LTL

argument ad populum appeal to the populace

"Argument toward the people." Appealing to irrational fears and prejudices in order to prevent audiences from squarely facing the issues. A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than on reason. Example: 1. Extended warranties are a very popular purchase by the consumer, so extended warranties must be good for the consumer. 2. Everyone drives over the speed limit, so it should not be against the law. Everyone says that it's okay to lie as long as you don't get caught. 2. It might be against the law to drink when you are 18 years old, but everyone does it, so it's okay.

Complex Question Fallacy

(Presumption Fallacy)When did you stop beating your wife? Question embeds a loaded assumption Complex Question- when a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some assumption buried in that question. Ex: Have you stopped beating your wife? Since the question is answerable by yes/no, there can only be two direct answers: Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. No, I haven't stopped beating my wife. Thus, either direct answer entails that the person has beaten his wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question.

Ceremonial Function

-(also ritual language use) probably something quite different from simply mixing the expressive and directive language functions because performative aspects are included as well. Example: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here together to witness the holy matrimony of ...." ​

real definition

A complete definition that tries to get at the essence of what you are describing; not imposed arbitrarily, but observed and discovered from the intrinsic nature of the thing being defined. eal definition: A word according to the meaning customarily assigned to it by the community users. It simply reports the meaning which the word has among the users of the language in which the word occurs. A dictionary comprises this king of definition. Example: Jedi: a person who shows extraordinary skill or expertise in a specified field or endeavor NOTE: This use of Jedi has its origin in the fictional universe of the Star Wars franchise, where the terms Jedi and Jedi Knight refer to a member of an order of mystical warriors who can access and manipulate a pervasive spiritual energy called the Force to perform supernatural feats.

begging the question

A fallacy in which a claim is based on evidence or support that is in doubt.

questioning or begging language

A fallacy in which a claim is based on evidence or support that is in doubt. Begging the Question is when one assumes in the premises of an argument the truth of what one seeks to establish in the conclusion of that argument; the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in one of the premises. To "beg the question" is not to raise the issue, but to assume the truth of the conclusion sought. Example I am confident that God exists because it says so in the Bible. And the Bible contains God's word. This is another example where the claim being made isn't necessarily incorrect, it's just that the argument doesn't support the claim, because it already assumes the claim is true. In this case, the speaker is asserting that God exists, but the proof being put forward already assumes that God exists in order to provide the content of the Bible.

Hasty Generalization

A fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Hasty generalization has keywords to guide as, like, "haste", "induce", and "jumping to conclusion." This is a type of informal fallacy that is used to generalize an experience by using examples rather than evidence based on small sample size of population. When a conclusion is made by way of a hasty generalization, it will not be logically justified nor will it contain evidence that is unbiased. For example, when viewing a person's social media page, you will be confronted with lots of photos of them smiling and in happy situations. It would be easy to assume from this that the person has a great and fulfilling life. This is a hasty generalization since this cannot be concluded simply from a small selection of photographs. ​

the fallacy of accident

A fallacy in which a generalization is mistakenly applied to a particular case to which the generalization does not apply. For example: Birds Fly. Ping the Penguin is a bird. Therefore, Ping can fly. Explanation: Although penguins are birds, they do not fly. Since Ping is a penguin and penguins don't fly, the conclusion is invalid. The problem comes from ignoring (or misunderstanding) the exceptions to the generalization "birds fly" in this example. Now, it isn't true that all birds can fly, since there are flightless birds. "Some birds can fly" and "many birds can fly" are too weak, while "most birds can fly" is closer to what we mean. However, "birds can fly" is a "rule of thumb", that is, a rule that is generally true but has exceptions. The fallacy of accident in this sense occurs when attempting to apply such a rule to an obvious exception, such as concluding that a penguin can fly because penguins are birds and birds can fly. ​

Amphiboly fallacy

A fallacy of ambiguity caused by a vagueness of grammar that disguises or alters meaning is when one of the statements in an argument has more than one plausible meaning. -An amphibolous statement may be true in one interpretation and false in another. -Occurs when one is arguing from premises whose formulations are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction. EXAMPLES: "The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some native women, but they weren't developed." "The loot and the car were listed as stolen by the Manila Police District."

Bad Reasons Fallacy

A fallacy that occurs when then we assume the conclusion of an argument to be bad because a part of the argument is bad. aka argumentum ad logicam, is where the conclusion is assumed to be bad because the arguments are bad. Example: The new student is too quiet and has no sense of style. He should fail in his classes. Penguins can't fly. they are not birds.

Fallacy of Quantitative Logic

A fallacy that occurs when we misuse quantifying words such as "all" or "some." The fallacy of quantitative logic revolves around the grammatical structure of the proposition. Example: All law students enter law school during the first semester of the school year.

Masked Man Fallacy

A fallacy that occurs when we substitute parties that are not identical within an argument. aka intentional fallacy, involves a substitution of parties. It may be valid or invalid. Example: The Supreme Court Chief Justice is the ponente of the decision. The Supreme Court Chief Justice is Alexander Gesmundo. Therefore, Alexander Gesmundo is the ponente of the decision. Premise 1: The citizens of Gotham know that Batman saved their city. Premise 2: Bruce Wayne is Batman. Conclusion: The citizens of Gotham know that Bruce Wayne saved their city.

What is venn diagram? ​

A method of representing classes and categorical propositions using overlapping circles. ​

language

A system of communication through the use of speech, a collection of sounds understood by a group of people to have the same meaning.

Obversion

An operation that consists of changing the quality of a standard-form categorical proposition and replacing the predicate term with its term complement. Explanation: To obvert a proposition, we change its quality and replace the predicate term by its complement, the subject term and the quantity of the proposition remains unchanged. (Side note: Obversion ALWAYS preserves the truth value of the first proposition) Example: All dogs are mammals. No dogs are non-mammals (Obverse) 2. Some metals are conductors. Some metals are not nonconductors. (Obverse)

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

Arguing for a conclusion by relying on a witness or an authority that is untrustworthy or has no relevant experience. argumentum ad verecundiam The said fallacy is evident in Advertising 'testimonials' - we are urged to drink a beverage of a certain brand because some movie star or football coach expresses enthusiasm about it. Example: The Doctrine of Biological Evolution cannot be true, for it contradicts the biblical account of creation; the Church Fathers never accepted it and the Fundamentalist explicitly condemn it. Explanation: The main issue in this argument is Scientific in Nature, which is the Theory of biological science, if this is the case, the argument of both sides should also be scientific bases. What is wrong in the given example is that, it relies on certain influential authority, although respected and looked upon by many people, are not the proper authority on the matter as the issue is not about morals and religion.

Fallacies of Relevance

Arguments that distract from the main point. Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion; They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance, because they are the absence of any real connection between premises and conclusion. Example: (The ff. are Bandwagon examples) 1. Everyone on campus is wearing Air Jordans. I need to buy those sneakers. 2. All my friends are doing a low carb diet. That must be the only way to lose weight.

Fallacies of Presumption

Arguments that make unwarranted assumptions about either the data or the nature of a reasonable argument the premises presume what they purport to prove Mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some proposition that is assumed to be true, but is in fact false, dubious, or without warrant. Mistakes that arise because too much has been assumed in the premises, the inference to the conclusion depending on that unwarranted assumption. Example - Fallacy of Accident: Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work. Oprah Winfrey is a woman. Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

Ignorantiam

Assumes that the conclusion is true simply because it cannot be disproved. Type of informal fallacy which arises when an argument is taken as true because it has not been proven to be false or an argument is false because it has not been proven to be true. Examples: 1)no one has ever provided real evidence that ghost do not exist C. Therefore, ghost exist 2) no one has ever provided substantial proof that god exist C. Therefore, god does not exist

False Clause or Causa Pro Cause

Assuming that because two things happened, the first one caused the second one. This fallacy falsely assumes that one event causes another. Often a reader will mistake a time connection for a cause-effect connection. In general, the false cause fallacy occurs when the "link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist". ... EXAMPLES of False Cause: -Every time I wash my car, it rains. -Our garage sale made lots of money before Joan showed up. ​

Argument ad hominem

Attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument. this fallacy attacks the personal characteristics of an opponent by ignoring the issue instead of addressing the issue presented by an opponent. This argument makes the opponent the issue. There are two kinds of Argumentum Ad Hominem Abusive, wherein it attacks the argument by referring to the arguer's reputation, personality or some personal shortcoming. EXAMPLE: "According to this action star, he supports the death penalty because it is an effective deterrence against crimes. This is nonsense. He is just an actor and knows nothing about death penalty. Besides, he likes violence as shown by his many movies which depict a lot of killings." This example of argument focuses its attention on the character of the actor rather than the given issue. Circumstantial- a fallacy of defending one's position by accusing his or her critic or other people of doing the same thing. EXAMPLE: "I don't think the opposition party has a valid reason of criticizing the move of the present administration to privatize government-run industries. When the opposition party was in power in the previous regime, it sold companies to the private sector." In this example, the speaker only focused on what the past administration did which is the same thing as what the present administration would like to do also, the privatization of government run companies. In here, it attacks the opponent which is the past administration on what they did on their watch and the speaker based his/her argument on that particular matter which is not the issue at hand.

Forms of language

Declarative - when we are reasoning ("We will discuss.") Exclamatory - when we are expressing emotion ("That's fantastic!") Imperative - when we are seeking to direct conduct; command ("Take off your pants!") Interrogative - attitudes may also be expressed ("What can you possibly mean by that?

Parts of a definition

Definiendum and Definiens 1. Definiendum- the symbol being defined 2. Definiens- the definition on it ​

Emotive language

Deliberate use of language by a writer to instill a feeling or visual. is the type of language which conveys or evokes an emotion in the mind of the reader. It requires choosing the words carefully which best convey the emotions and phrase them in such a way that it has the most impact on the audience. - used to convey or evoke feelings and pertains to no facts. - is the best form of language to connect with the audiences, be it through written medium or verbal. Example: I hate wasting my time. The weather is so hot!

types of fallacy of ambiguity

EQUIVOCATION - using words or phrases with two or more meaning AMPHIBOLY - ambiguous grammatical construction of propositions (loosely arranged statement) ACCENT - illegitimate emphasis upon words COMPOSITION - what is true of the parts is said to be true of the whole taken collectively DIVISION - what is true of the whole is taken to be true of its parts ​

Conversion

Explanation: An inference is drawn by interchanging the subject and the predicate. Example: 1. "No idealists are politicians." is the converse of "No politicians are idealists." 2. "No men are immortal" is the converse of "No immortals are men".

contraries ​

Explanation: In contraries, two propositions cannot both be true. If one is true, the other must be false. Example: Texas will win the coming game with Oklahoma. Oklahoma will win the coming game with Texas. *If either of these propositions is true, then the other must be false. Maria is already dead. Maria is still alive. *No person is dead and alive at the same time.

Extentional definition

Extentional - also known as denotative definition Assigns meaning by indicating the members of the class of definiendum Which try to list the objects that a term describes It is simply the literal meaning of the word Example: Criminal- Someone who has committed a crime or unlawful acts Home - where a person lives at any given time Dog- an animal

valid argument

If the claim that its premises provide irrefutable grounds for the truth of its conclusion, if it is a correct argument, conclusiveness of the relationship of premises and conclusion. Example: Premise 1: All dogs are mammals. Premise 2: All collies are mammals. Conclusion: All collies are dogs. To summarize, a valid deductive argument is one where it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises were true. ​

intentional definition

Intentional - also known as Connotative definition Assigns meaning by indicating the qualities of the term Which try to give the sense of a term What can you think that can be associated with the word or symbol weather it is good or bad Example: Criminal- Villain, Culprit, bandits Home- loving, comfortable, family Dog- a friend

definition

It expresses what the thing is, states the meaning of a term, it simply the meaning we assign to a word-symbol Example: Guilty is having committed an offense, crime violation o wrong specially against moral or penal law. Law is the systems of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actons of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

kinds of fallacies of presumption

Kinds: Fallacy of Accident Complex question Begging the question

Importance of language

Language is the basis for society. It allows us to interact with each other in a way that goes beyond our immediate surroundings Language is a vital part of human connection. Although all species have their ways of communicating, humans are the only ones that have mastered cognitive language communication. Language allows us to share our ideas, thoughts, and feelings with others. It has the power to build societies. ​

functions of language

MAJOR FORMS: 1.Informative (or logical) 2.Directive 3.Emotive LESS COMMON TYPES OF USE: 1.Ceremonial 2.performative

Strawman Fallacy

Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack It occurs when someone takes another person's point or argument, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if this really the claim the person is making. EXAMPLE: Person 1: I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change. Person 2; So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather like hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the southern US? If that is the case, maybe we just need to go to the southwest and perform a "rain dance". If you noticed, the second person's argument overstated the argument of the first person, and began attacking it with exaggeration.

categorical proposition

Proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of one category are included in another. Examples: All nursing students are exposed to hospital setting. No nursing course is an engineering course.

types of definitions

StIPULATIVE DEFINITION -PRECISING DEFINITION -REAL DEFINITION -THEORETICAL DEFINITION -PERSUASIVE DEFINITION

universal negative proposition?

That nothing is a member both of the class designated by the subject term and of the class designated by the predicate terms. It reports that every member of each class is excluded from the other. Thus, it distributes its subject term but not its predicate term. Example 1.No man is running.* Example 2. No people are good beings. * Example 1 used the class (subject and predicate) man and running, Example 2 People and good beings.

particular affirmative proposition

That there is at least one thing which is a member both of the class designated by the subject term and of the class designated by the predicate term. Both terms are undistributed in propositions of this form. Example 1. Some man is running. Example 2. Some people are good beings.

particular negative proposition

That there is at least one thing which is a member of the class designated by the subject term but not a member of the class designated by the predicate term. Since it affirms that the one or more crucial things that they are distinct from each and every member of the predicate class, a proposition of this form distributes its predicate term but not its subject term. Example1. Some man is not running. Example2. Some people are not good beings

Fallacy of defective induction

The premises supply insufficient support for the conclusion Those in which the mistake arises from the fact that the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them is a blunder. - Fallacies in which premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion. Example: Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Since I'm dying to talk to somebody right now, I should jump in the shower.

Discuss Quantity, Quality and Distribution in Categorical Propositions. ​

The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by whether or not it refers to all members of its subject class (That is, the statement is considered either universal or particular in quantity.) To question "How many members of the subject class are being discussed?" asks for quantity. -Indicators of "how many" are called quantity indicators (i.e., quantifiers) and specifically are "All," "No," and "Some." The quality of a categorical proposition is determined by whether the asserted class relation is one of inclusion or exclusion (That is, the statement or proposition is considered either affirmative or negative in quality.) -Indicators of affirmative and negative are quality indicators (i.e., qualifiers) and specifically are "are," "are not," "is," "is not," and "No." Note that "No" is both a quantifier and a qualifier. Distributed term is a term of a categorical proposition that is used with reference to every member of a class. If the term is not being used to refer to each and every member of the class, it is said to be undistributed.

universal affirmative proposition?

The whole of one class is included or contained in another class ; such a proposition affirms that the relation of class inclusion holds between two classes and says that the inclusion is complete or universal. Examples: 1. All politicians are liars. 2. All men are mortal 3. All dogs go to heaven

directive function of language

To cause or prevent overt action This function is most commonly found in commands and requests. Directive language is neither considered true nor false. -------We may disagree about whether a command has been obeyed or disobeyed but we never disagree whether a command is true or false It is intended to get results or to produce actions. ---------Thin line between commands and request through change in the tone of voice or through adding the word "please" Example of this function: "Please appear in court with your written explanation." "Submit you Motion for Reconsideration before the dead

subalterations

Two statements are subalternate if they have the same quality, but differ in quantity. Subalterns may both be true or both be false. If the particular is false, then the universal is false; if the universal if true; then the particular is true. Example 1: A: All men are mortal. (superaltern) I: Some men are mortal (subaltern) Example 2 E: No men are mortal. (superaltern) O: Some men are not mortal. (subaltern) In any pair of corresponding propositions, the universal proposition is called the "superaltern", and the particular proposition is called the "subaltern".

Subcontraties

Two statements are subcontrary if they are both particular statements that differ in quality. Subcontraries may at the same time both be true, but cannot at the same time both be false If "some men are mortal" is false, then "some men are not mortal" cannot be false. I: Some men are mortal O: Some men are not mortal

kinds of defective injunction

Types: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum Ad Vericundiam) False Cause (Causa Pro Causa) Hasty Generalization

Give examples of universal affirmative, universal negative, particular affirmative and particular negative proposition

Universal affirmative: "Every man is running". Universal negative: "No man is running". Particular affirmative: "Some man is running". Particular negative: "Some man is not running". ​

stipulative definition

When a new word is invented or an existing word is applied in a new way. n:is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. It is either coining a new word or giving new meaning to an old word that is already existing. The need for stipulative definition often occasioned by new phenomena or development. Stipulative definitions of existing terms are useful in making arguments of stating specific cases. Example of forming a new word: Beth and Log attempted to crossbreed a Cat and a Dog. Few years later, an offspring was produced by a Female Dog and Male Cat and were given the name CatDog. Example of giving new meaning to a old/existing word: "Chicken" and "Spaghetti" came to be known as a form of dance and clothing, respectively.

class

a collection of all objects that have some specific characteristics in common. Everyone can see immediately that two classes can be related in at least the following three ways: Example: 1. All of one class may be included in all of another class 2. Some, but not all, of the members of one class may be included in another class. 3. Two classes may have no members in common

persuasive definition

a definition that reflects the speaker's way of looking at a controversial subject 1. aims to influence conduct; a definition put forward to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions EXAMPLE: "fetus" - unborn person "abortion" - murder of a fetus

Slippery Slope Fallacy

a logical fallacy that assumes once an action begins it will lead, undeterred, to an eventual and inevitable conclusion In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen. One of the most common real-life slippery slope examples is when you're tempted by an unhealthy treat. The typical thought process goes something like this: ~ If I eat this donut today, I'll probably eat another donut tomorrow. If I eat one donut tomorrow, I might eat several donuts the next day. More Examples of Slippery Slope: If we allow the children to choose the movie this time, they are going to expect to be able to choose the school they go to or the doctors they visit.

deductive argument

akes the claim that its conclusion is supported by its premises conclusively. It could either be valid or invalid. Examples: 1. All men are mortal. Joe is a man. Therefore, Joe is mortal. 2. Bachelors are unmarried men. Bill is unmarried. Therefore, Bill is a bachelor. 3. To get a Bachelor's degree, a student must have 120 credits. Sally has more than 130 credits. Therefore, Sally can get a bachelor's degree.

Argument Ad misericordian

an argument appealing to the pity/mercy of the hearers - literally means 'merciful heart' ; A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason. Example: 1. I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat is sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study! 2. A woman applies to college. When the admission Director asks about her grades, test scores and extra-curricular activities, she states that she didn't have much time to study because her mother has been sick for several years and she has had to w

Irrelevant Conclusion

an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion it is a type of fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion than the one that is proposed. EXAMPLE: "The President's policies on healthcare may be popular, but he is secretly a Nazi and should probably be investigated." In here, the healthcare policies and whether or not the President is a Nazi have nothing to do with one another.

Existential Fallacy

an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion

Existential Fallacy

an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion Explanation: we draw a conclusion which implies existence from premises which do not imply that. If our premises are universals, telling us about 'all' or 'none' and our conclusion is a particular one telling us about 'some'. Example: All trespassers will be prosecuted. Therefore, some of those prosecuted will be trespassed. All babysitters have pimples. All babysitter club members are babysitters. Therefore, some babysitter club members have pimples.

Arguing in a circle

an attempt to prove a statement by repeating it in a different form Arguing in circles is when you attempt to make an argument by beginning with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is already true. In your premise, you already accept the truth of the claim you are attempting to make. Example 18 year olds have the right to vote because it's legal for them to vote. Explanation: This argument is circular because it goes right back to the beginning. 18 year olds have the right to vote because it's legal. It's legal for them to vote because they have the right to vote. The listener requires additional evidence to get out of the argument loop.

Formal Fallacy

an error in reasoning that involves the explicit use of an invalid form Bad reasons fallacy Masked man fallacy Fallacy of quantitative logic ​

argument ad baculum

appeal to force alone; conclusion supported only by power and bad consequences if not followed iterally means appeal to the stick; A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force; threat may also be veiled Example: 1. "The Congress should pass this bill, otherwise, the Malacañang will reduce the Priority Development fund of the members of the congress which will finance their respective infrastructure projects." Secretary to boss: "I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I'm sure you wouldn't want her to find out what's been going on between you and that client of yours". - In this kind of fallacy, a person's argument is coupled with what we so called threat or pressure in the end that the other person is persuaded to agree on a certain position instead of presenting evidences which could support the argument itself. The strength of this fallacy lies on the fear that it creates to the other person/s which leads them to do nothing but to just agree with the argument. EXAMPLE: "The Congress should pass this bill, otherwise, the Malacañang will reduce the Priority Development Fund of the members of the Congress which will finance their respective infrastructure projects." In here it is manifested that the argument uses threat/pressure, when it says that Malacañang will reduce the PDAF of the members of the Congress if they will not pass the bill which will possibly bring fear to the members of the Congress since PDAF is very important to them in financing their respective projects and so they will be compelled to agree on that position.

Contradictories

are statements that differ in both quality and quantity. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false at the same time. In other words, the statements have opposite truth values. Example 1: A: All men are mortal. O: Some men are not mortal. Example 2: E: No men are gods. I: Some men are gods. A-statements and O-statements are contradictory. E-statements and I-statements are contradictory.

Composition Fallacy

argues that the parts are the same as the whole feature to every involves an inference from the attribution of some individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole). It means that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class EXAMPLE: "Every course I took in college was well-organized. Therefore, my college education was well-organized."

division fallacy (fallacious argument)

argues the whole is the same as its parts involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts). It means even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts EXAMPLES: i. Ocelots are now dying out. ii. Sparky is an ocelot. C: Therefore, Sparky is now dying out. "Since PNP is one of the most corrupt agencies of the government, therefore these three policemen cannot be trusted." "A certain machine is heavy, or complicated, or valuable, to that conclusion that this or any other part of the machine must be heavy, or complicated or valuable." ​

Fallacy of Ambiguity

arguments that have ambiguous phrases or sloppy grammatical structure involve some confusion over meaning, specifically over the members referred to by a term used in the argument. In a syllogism there are, of course, three terms that might be a source of confusion. However, on the principle that all arguments are valid (for their type), ambiguous arguments can best be understood as sorites - that is, as arguments with more than two premises. Such arguments will have more than three terms. An unstated premise asserts a (false) relation between the two meanings of the confused term. We can then break the sorites into a chain of syllogisms to locate the premise that is the source of the error.

theoretical definition

assigns a meaning to a term by providing an understanding of how the term fits into a general theory : A theoretical definition is a proposed way of thinking about potentially related events. Theoretical definitions contain built-in theories; they cannot be simply reduced to describing a set of observations. The definition may contain implicit inductions and deductive consequences that are part of the theory. The reason such definitions are called "theoretical" is because the definitions themselves attempt to construct a "theory" about the nature of the thing in question. Theoretical definitions are mere educated guesses. We take what we know about a given subject, concept, or thing, and attempt to define it to the best of our current knowledge. Whether that definition is the truth in the end is a matter of debate and, at the moment, irrelevant. Examples: Fear is a rationalized emotion based on stimulus and response. The first human species that wanders the Earth are the Homo Sapiens. The earth is used to be a whole body of water.

Fallacies

errors in reasoning are type of argument that may seem to be correct, but proves on examination not to be so. Any error in reasoning , incorrect Classifications of Fallacies: Formal fallacies fallacy exists because of an error in the structure of the argument. In other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the from the premises. Informal fallacies- fallacy exists because of an error in substance or content of the argument.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy

from the Latin for "after this, because of this;" assumes that because one event happened after another, then the preceding event caused the event that followed The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is guilty of trying to establish a causal connection between two events on dubious grounds. The Latin phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "after this, therefore because of this." The fallacy is generally referred to by the shorter phrase, "post hoc." Examples: "Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up. That rooster must be very powerful and important!"

Complex Question Fallacy

involves asking a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question When a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the turn of some assumptions buried in that question; loaded question. Examples: 1. How many times per day did you beat your wife? 2. "Does the distinguish senator believe that the American public is really so naïve that they will endorse just any stopgap measure?" it conceals several unchallenged assumptions; that what is proposed is a "stopgap'' measure, that is inadequate, and that the American public would reject it.

EQUIVOCATION

is the deliberate use of vague or ambiguous language, with the intent of deceiving others or avoiding commitment to a specific stance. For example, when a person is asked a direct yes-or-no question, and gives a vague response that doesn't answer the question, that person is equivocating. 2 MAIN COMPONENTS TO EQUIVOCATION: The use of vague or ambiguous language, which makes the meaning of what is being said unclear. The intent to deceive listeners or to avoid committing to a specific stance. EXAMPLE: Interviewer: Do you support the new law that is being proposed? Politician: I think that the new law has to do with an interesting and important topic. This is a topic that I know quite a bit about, and others have been discussing it often lately, which could help more people learn about it too. Furthermore, this is something that I care about, and will continue to care about over time. In this example, the politician equivocates by using evasive language, which involves making a lot of vague, semi-related statements, instead of directly answering the question at hand.

informative language

language that is either true or false - it is the most common function of language, since it helps us deliver messages, describe things, and give our listener new information. And the purpose of this function is to inform. -it affirms or denies propositions, as in science or the statement of a fact. This function is used to describe the world or reason about it. These sentences have a truth value; that is, the sentences are either true or false (meaning it can be an information or mis-information), hence, they are important for logic. Example: 1. Birds have feather. 2. Birds are not mammals.

precising definition

reduces the vagueness of a term by imposing limits on the conventional meaning : is a definition that contracts or reduces the scope of the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition nu Example: a dictionary may define the term "student" as " 1. anyone attending an educational institution of any type, or 2. anyone who studies something." ​

Accent Fallacy

the ambiguity that comes from voice inflection, ironic or sarcastic tone, or even facial expression, or innuendo (allusive mark or hint). Accent is a fallacy that is almost always humorous, ironic, and sarcastic. - arises from ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis; - It emphasizes any word in the sentence to change its meaning. EXAMPLES: 1. "Thou shall not bear false witness against" "Thou shall not bear false witness against" 2. "I won't attend legal technique tonight" "I won't attend Legal Technique tonight" 3. "I resent the letter" this sentence could mean either that one sent the letter again, or that one has a feeling of resentment towards it. ​

Contrapositive

the statement formed by negating both the hypothesis and conclusion of the converse of a conditional statement if not q, then not p Explanation: To form the contrapositive of a given proposition, we replace its subject term by the complement of its predicate term and replace its predicate term by the complement of its subject term. Example: All members are voters. All nonvoters are nonmembers. (Contrapositive) Some students are not idealists. Some non-idealists are not nonstudents. (Contrapositive)

Informal Fallacies

those that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument Fallacies of relevance Fallacies of defective induction Fallacies of presumption Fallacies of ambiguity

leading question

to give a particular answer to a question at issue by the manner in which the question is asked. Example. Did you like our excellent new offering? Using "excellent" in the above question can lead to biases amongst respondents. A more neutral question would have been. questions are worded in a way that suggests a particular response

Equivocating

to use unclear language especially to deceive or mislead someone involves the truth or avoiding commitment to a specific instance, without necessarily telling falsehoods while LYING involves telling a falsehood directly. ​

Equivocation Fallacy

when a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. It is an illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning . EXAMPLE: I have the right to say whatever I want, so it's right for me to do so. This is fallacious, because the word "right" is used in the: 1st - refer to something that someone is entitled to 2nd - refer to something that is morally good. Taxes are true headache. Painkillers will make headache go away. Therefore, pain killers will make taxes go away.

red herring fallacy

when a speaker introduces an irrelevant issue or piece of evidence to divert attention from the subject of the speech It occurs partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what is really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue. EXAMPLE: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the fairest thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." In the argument above, we can infer that the arguer went off on a tangent. The fact that something helps people get along well doesn't necessarily make it fairer. Fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

performative function of language

words themselves serve, when spoken or written, to perform the function they announce.It performs the act and simultaneously describes it. Examples: "I do." in a wedding ceremony "I promise to pay you tomorrow." -The speaker does what the utterance describes. He promises to pay the one who hears his statement tomorrow. That is the utterance both describes and is a promise. 3. "I apologize for my shortcomings." 4. "I congratulate you!"