject (ex god, ufo's) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| implies an unlikely chain of cause and effects |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| faulty argument from analogy (ex they both have black hair, they both must be runners) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (fallacy) conclusion is used or implied with premises |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| question that assumes another question has already been answered |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| assumes the conclusion in the premises |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| an either/or statement with no 3rd option |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| omits relevant evidence that affects premises |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| interpretation of word is crucial to the point made |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| uses one term in two ways |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| one entire sentence can be read two ways (ex man helps dog bite victim) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| part-whole relation is confused |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| parts have property, so must the whole |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| whole has the properties, so must the parts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| sentence is true in every row |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| sentence is false in every row |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| sentence is true in at least one row and false in at least one row |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (pair of sentences) has the same value in every row |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (pair of sentences) have different values in every row (never match) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (pair of sentences) have at least one row where both are true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (pair of sentences) have no row where both are true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| no row where premises are true and conclusion is false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| at least one row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| only true when both are true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| only false when both are false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| only false when a is true and b is false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| only true when a and b have same truth value (T, T or F, F) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
if p then q,
p,
therefore q |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
if p then q,
not q,
therefore not p |
|
|
Term
| constructive dilemma *valid* |
|
Definition
(if p then q) and (if r then s),
p or r,
therefore q or s |
|
|
Term
| destructive dilemma *valid* |
|
Definition
(if p then q) and (if r then s)
not q or not s
therefore not p or not r |
|
|
Term
| hypothetical syllogism *valid* |
|
Definition
if p then q
if q then r
therefore if p then r |
|
|
Term
| disjunctive syllogism *valid* |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| denying the antecedent *invalid* |
|
Definition
p or q
not p
therefore not q |
|
|
Term
| affirming the consequent *invalid* |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| relevence of similarities |
|
Definition
irrelevent similarities do not strengthen or weaken the argument
relevant similarities strengthen the argument |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| more similarities strengthens the argument |
|
|
Term
| number and degree of disanalogies |
|
Definition
relevant differences that make conclusion less likely weakens argument
makes conclusion more likely strengthens the argument |
|
|
Term
| number of primary analogies |
|
Definition
more - strengthens the argument
unless one is a disanalogy - weakens the argument |
|
|
Term
| diversity among primary analogies |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| specificity of conclusion |
|
Definition
| less specific, stronger argument |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a is sufficient for b
if a then b |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a is a necessary condition for b
if b then a |
|
|
Term
| necessary and sufficient condition |
|
Definition
a is necessary and sufficient for b
a if and only if b |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
finds necessary condition
common factors in every occurance |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
finds a sufficient condition
difference of where it did take place and where it did not |
|
|
Term
| joint method of agreement and difference |
|
Definition
finds both necessary and sufficient conditions
factor always present AND only present |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
finds causal connection, but no particular cause
process of elimination, since we eliminate causal connections we already know |
|
|
Term
| method of concomitant variation |
|
Definition
finds causal connection but no particular cause
factors vary together |
|
|
