exam 1

Good reasoning

1. Premises are justified
2. All relevant info is taken into account
3. Argument = VALID

Reasoning from detailed facts to general principles

*the premises are true...the conclusion is probably true

The beliefs we rely on to interpret new information

"Even though a doctor tells us something we shouldn't always believe them because other doctors might disagree"

We contradict ourselves
ex: I'm a married bachelor

Intentionally misrepresents a proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponents real argument
**EXTREME

We argue as though there are fewer alternatives than there really are

When a premise in an argument assumes the conclusion to be correct

Interpreting a merely token gesture as an adequate substitute for the real thing

Neglecting relevant evidence

We treat criticism of people who hold a belief as establishing that the belief is wrong (instead of addressing their points)

*argument "to the person"

We assume something about a person or thing because of who or what they are associated with

We treat the fact that someone else has done something as a justification for us doing it

Just telling somebody something
ex: describing something that happened

Giving somebody a reason to believe something

Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case (premises)
ex: the sun rises every morning; therefore, the sun will rise on Tuesday morning.

Truth is relative to a culture or person

The collection of all of our background beliefs

Accepting a premise that we should doubt

A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for a famous person or institution

*we should believe something bc someone in authority tells us to..."You should believe...because I do!"

We justify believing or doing something on the grounds that its been believed or done for a long time

*doesn't mean its right

We justify believing or doing something on the grounds that its commonly believed or done

The premises are irrelevant to the conclusion

Our argument relies in a shift in word meaning

ex: bat (baseball) vs. bat (animal)

-When we use the fact that we don't know whether something exists/existed to justify a belief that it does/did

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

-The principle that irrelevant detail should be cut away

-The existence of fewer things is more likely to be true than a theory the assumes the existence of more things

-This type of fallacy uses the audiences's sympathy, concern, or guilt in order to overwhelm their sense of logic

-Arguing that we should believe something out of pity

What's true of the parts is true of the whole
ex: a feather is light, so a truck full of feathers is light too

What's true of the whole is true of the parts
ex: the building is big, so it must be made of big bricks too

Assuming that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented

*simple ---> EXTREME

Drawing conclusions not sufficiently supported by evidence

Reasoning on the base of samples not the whole

-We are given some evidence that the conclusion is true, but not enough to justify believing it

-Making a judgement on the basis of one or even a few samples

Inductive reasoning from a sample that is too small

-larger sample = more accurate
-smaller sample = inaccurate

Inductive reasoning from a sample that is not representative (of the whole population)

Only bad argument the one thing caused another
a cause is incorrectly identified