Podcast
Questions and Answers
A good argument must meet five criteria.
A good argument must meet five criteria.
True (A)
A fallacy is the opposite of a good argument.
A fallacy is the opposite of a good argument.
True (A)
What are the five criteria for a good argument?
What are the five criteria for a good argument?
- A clear structure, premises that make sense, premises that are accurate, premises that support the conclusion, and premises that take into account all possible criticisms of the argument.
- A well-formed structure, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, premises that are acceptable to a reasonable person, premises that together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and premises that provide an effective rebuttal to all anticipated criticisms of the argument. (correct)
- A strong foundation, premises that are directly related to the conclusion, premises that are widely accepted, premises that provide compelling evidence for the conclusion, and premises that address any opposing viewpoints.
- A logical layout, premises that are verifiable, premises that are unbiased, premises that are strong enough to support the conclusion, and premises that counter all potential objections to the argument.
What type of fallacy assumes the truth of the conclusion in the argument?
What type of fallacy assumes the truth of the conclusion in the argument?
What kind of premise is a claim about what an essential term in a discussion means?
What kind of premise is a claim about what an essential term in a discussion means?
The fallacy of Using the Wrong Reasons refers to supporting a claim with reasons that are unrelated to the claim.
The fallacy of Using the Wrong Reasons refers to supporting a claim with reasons that are unrelated to the claim.
Give an example of a fallacy of inconsistency.
Give an example of a fallacy of inconsistency.
The Genetic Fallacy evaluates a thing based only on its origin or history.
The Genetic Fallacy evaluates a thing based only on its origin or history.
What is the name of the fallacy that involves affirming the consequent of a conditional statement and then inferring the affirmation of the antecedent?
What is the name of the fallacy that involves affirming the consequent of a conditional statement and then inferring the affirmation of the antecedent?
What type of fallacy is it when an argument uses reasons that have no connection to the conclusion or fail to provide support for it?
What type of fallacy is it when an argument uses reasons that have no connection to the conclusion or fail to provide support for it?
Flashcards
Good Argument Structure
Good Argument Structure
An argument that follows logical principles, avoids contradictions, and doesn't assume its conclusion.
Relevant Premises
Relevant Premises
Supporting reasons directly related to proving the conclusion.
Acceptable Premises
Acceptable Premises
Supporting reasons that a reasonable person would accept as true or plausible.
Sufficient Grounds
Sufficient Grounds
Signup and view all the flashcards
Effective Rebuttal
Effective Rebuttal
Signup and view all the flashcards
Fallacy
Fallacy
Signup and view all the flashcards
Begging-the-Question Fallacy
Begging-the-Question Fallacy
Signup and view all the flashcards
Arguing-in-a-Circle
Arguing-in-a-Circle
Signup and view all the flashcards
Question-Begging Language
Question-Begging Language
Signup and view all the flashcards
Leading Question
Leading Question
Signup and view all the flashcards
Complex Question
Complex Question
Signup and view all the flashcards
Question-Begging Definition
Question-Begging Definition
Signup and view all the flashcards
Study Notes
Module IV: Criteria of a Good Argument
- Students will be able to recognize criteria for a good argument, critique examples based on these criteria, and compose effective arguments.
- A good argument meets five criteria:
- Well-formed structure: Reasons don't contradict each other, the conclusion, or implicitly assume the conclusion's truth. No invalid deductions.
- Relevant premises: Premises must be relevant to the conclusion's truth.
- Acceptable premises: Premises should be acceptable to a reasonable person.
- Sufficient grounds: Premise(s) together provide enough evidence for the conclusion.
- Effective rebuttal: Premises address anticipated criticisms.
- A fallacy violates a criterion of a good argument.
The Structural Principle
- An argument must meet fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument. Reasons shouldn't contradict each other. The argument shouldn't implicitly or explicitly assume the conclusion's truth.
- Violating this principle can involve:
- Begging-the-question fallacies (arguing in a circle).
- Fallacies of inconsistency.
- Fallacies of deductive inference.
Begging-The-Question Fallacies
- Arguing-in-a-circle: The conclusion is used as a premise to support itself.
- Question-begging language: Using language that assumes a position on the issue to lead the listener.
- Complex question: Asking a question that presupposes a pre-determined answer.
- Question-begging definition: Using a questionable definition as an unchallengeable premise.
Fallacies of Inconsistency
- Incompatible premises: An argument with inconsistent or incompatible premises lacks a valid conclusion.
Fallacies of Relevance
- Irrelevant Premises:
- Genetic fallacy: Evaluating something based on its earlier context without considering relevant changes or developments
- Rationalization: Using weak or false justifications for a position that is actually based on something else.
- Using wrong reasons: Using reasons that are inappropriate and do not support the conclusion.
Fallacies of Deductive Inference
- Denying the Antecedent: Denying the antecedent (the part that comes after the "if") in a conditional statement and then denying the consequent.
- Affirming the Consequent: Affirming the consequent (the part that comes after the "then") but wrongly concluding the antecedent.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
