Logic Exam 1

An argument with probabilist support

An argument that claims the premises necessitate the conclusion

An if-then statement

Something that you must need for conditional statement to be true

Given a true premise it is impossible for conclusion to be false

The conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises

A deductive argument that is valid with true premises

a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both

given a true premise it is improbable that the conclusion is false

conclusion does not follow probably from the premises

Use a counter example

Flaw in reasoning for an argument (not a false premise, needs to be more!)

a fallacy that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument

A fallacy that can be detected only by examining the content of an argument

When the arguer threatens that something bad will happen if the listener does not agree with them.

When the arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader/listener

When the arguer makes you afraid of the consequences of not doing what they want

When the arguer tells to the reader/listener to agree because everyone else agrees

When the arguer uses the admiration of a famous figure as support to their claim

When the crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way

When the arguers support states that it is better to agree because of tradition

An argument against a person that shows abuse towards them

An argument against a person due to the circumstances that benefit them

When the arguer attempts to make another seem hypocritical to support their claim

When a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

When an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it

The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion, but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws

When the arguer draws attention away from the main issue by introducing something irrelevant

When there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group

When the link between the premise and conclusion is completely false

When the conclusion of an argument rest on a chain reaction of insufficient reasoning

When an analogy is not strong enough to support a conclusion that is drawn

When the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion. (mainly by restating a premise as conclusion, or reasoning in a circle)

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.

The consideration of only two extremes when there are other possibilities

arguer ignores important evidence leading to a different conclusion

When a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an argument.

a vagueness of grammar that disguises or alters meaning

When it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that a whole has that attribute too

When it is argued that because a whole group has a certain attribute, all the parts of that whole have that attribute too