Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Power of Logic
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Logic | Is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument adequately support its conclusion. |
| Argument | Is a set of statements where some of the statements, called the premises, are intended to suppor another, call the conclusion. |
| Statement | Is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. |
| Deductive Argument | Is one in which the premises are intended to guarantee the conclusion. |
| Inductive argument | Is on in which the premises are intended to make the conclusion proabable, without guaranteeing it. |
| Deductive Logic | Is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument guarantee its conclusion. (Validity and invalidity) |
| Inductive Logic | Is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument make its conclusion probable, without guaranteeing it. (Strenght and weakness) |
| Valid Argument | is one in which it is necessary that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. |
| Invalid Argument | is one in which it is not necessary that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. |
| Sound Argument | is a valid argument in which all of the premises are true. |
| Unsound argument | is on that either is invalid or has at least one false premise. |
| Argument Form | is a pattern of reasoning. |
| Modus Ponens | 1. If A, then B. 2. A So, 3. B |
| Substitution Instance | Substitution instance of an argument form is an argument that results from uniformly replacing the variables in that form with statements (or terms). |
| Valid Argument form | is one in which every substitution instance is a valid argument. |
| Formally Valid Argument | is one that is valid in virtue of its form. |
| Modus Tollens | 1.If A, Then B 2. Not B. So, 3. Not A. |
| Hypothetical Syllogism | 1. If a, Then B 2. If B, then C So, 3. If A then C. |
| Disjunctive Syllogism (Two Versions) | 1. Either A or B, 1. Either A or B 2. Not A 2.Not B So, 3. B So, 3. A |
| Constructive Dilemma | 1. Either A or B 2. If A then C. 3. If B then D. So, 4. Either C or D |
| Negation | The Negation of a statement is it's denial. |
| Conditional Statement | is an If-then statement, often called a conditional. |
| Antecedent | Is the If-clause of a conditional. |
| Consequent | Is the Then Clause of a conditional. |
| Disjunction | Is an either-or statement. |
| Disjuncts | The statements comprising a disjunction are its disjuncts. |
| Invalid argument form | Is one that has some invalid substitution instances. |
| Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent | 1. If A, Then B 2. Not A So 3. Not B |
| Counterexample | is a substitution instance in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. |
| Good Counterexample | is a substitution instance which the premises are well-known truths and the conclusion is a well known falsehood. |
| Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent | 1. If A, Then B 2. B, So, 3. A |
| Categorical Statement | Is a statement that relates two classes or categories, where a class is a set or collection of things. |
| Term | Is a word or phrase that stands for a class of things. |
| Strong Argument | Is one in which it is probable (but not necessary) that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. |
| Weak Argument | Is one in which it is not probable that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. |
| Cogent Argument | is a strong argument in which all of the premises are true |
| Uncongent Argument | is one that is either weak or strong with at least one false premise. |
| Unsupported assertions | Passages that are not arguments. |
| Reports: | Sets of statements intended to provide information about a situation, topic or event. |
| Illustrations: | Statements together with explanatory or clarifying examples. |
| Explanatory statements. | Statements that provide a causal or other reason for some phenomenon. |
| Conditional Statements | If-Then Statements taken by themself. |
| Well Crafted (version of an) Argument | Is an argument that is stated in such a way that its important logical features are explicit. |
| Well Crafted Principle 1. | Identify the premises and the conclusion. |
| Well Crafted Principle 2. | Eliminate excess verbiage. |
| Well Crafted Principle 3. | Employ uniform language |
| Well Crafted Principle 4. | Be fair and charitable in interpreting an argument. |
| Well Crafted Principle 5. | Do not confuse subconclusions with (final) conclusions. |
| Well Crafted Principle 6. | Make explicit obviously implicit premises in a charitable way. |
| Premise Indicators | Because; After all; Since; For; As; The reason is that; In light of the fact that; based on the fact that. |
| Conclusion Indicators | So; Therefore; Hence; Implies that; It follows that; Thus; Accordingly; Consequently; We may infer that; Which proves that. |
| Excess Verbiage | is a word or statement that adds nothing to the argument. Typical examples include discounts, repetition, assurances, and hedges. |
| Discount Indicators | Although; Even Though; in spite of the fact that; despite the fact that; while it may be true that; while I admit that; I realize that... But. I know that... but. |
| Assurance Indicators | Obviously; everyone knows that; no doubt; it is well known that; certainly; no one will deny that; plainly; this is undeniable; clearly; this is a fact. |
| Hedge Indicators: | I think that; It seems that; perhaps; maybe; in my opinion; I believe that; I guess that; it is reasonable to suppose that; this seems reasonable; this is plausible. |
| Enthymeme | is an argument that has one or more premises or its conclusion is left implicit. |
| Proposition | Is a truth or falshood that may or may not be expressed in a sentence. |
| Cognitive Meaning of a Sentence | is the information conveyed by a sentence. |
| Emotive Force of a Sentence | Is the emotion the sentence expresses or tends to elicit. |
| Ambiguous word | Has more than one meaning |
| Vague Word | has borderline cases. |
| Extenstion of a term | Consists of the set of things to which the term applies. |
| Intension of a Term | Consists of the properties a thing must have to be included in the term's extension. |
| Extensional Definition | Specifies the meaning of a term by indicating the set of thigns to which the term applies. |
| Intensional Definition | Specifies the meaning of a term by indicating the properties a thing must have to be included in term's extension. |
| Ostensive Definition | Specifies the meaning of a term by pointing to objects in its extension. |
| Enumerative Definition | Specifies the meaning of a term by naming the members of its extension individually. |
| Definition by Subclass | Specifies the meaning of a term by naming the members of its extension. |
| Lexical Definition | Reports the conventional or established intension of a term. |
| Stipulative Definition | Specifies the intension of a term independently of convention or established use. |
| Precising definition | Reduces the vagueness of a term by imposing limits on th econventinal meaning. |
| Theoretical Definition | attempts to provide an adequate understanding of the thing(s) to which the term applies. |
| Definiendum | is the word being defined. |
| Definiens | Is the word or words that do the defining. |
| Criterion 1:A definition should not be too wide | Ex: "Bird" means an animal having wings. |
| Criterion 2:A definition should not be too narrow. | Ex: "Bird" means a feathered animal that can fly. |
| Counterexample To a definition | is somethign to which the term applies but doesn't meet the conditions, or it meets the conditions and the term does not apply to it. |
| Criterion 3: A definition should not be obscure, ambiguous, or figurative. | Obscure Technical jargon; Ambiguous; Figurative |
| Criterion 3: Obscure Technical Jargon: | Ex: Desire is the actual essence of man, insofar as it conceived, as determined to a particular activity by some given modification of itself. |
| Criterion 3: Ambiguous | Ex: Faith means true belief. |
| Criterion 3: Figurative or Metaphorical | "art" is the stored honey of the human soul, gathered on wings of misery and travail. |
| Criterion 4: Definition should not be Circular | Ex: Metaphysics means the systematic stufy of metaphysical issues. |
| Criterion 5: A definition should not be negative if it can be affirmative. | Ex: A Mineral is a substance that is not an animal and not a vegetable. |
| Criterion 6: A definition should not pick out its extension via attributes that are unsuitable relative to the context or purpose. | Ex: Triangle means Steve's favorite geometrical figure. |
| Equivocation: | Occurs when a word(or phrase) is used wiht more than one meaning in an argument, but the validity of the argument depends on the word's being used with the same meaning throughout. |
| Merely Verbal Dispute | occurs when disputants appear to disagree, but an ambiguous word ( or phrase) hides the fact that the disagreement is unreal. |
| Persuasive Definition | Is a definition that is slanted or (biased) in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view. |
| Formal Fallacy | Is an error in reasoning that involves the explicit use of an invalid form |
| Informal Fallacies | are errors in reasoning that do not involve the explicit use of an invalid form. |
| Argument Against the Person | involves attacking the preson who advances an argument as opposed to provideing a rational critique of the argument itself. |
| Abusive ad Hominem | Direct personal attack. Ex: an insult or allegation that the arguer has a moral flaw. |
| Circumstantial ad hominem | Attempts to discredit by calling attention to the circumstance or situation of the opponent. |
| Tu Quoque | Charges the opponent with hypocrisy or inconsistency. |
| Straw Man Fallacy | Premises: A misrepresentatio nof the view is false. Conclusion: The view itself is false. |
| Appeal to Force | Premises: You can avoid harm by accepting this statement. Conclusion: This statement is true. |
| Appeal to the People | Premises: You will be accepted or valued if you believe this statement. Conclusion: This statement is true. |
| Appeal to Pity | Premises: You have reason to pity this person (or group). Conclusion: You should do X for the benefit of this person (or group), although doing X is not called for logically by the reason given. |
| Appeal to ignorance | Premises: This statement has not been proven true. Conclusion This statement is false. OR Premises This statement has not been proven false. Conclusion: This statement is true. |
| Red Herring | Premises: Something relevant to the topic at hand is described. Conclusion: A distracting but often unnoticed change of subject occurs. |
| Equivocation | Premises:Contain a key word or phrase that is ambiguous. Conclusion: is reached not by valid logical inference but by trading on the ambiguity of the key word (or phrase). |
| Amphiboly | Premises: Contain a sentence that is ambiguous due to faulty structure. (e.g. grammar or punctuation) Conclusion: Is reached no by valid Logical inference but by trading on the structural ambiguity |
| Composition | Premises: The parts (or members)have attribute X. Conclusion: The whole (or group) has attribute X |
| Division | Premises: The whole (or group) has attribute X. Conclusion: The part (or members) have attribute X |
| Division Example | The airplane is heavy. So, each of its parts is heavy. |
| Composition Example | Each of the parts of this airplane is very light. Therefore, the airplane itself is very light. |
| Amphiboly Example | Your honor, the witness said he saw a photograph of the defendant lying on the coffee table. Therefore, the defendant must have lain on the coffee table at some point. |
| Equivocation Example | Only man is rational. But no woman is a man. Hence, no woman is rational. |
| Red Herring Example | Your friend Margie says that Tasters Choice coffee tastes better than Folgers. Apparently she is ignoring the fact that Tasters Choice is made by Nestle, and Nestle is the company that manufactured that terrible formal for Third World Countries. |
| Appeal to ignorance Example | After centuries of trying, no one has been able to prove that reincarnation occurs. So, I think we can safely conclude that reincarnation does not occur. |
| Appeal to Pity Example | You have heard that my client was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene on the day of the murder. But look at his narrow shoulders and frightened eyes. this is a man- Boy really- more sinned against than sinning. |
| Appeal to the people | Real mean drink El Belcho Beer. Wimps drink the inferior brandss. I can see you're a real man. So, El Belcho is the beer for you. |
| Appeal to Force example | You really think that drugs should be legalized? Think again. Dad will cut you out of the inheritance if you go on thinking like that. That should make it clear to you just how far off base your views really are. |
| Straw Man Example | These evolutionists believe that a dog can give birth to a cat. How Ridiculous! |
| Argument against the person Tue quoque Example | Dad tells me I shouldn't lie. he says lying is wrong because it makes people stop trusting on another. But I've heard my dad lie. Sometimes he calls in "sick" to work when he isn't really sick. So lying isn't really wrong. Dad just doesn't like it. |
| Argument against the person circumstantial Example | I find it mildly amusing that Mr. and Mrs. Billings are advocating school reforms. But I certainly do not see any reason to take their proposal seriously. Both of them were poor students in high school. |
| Argument against the person Abusive Example | Yes, Jill argues for deconstruction. But her mind is so open, her brains are falling out. you can safely ignore whatever she has to say. |
| Begging the Question | Assuming the point to be proved. The premises are similar in content to the conclusion but not better known than the conclusion |
| Begging the question example: | God exists becasue the bible says so. But how do I know that what the bible says is true? Because its God' word. |
| False Dilemma | Using a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered. |
| False Dilemma Example | I do not know whether God's existence can be proven, but I do know that each person must be either a theist or an atheist. And by your own admission, you're no theist. Therefore, you must be an atheist. |
| Appeal to Unreliable Authority | Appealing to an authority when the reliability of the authority may reasonably be doubted. (the arguer assumes, without sufficient warrant, that the authority in question is reliable. |
| Appeal to unreliable authority Example | Mike the "Monster" Malone, left tackle for the Seattle Sea Lions, says that chocolate zonkers are a nutritional breakfast cereal. So, Chocolate Zonkers are a nutritional cereal. |
| False Cause of Fallacy | Illegitimately assuming that one possible cause of a phenomenon is ar (or the) cause although reasons are lacking for excluding other possible clauses. |
| False Cause of Fallacy Example | Since sex education has become common, we've had a marked increase in promiscuity. So, sex education causes promiscuity. |
| Complex Question | Asking a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded in the question. |
| Complex Question Example | Have you stopped beating your wife? |
Created by:
100000561301200
Popular Psychology sets