Term
|
Definition
| An argument containing at least one compound proposition. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A deductive argument which is made up of propositions; of which are made up of 3 terms in subject+predicate position. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When the form of the argument guarantees that if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A valid argument with true premises. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An error or mistake in reasoning or argument. |
|
|
Term
| Form of a Compound Syllogism |
|
Definition
| Ignore the content and replace propositions with variables. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. If p, then q
2. Not q.
3. Not p. |
|
|
Term
| Hypothetical Syllogism (Valid) |
|
Definition
1. If p, then q.
2. If q, then r.
3. If p, then r. |
|
|
Term
| Disjunctive Syllogism (Valid) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Formal Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent |
|
Definition
1. If p, then q.
2. Q.
3. P. |
|
|
Term
| Formal Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent |
|
Definition
1. If p, then q.
2. Not p.
3. Not q. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Mistake in reasoning due to form. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Mistake in reasoning concerning the content of the argument. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Ambiguity |
|
Definition
| Occurs when an ambiguous term is used in multiple ways. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Division |
|
Definition
| Mistakenly inferring something about an individual based on a fact about the group they're in. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Composition |
|
Definition
| Mistakenly inferring something about an individual based on a fact abut the group they're in. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Begging the Question |
|
Definition
| Assuming the truth of your conclusion in the process of your argument. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: False Cause |
|
Definition
| Assuming that time indicates a causal relationship. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Ad Hominem |
|
Definition
| Mistakenly inferring from a fact about a person that something they said is false. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Ad Ignorantium |
|
Definition
| Mistakenly inferring that if there is no evidence for (against) a claim, it must be false (true). |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Ad Populum |
|
Definition
| Mistakenly inferring from the fact that a lot of people believe something that it's true. |
|
|
Term
| Material Fallacy: Appeal to Authority |
|
Definition
| Mistakenly appeal to authority of someone to establish a claim when the authority is not an expert on the subject. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 1 |
|
Definition
| The argument is made up of exactly 3 terms. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 2 |
|
Definition
| A distributed term in the conclusion msut be distributed in at least one premise. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Subject is distributed when the proposition is universal.
Predicate is distributed when the proposition is negative. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 3 |
|
Definition
| The middle term must be distributed at least once. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 4 |
|
Definition
| You can't get a conclusion from 2 negative premises. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 5 |
|
Definition
| A negative premise requires a negative conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 6 |
|
Definition
| Two affirmative premises require an affirmative conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 7 |
|
Definition
| Nothing follows from two particular premises. |
|
|
Term
| Aristotle's Rules to Determine Validity: 8 |
|
Definition
| A particular premise requires a particular conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| Opposition Relations: Contradiction |
|
Definition
One is true and one is false.
A and O propositions
E and I propositions |
|
|
Term
| Opposition Relations: Contrary |
|
Definition
Cannot both be true, but they both can be false.
A and E propositions |
|
|
Term
| Opposition Relations: Sub Contrary |
|
Definition
Cannot both be false.
I and O propositions |
|
|
Term
| Opposition Relations: Sub-Alternate |
|
Definition
If q is the sub-alternate of p, then the truth of p guarantees the truth of q.
O to E propositions
I to A propositions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Propositions that must have the same truth value as their original propositions because they say the same thing. |
|
|
Term
| Equivalence Relations: Conversion |
|
Definition
Switch Subject and Predicate.
-Works for E and I propositions
Ex)All A are not B--> All B are not A
Some A are B->Some B are A |
|
|
Term
| Equivalence Relations: Obversion |
|
Definition
1. Change quality of proposition
2. Make the predicate negative
-Works for all types of propositions
ex) All A are B--> All A are not non-B
Some A re not B--> Some A are non-B. |
|
|
Term
| Equivalence Relations: Contraposition |
|
Definition
1. Make subject and predicate negative
2. Switch them
-Works for A and O propositions
ex) All A are B-> All non A are non B-> All non B are non A
Some A are not B->Some non A are not non B-> Some non B are not non A. |
|
|
