Understanding Arguments: Definitions of Terms from Premises to Conclusions, Quizzes of History of Education

Download Understanding Arguments: Definitions of Terms from Premises to Conclusions and more Quizzes History of Education in PDF only on Docsity! TERM 1 Argument DEFINITION 1 a list of two or more propositions, one of which is claimed to follow the others (The proposition that is claimed to follow from the others--the premises--is the conclusion. You ought to place emphasis upon the word CLAIMED. Because a conclusion is CLAIMED to follow from the premises, does not mean it reasonably does.) TERM 2 Proposition DEFINITION 2 An idea expressed in a declarative sentence (A proposition can either the premises or the conclusions of an argument) TERM 3 Premise DEFINITION 3 a statement in an argument that sets forth evidence (The premise are proposition, but never conclusions. Premises lead up to the conclusion, providing evidence in support of the conclusion.) TERM 4 Conclusion DEFINITION 4 that proposition within an argument which is claimed to follow from the other (The conclusion, again is that proposition within an argument that claims to follow FROM the premises. The conclusion does not merely follow the premises, it claims to follow FROM them. This is important because it tells us there is a direct logical relationship that says the conclusion is claimed to be rooted in the premises.) TERM 5 Deductive Argument DEFINITION 5 An argument whose conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises necessarily. TERM 6 Necessity DEFINITION 6 Means: not possibly not. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot possibly not true. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion MUSST be true. Or to put it differently, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. TERM 7 Inductive Argument DEFINITION 7 An argument whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with some (at least one) degree of probability, always less than 100% (The conclusion, in an inductive argument, can never follow necessarily from its premises, but only probably.) TERM 8 Valid Argument DEFINITION 8 An argument whose conclusion follows from its premises necessarily. (A valid argument--which is always deductive-- DOES NOT have to have true premises and a true conclusion. Here is an example: P1: If the sun does not shine today, we will all be dead. P2: The sun did not shine today. Therefore....C:We are all dead.) TERM 9 Validity DEFINITION 9 The conclusion of this argument clearly is not true, but is nevertheless valid. Validity has only to do with the formal structure of an argument, not with its truth or falsity. Only the form matters, not the content. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, if it does not matter whether the premises actually are true. TERM 10 Sound Argument DEFINITION 10 A valid deductive argument containing true premises and a true conclusion. (A sound argument is always valid, but it is also true. EX: P1: If Professor Graham is a human being, then he is a mammal. P2:Professor Graham is a human being. Therefore...C: Graham is a mammal.) TERM 21 Fallacy DEFINITION 21 is a defect in an argument; it is a logical mistake TERM 22 Appeal to Force DEFINITION 22 occurs when someone is asked to accept a conclusion under threat of harm. There is no rational connection between the threat and the desired conclusion TERM 23 Appeal to Authority DEFINITION 23 Usually happens when an appeal is made to an authority outside the field in which the argument is actually said to deal. This kind of argument is often used in TV commercials and many ads in general. TERM 24 Appeal to the People DEFINITION 24 is the fallacy where in an appeal is made to the majority, or a great number of people who do or believe something, as support for the conclusion that the person hearing the argument should also be doing it. The ad populum fallacy can also appeal to one's sense of individuality (e.g. wouldn't you look good in this dress?) TERM 25 Appeal to Pity DEFINITION 25 is a fallacy that occurs when a conclusion is to be accepted based upon the pity or sympathy one might feel for the miserable or potentially miserable arguer TERM 26 Appeal to Ignorance DEFINITION 26 is a fallacy wherein the conclusion is to be accepted as true on the grounds that it has not been shown not to be true, or the other way around. It is important to note that this kind of arguing can move both directions. TERM 27 Argument Against the Person DEFINITION 27 occurs when one rejects another's conclusion not by attacking the other's argument, but by attacking the person. This fallacy can take 3 forms TERM 28 abusive DEFINITION 28 type of argument against the person. it is a direct attack upon the character or personal quality of the proponent of the original argument TERM 29 circumstantial DEFINITION 29 type of argument against the person. calls into question the personal circumstances of the proponent. TERM 30 you too (tu quoque) DEFINITION 30 usually happens when the proponent is accused of making the same mistake against which he is trying to argue TERM 31 mistaken cause DEFINITION 31 often occurs in the form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This is when we mistake a prior event as a cause of a subsequent event just because it preceded it and not bases upon weather it really has any casual connection to the subsequent event (e.g. I was feeling sick for a week, but after I took Mr. Graham's miracle potion, I felt much better. His potion really works.) TERM 32 Hasty Generalization DEFINITION 32 is primarily an improper inductive generalization. It occurs when a general conclusion is reached based upon an insufficient number of instances in the sample. We often hear this kind of argument at the root of racism, sexism, and religious prejudice (e.g. The other day I saw a woman run a stop light. Then, I saw another woman run a stop sign. Women are horrible drivers.) TERM 33 Fallacy of Accident DEFINITION 33 is in some way the opposite of a Hasty Generalization. Accident occurs when a general rule is misapplied to a specific situation (e.g. Everyone knows that putting one's hand on someone else's thigh is inappropriate in the workplace. Therefore, it was inappropriate for John, the massage therapist to rub Jenny's thigh.) TERM 34 Fallacy of Equivocation DEFINITION 34 is a fallacy of ambiguity. An utterance is ambiguous when it has two or more possible meanings. When the ambiguity applies to one word, we are dealing with equivocation (eg either you're hot or you're not. Michelle is hot. Therefore she needs a glass of ice water). TERM 35 Fallacy of Amphilboly DEFINITION 35 a fallacy of ambiguity. It occurs when in the entire proposition rather than in one word. Since arguments require consistency of meaning, a conclusion cannot follow from an amphilboly. (eg, Ms. West is giving a lecture on heart attacks in the gym. But I've never heard of a heart attack happening in the gym. Hence, her lecture will be full of lies.)