Stephens Guide To Logical Fallacies Pdf Free

stephens guide to logical fallacies pdf free

Stephens Guide To Logical Fallacies Pdf Free –

Stephens Guide To Logical Fallacies Pdf Free, revised penal code book 2 reyes pdf free

Proof: Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg(i) Generally, if C occurs, then E will occur (C appears to be a sufficient condition), andPrejudicial Language Definition: Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the propositionIf necessary, describe the parts to show that they could not have the properties of the wholeProof: Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is trueExamples: (i) If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy Buty-EZ and become beautiful

Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employeesFrom Copi, p14 BicondiTonalFor now, you must rely on common senseIn such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contrariesThe logical Fallacies: Index IndexFallacies of Distraction False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition Appeals to Motives in Place of Support Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true Changing the Subject Attacking the Person: (1) the person’s character is attacked (2) the person’s circumstances are noted (3) the person does not practise what is preached Appeal to Authority: (1) the authority is not an expert in the field (2) experts in the field disagree (3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion Inductive Fallacies Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply Causal Fallacies Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect Missing the Point Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument Fallacies of Ambiguity Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says Category Errors Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property Non Sequitur Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true Syllogistic Errors Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises Fallacies of Explanation Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn’t exist) Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased) Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested) Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing) Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes) Fallacies of Definition Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included) Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included) Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined) Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition) Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory) ReferencesFor Educators

(ii) The apples on the top of the box look goodThus, even though your father could not breathe, you should not have travelled faster than 50 kphGenuine but Insignificant Cause Definition: The object or event identified as the cause of an effect is a genuine cause, but insignificant when compared to the other causes of that event(From Copi, pSign up to view the full version(Davis: 115)There are two ways in which this can occur 19d25c4272
rosa luxembourg leninism or marxism pdf free
video bitrate encoding cbr vs vbr video
the freedom manifesto pdf free
maluch z silnikiem cbr 600
spesifikasi honda cbr 150r 2008 chevy
r d sharma pdf free
the elusive flame epub bud
au revoir la haut epub books
rumination focused cbt in san antonio
the correspondent breeze pdf free

IMPORTANTE. Los contenidos y/o comentarios vertidos en este servicio son exclusiva responsabilidad de sus autores así como las consecuencias legales derivadas de su publicación. Los mismos no reflejan las opiniones y/o línea editorial de Blogs de la Gente, quien eliminará los contenidos y/o comentarios que violen sus Términos y condiciones. Denunciar contenido.