Section 4: Critical Thinking D265 WGU

direct and independent support mapping example

2 solely supports the conclusion on its own

indiect support mapping example

3 is indirect to the conclusion

Hasty Generalization

A fallacy in which a faulty conclusion is reached because of inadequate evidence.

Appeal to Ignorance

A fallacy that uses an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the conclusion's correctness.

Fallacies of Weak Induction

A group of informal fallacies that occur because the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

mapping hidden assumptions

A hidden assumption will always offer conjoint support for its conclusion/sub-conclusion.

Argument Mapping

A way to visually analyze an argument so that the relation between the evidence and conclusions is clear

ad hominem attack

An attack on a person rather than his or her argument

Fallacies of Relevance

Arguments that are really distractions from the main point

Fallacies of Presumption

Arguments that make unwarranted assumptions about either the data or the nature of a reasonable argument

Genetic Fallacy

Condemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is Latin for "after which therefore because of which," meaning that it is incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier. One may loosely summarize this fallacy by saying that correlation does not imply causation.

ad populum (aka bandwagon)

This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to "everybody's doing it, so it must be a good thing to do."

- False Dilemma - Burden of Proof

Types of Fallacies of Presumption

- Ad Hominem - Appeal of Consquences - Genetic Fallacy - Equivocation - Ad Populum - Irrelevant Appeals

Types of Fallacies of Relevance

- Hasty Generalization -Appeal to Ignorance - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Types of Fallacies of Weak Induction

conjoint support

When a premise doesn't seem to support the conclusion without the help of the other premises.

independent support

When each premise seems like its an argument for the conclusion on its own.

Burden of proof shifting

When one decides that someone else must prove them wrong when, in reality, they are the person with the burden of proof.

false dilemma fallacy

argument in which a speaker reduces available choices to only two even though other alternatives exist; also called the either-or fallacy

appeal of consquences

attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving

Irrelevant Appeals

attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand

conjoint support mapping example

both premises are related to each other and are both needed to support the conclusion.

multiple independent support mapping example

each premise is different and unrelated to each other but each support the conclusion

burden of proof

the obligation to present evidence to support one's claim

Equivocation

the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication

Hidden Assumptions

unstated premises and conclusions