PHILOSOPHY FINAL

Constructive Dilemma (CD)

(p ⊃ q) • (r ⊃ s) p ∨ r ---------------- q ∨ s

Destructive Dilemma (DD)

(p ⊃ q) • (r ⊃ s) ∼q ∨ ∼s ---------------- ∼p ∨ ∼r

A • B

-A and B

B ⊃ A

-A if B

A ≡ B

-A if and only if B

Necessary Condition

-A is a necessary condition on B if and only if B cannot obtain without A also obtaining -EX: having fuel in my car is a necessary condition on my car starting

Sufficient Condition

-A is a sufficient condition on B if and only if B obtains whenever A obtains -EX: My car starting is a sufficient condition on my car's having fuel in it

A ∨ B

-A or B

Convention

-An argument is said to have a deductively invalid argument form if it: 1.) is a substitution instance of a deductively invalid argument form and 2.) it is not also a substitution instance of a deductively valid argument form

The nature and degree of disanalogy

-Differences between primary and secondary analogues are disanalogies, which can either strengthen or weaken the argument

A ⊃ B

-If A, then B -A only if B

False Cause

-The fallacy false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection that probably does no exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy , the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all EX: There are more laws on the books today than ever before, and more crimes are being committed than ever before. Therefore, to reduce crime we must eliminate laws.

False Dichotomy

-The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (either...or) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion. Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive premise is false, or at least probably false, the argument is typically unsound. The fallacy is often committed by children when arguing with their parents, by advertisers and by adults generally. -the fallicious nature of false dichotomy lies in the creation of an illusion that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives. -false dichotomy is otherwise called "false bifurcation" and the "either or fallacy" -EX: Either you let me attend the Lady Gaga concert or I'll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don't want me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that you'll let me attend the concert.

The number of primary analogues

-The greater the number of similar primary analogues, the stronger the argument; dissimilar primary analogues are counteranalogies, which weaken the argument

Number of similarities

-The greater the number of similarities between primary and secondary analogues, the stronger the argument

Diversity among primary analogues

-The more diverse the primary analogues, the stronger the argument

Relevance of the similarities shared by the primary and secondary analogues

-The more relevant the similarities between primary and secondary analogues, the stronger the argument

The specificity of the argument

-The more specific the conclusion, the weaker the argument

Weak Analogy

-This fallacy affects inductive arguments from analogy; an argument from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or situations. The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn. EX: Amber's dog is similar in many ways to Kyle's cat. Both like being petted, they enjoy being around people, they beg for food at the dinner table, and they sleep with their owners. Amber's dog loves to romp on the beach with Amber. Therefor, Kyle's cat probably loves to romp on the beach with Kyle.

Analogical Reasoning

-Type of inductive reasoning -reasoning that depends on a comparison of instances. If the instances are sufficiently similar, the decision reached in the end is usually a good one; but if they are not sufficiently similar, the decision may not be good. When such a reasoning process is expressed in words, the result is an argument from analogy -analogical arguments are closely related to generalizations

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

-When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance. This issues usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved -EX: People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense

Fallacy (non sequitur// "it does not follow")

-a defect in an argument that arises from either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good -may be formal or informal

Hasty Generalization

-a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. An inductive generalization is an argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that pertains to a selected sample. The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group. Such a likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected -Otherwise called "converse accident" because it proceeds in a direction opposite to that of accident. Whereas accident proceeds from the general to the particular, converse accident moves from the particular to the general. The premises cite some characteristic affecting one or more atypical instances of a certain class, and the conclusion then applies that characteristic to all members of the class. EX: Today's money managers are a pack of thieves, every last one of them. Look at Bernie Madoff and Robert Allen Stanford. They ripped off billions of dollars from thousands of trusting clients. And Raj Rajaratnam profited to the tune of millions of dollars through illegal insider trading

Argument

-a group of statements, one of which (the conclusion of the argument) is supposed to be supported by the remaining statements (the premises of the argument)

Statement Variable

-a lower-case letter (typically p, q ,r, or s) that can stand for any statement (whether simple or compound)

Statement

-a sentence that is capable of being either true or false

Contradiction

-a statement is a contradiction if and only if it is false independently of the truth values of its component simple statements (aka it is false no matter what truth values its simple components have) -an individual statement can be a contradiction, a self-contradiction, or self-contradictory (all mean the same thing) but only multiple statements can be contradictory -if p has a solid column of F's under its main connective, then p is a contradiction

Tautology

-a statement is a tautology if and only if it is true independently of the truth values of its component simple statements (aka it's true no matter what truth values its simple components have) -if p has a solid column of T's under its main connective, then p is a tautology

Contingent

-a statement is contingent if and only if its truth value depends on the truth values of its component simple statements (aka for some assignments of truth values to its component simple statements, it is true, and for others it is false) -if p has a mix of T's and F's in the column under its main connective, then p is contingent

Truth Value

-a statement may be either true or false. A true statement is said to have the truth value "True"; a false statement is said to have the truth value "False"

Compound Statement

-a statement that contains at least one simple statement as a part (component, constituent) -also called molecular statements -EX: Snow is white and grass is green

Simple Statement

-a statement that contains no other statement as a part (component, constituent) -also called atomic statements -we use upper-case letters to represent simple statements -EX: Snow is white

Non Causa Pro Causa ("not the cause for the cause")

-a variety of false cause that is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession

Oversimplified Cause

-a variety of false cause that occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause -usually motivated by self-serving interests EX: The quality of our grade schools and high schools has been declining for years. Clearly, our teachers aren't doing their jobs these days

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("after this, therefore on account of this")

-a variety of false cause that presupposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the second. This kind of reasoning is quite common and lies behind most forms of superstition

Slippery Slope

-a variety of the false cause fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to thing that the chain reaction will actually take place -Many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to trump up support for his or her position by citing all sort of dire consequences that will result if the action is taken or the policy followed. -EX: Immediate steps should be taken to outlaw pornography once and for all. The continued manufacture and sale of pornographic material will almost certainly lead to an increase in sex-related crimes such as rape and incest. This in turn will gradually erode the moral fabric of society and result in an increase in crimes of all sorts. Eventually a complete disintegration of law and order will occur, leading in the end to the total collapse of civilization

Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

-always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but to the first person himself. -appears in 3 forms: ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque

Cogent Argument

-an argument is cogent if and only if it is inductively valid and all of its premises are true

Deductively Valid

-an argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible for (all premises to be true and its conclusion false)

Inductively Valid

-an argument is inductively valid if and only if its conclusion is probably true if (all) its premises are true -also known as inductively strong

Sound

-an argument is sound if and only if it is deductively valid and all of its premises are true

Statement Form

-an arrangement of statement variables and operators such that uniform substitution of statements for statement variables results in a statement

Truth Table

-an arrangement of truth values that shows the truth value of a statement constructed using that operator in every possible case as determined by the truth values of its component statements

"Grasping the Dilemma by the Horns"

-arguing that the conjunctive premise is false

"Escaping Between the Horns of the Dilemma"

-arguing that the disjunctive premise is false

Argument Form

-arrangement of statement variables and operators such that uniform substitution of statements for statement variables results in an argument

•

-called the dot -represents conjunction -true if both statements are true

⊃

-called the horseshoe -represents implication -true unless the letter on the left (antecedent) is true and the letter on the right (consequent) is false

∼

-called the tilde -represents negation -makes component the opposite of its original value

≡

-called the triple bar -represents equivalence -true when both components are the same value

V

-called the wedge -represents disjunction -false if both statements are false

Resisting Dilemmas

-cannot resist dilemmas by attacking their logic (bc they're valid) so you must attack their soundness -arguing that the conjunctive premise is false is known as "grasping the dilemma by the horns" -arguing that the disjunctive premise is false is known as "escaping between the horns of the dilemma" -if the disjunctive premise is a tautology, we have no choice but to grasp the dilemma by the horns

Red Herring

-closely associated with missing the point (ignoratio elenchi) -committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the argument -to use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the argument without the reader or listener noticing it. One way of doing this is to change the subject to one that is subtly related to the original subject -a second way of using the red herring effectively is to change the subject to some flashy, eye-catching topic that it virtually guaranteed to distract the listener's attention. Topics of this sort include sex, crime, scandal, immorality, death, and any other topic that might serve as the subject of gossip -EX: There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But any of these foods are essential to our health. Carrots are an excellent source of Vitamin A, broccoli is rich in iron, and oranges and grapefruit have lots of vitamin C.

Straw Man

-committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished. By so doing the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real "man" (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well. -Straw man, along with argument against the person are called refutational fallacies because they involve one arguer refuting another. There are the only fallacies presented in this chapter that always involve two arguers EX: Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg's argument is nonsense

Informal Fallacy

-fallacies that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument

Fallacies of Presumption

-include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence. These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to prove. -Begging the question presumes that the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not -Complex question presumes that a questions can be answered by a simple "yes", "no", or other brief answer when a more sophisticated answer is needed -False Dichotomy presumes that an "either...or.." statement presents jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not -Suppressed evidence presumes that no important evidence has been overlooked by the premises when in fact it has.

Fallacies of Illicit Transference

-include composition and division. Arguments that commit these fallacies involve the incorrect transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole, or from the whole onto the parts

Fallacies of Ambiguity

-include equivocation and amphiboly. These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both). An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different interpretations in a given context. When the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or on wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement, the argument commits a fallacy of ambiguity

Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

-missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance. This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn. Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed, he or she should be able to identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply. This conclusion must be significantly different from the conclusion that is actually drawn. -Ignoratio elenchi means "ignorance of the proof." The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely -EX: Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate the death penalty immediately

Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

-nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others. the appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion. -two approaches are involved: one of them direct, the other indirect -direct approach: occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality -indirect approach: the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole, but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of those individuals' relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, the appeal to snobbery, and the appeal to tradition.

∼A

-not A

Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

-occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener. This pity may be directed toward the arguer or toward some third party -EX: taxpayer to judge: "I admit that I declared 13 children as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only 2. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I'll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty."

Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum// Appeal to the "Stick")

-occurs whenever and arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if she does not accept the conclusion -the appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at least questionable -EX: child to playmate: "sesame street is the best show on TV; and if you don't believe it, I'm going to call my big brother over here and he's going to beat you up"

Formal Fallacy

-one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument -found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms -often categorical syllogisms and hypothetical syllogisms

Fallacies of Relevance

-share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically -the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional

Main Operator

-that operator that governs the largest (most complex) component(s) in the statement -also called main connective

Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

-the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited authority or witness might lack credibility -in deciding whether a person is a qualified authority, one should keep two important points in mind. First, the person might be an authority in more than one field. Secondly, there are some areas in which practically no one can be considered an expert (politics, morals, and religion) -EX: David Duke, formed Grand Wizard of the KKK, has stated "Jews are not good americans. They have no understanding of what America is." On the basis of Duke's authority, we must therefore conclude that the Jews in this country are un-American

Corresponding Conditional

-the conditional statement with antecedent the conjunction of the premises of A and consequent the conclusion of A -an argument A is valid if and only if the corresponding conditional for A is a tautology

"Horns of the Dilemma"

-the conjunctive premise of a dilemma (constructive or destructive)

Accident

-the fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. -Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion -EX: Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John Q. Radical should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week

Amphiboly

-the fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The original statement is usually asserted by someone other than the arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation- a missing comma, a dangling modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words. Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly distinguishable ways. The arguer typically selects the unintended interpretation and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on it -the ambiguity can be eliminated by inserting commas or by moving the ambiguous modifier. Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical ambiguities -Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways. First, equivocation is always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of a word or phrase, whereas amphiboly involves a syntactical ambiguity in a statement. The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is typically the arguer's own creation. -EX: Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology lecture hall. It must be the case that a number of heart failures have occurred there recently.

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

-the fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle. The Latin name for this fallacy, "petitio principii" means "request for the source". The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so the argument is said to beg the question -the first, and most common, way of committing this fallacy is by leaving a possibly false key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion. -the arguer is not able to establish their truth, and by employing rhetorical phraseology such as "of course," "clearly," "this being the case," and "after all," the arguer hopes to create the illusion that the stated premise, by itself, provides adequate support for the conclusion when in fact it does not. -the second form of petitio principii occurs when the conclusion of an argument merely restates a possibly false premise in slightly different language. In such an argument, the premise supports the conclusion, and the conclusion tends to reinforce the premise. -the third form of petitio principii involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first premise that is possibly false -In all cases of begging the question, the arguer uses some linguistic device to create the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for a conclusion. Without such an illusion, the fallacy is not committed. -EX: We know that humans are intended to eat lots of fruit because the human hand and arm are perfectly suited for picking fruit from a tree.

Complex Question

-the fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them. Every complex question presumes the existence of a certain condition. When the respondent's answer is added to the complex question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition. Thus, although not an argument as such, a complex question involves an implicit argument. This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge. -If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is put to them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is supported by no evidence at all; or, they may be tricked into providing the evidence themselves. The correct response lies in resolving the complex question into its component questions and answering each separately. -A leading question -EX: Have you stopped cheating on exams? -EX: Where did you hide the marijuana you were smoking?

Composition

-the fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute, too, and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole. -EX: Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent

Division

-the fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members) -EX: This airplane was made in Seattle. Therefore, every component part of this airplane was made in Seattle.

Equivocation

-the fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound. -to be convincing, an argument that commits an equivocation must use the equivocal word in ways that are subtly related -EX: Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.

Analogues

-the items compared in any argument from analogy

Suppressed Evidence

-the requirement of true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence -the suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to the form of begging the question in which the arguer leaves a key premise out of the argument. The difference is that the suppressed evidence leaves out a premise that requires a different conclusion, while that form of begging the question leaves out a premise that is needed to support the stated conclusion

Logically Equivalent

-two statements are logically equivalent if and only if there is no possible situation in which they differ in truth value -equivalently, two statements are logically equivalent if and only if they necessarily have the same truth value

Mutually Consistent

-two statements are mutually consistent if and only if there is at least one possible situation in which they are both true

Mutually Contradictory

-two statements are mutually contradictory if and only if there is no possible situation in which they have the same truth value. -equivalently, two statements are mutually contradictory if and only if they necessarily have different truth values

Mutually Inconsistent

-two statements are mutually inconsistent if and only if there is no possible situation in which they are both true

Appeal to Snobbery

-variety of appeal to the people indirect approach -in this form, the crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way- more wealthy, more powerful, more culturally refined, more intelligent, and son on. -as the argument goes, if the listener wants to be a part of this group, then he or she will do a certain thing, think a certain way, or buy a certain product -EX: The Lexus 400 series is not for everyone. Only those with considerable means and accomplishment will acquire one. To show the world that you are among the select few, you will want to purchase and drive one of these distinguished automobiles.

Appeal to Tradition

-variety of appeal to the people indirect approach -occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become tradition as grounds for some conclusion. The claim that something is a tradition is basically synonymous with the claim that a lot of people have done it that way for a long time. -EX: Traditionally, professional sporting events have been preceded by the national anthem. Therefore, professional sporting events should continue to be preceded by the national anthem

Appeal to Vanity

-variety of appeal to the people indirect approach -often involves linking the love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of. -often used by advertisers, parents and people in general -EX: Of course you want to look as fresh and beautiful as Ellen DeGeneres. That means you will want to buy and use Cover Girl cosmetics

Ad Hominem Circumstantial

-variety of argument against the person -begins the same way as ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent's argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously -EX: The Dalai Lama argues that China has no business in Tibet and that the West should do something about it. But the Dalai Lama just wants the Chinese to leave so he can return as leader. Naturally he argues this way. Therefore, we should reject his arguments

Tu Quoque ("you too")

-variety of argument against the person -begins the same way as the other 2 varieties of the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. The second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter's conclusion. -The fallacy often takes the form, "How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself. -EX: President Barack Obama argues that we should avoid eating junk food. But look at what he eats: greasy cheeseburgers, chili dogs, french fries, hot dogs, fried cheese puffs, sugary sodas, hot fudge sundaes, cheese steaks, and snow cones. Clearly, Obama's arguments about food are not worth listening to.

Ad Hominem Abusive

-variety of argument against the person -the second person responds to the first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person -EX: Television entertainer Bill Maher argues that religion is just a lot of foolish nonsense. But Maher is an arrogant, shameless, self-righteous pig. Obviously his arguments are not worth listening to

Gambler's Fallacy

-variety of false cause that is committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are casually related -EX: a fair coin was flipped five times in a row, and each time it came up heads. Therefore, it is extremely likely that it will come up tails on the next flip

Appeal to Fear

-variety of the appeal to the people direct approach -also known as fear mongering -occurs when an arguer trumps up fear of something in the mind of his crowd and then uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion.

Bandwagon Argument

-variety of the appeal to the people indirect approach -has the general structure: everybody believes such-and-such or does such-and-such; therefore, you should believe or do such-and-such too. -EX: everyone nowadays is on a low-carb diet. Therefore, you should go on a low-carb diet too

Common Valid Argument Forms:

1.) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) 2.)Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) 3.)Modus Ponens (MP) 4.) Modus Tollens (MT) 5.) Constructive Dilemma (CD) 6.)Destructive Dilemma (DD)

Principles for Evaluating Arguments from Analogy

1.) Relevance of the similarities shared by the primary and secondary analogues 2.) The number of similarities 3.)The nature and degree of disanalogy 4.)The number of primary analogues 5.) The diversity among the primary analogues 6.) The specificity of the conclusion

Common Invalid Forms:

1.)Denying the Antecedent 2.) Affirming the Consequent

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

p ∨ q ∼p -------- q

Modus Ponens (MP)

p ⊃ q p -------- q

Affirming the Consequent

p ⊃ q q ------ p

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

p ⊃ q q ⊃ r -------- p ⊃ r

Denying the Antecedent

p ⊃ q ∼ p ------- ∼ q

Modus Tollens (MT)

p ⊃ q ∼q ------- ∼p