Logical Fallacies Flashcards PDF

NON SEQUITUR ============ A non-sequitur is when someone makes a statement or argument that doesn\'t logically connect to the previous idea. It\'s like saying two things that have nothing to do with each other in a way that doesn\'t make sense together. Example: \'We should cancel the meeting beca...

NON SEQUITUR ============ A non-sequitur is when someone makes a statement or argument that doesn\'t logically connect to the previous idea. It\'s like saying two things that have nothing to do with each other in a way that doesn\'t make sense together. Example: \'We should cancel the meeting because I had pasta for lunch.\' Explanation: This argument doesn\'t make sense because having pasta for lunch has no logical connection to canceling a meeting. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. FALSE DICHOTOMY =============== A false dichotomy is when someone presents a situation as having only two options, even though there are more possibilities. It\'s like saying things are either one way or the other, when in reality, there could be other choices. Example: \'You either support my plan, or you don\'t care about the future.\' Explanation: This statement makes it seem like there are only two options-supporting the plan or not caring about the future-ignoring other possibilities like supporting a different plan or caring in a different way. FALSE DILEMMA ============= A false dilemma happens when someone compares two situations or choices, but the comparison isn\'t fair or accurate. It\'s like saying two things are the same when they actually have important differences that should be considered. Example: \'If we don\'t ban all cars, then we don\'t care about stopping pollution.\' Explanation: This creates a false comparison between banning cars and caring about pollution, ignoring other ways to reduce pollution, like improving fuel efficiency or promoting public transport. It assumes there are only two extreme choices when there are more balanced options. FALSE/WEAK ANALOGY ================== A false or weak analogy is when someone compares two things that aren\'t really alike in the important ways that matter for the argument. It\'s like saying two things are similar, but the connection between them is not strong or relevant enough to make a valid point. Example: \'Running a business is just like running a car; if you give it fuel, it will keep going.\' Explanation: This comparison is weak because running a business is far more complex than fueling a car. While both may need resources to function, the way they operate and what keeps them running smoothly are very different. The analogy oversimplifies the business process by comparing it to something unrelated. CASTLE OF CARDS - UNWARRANTED LEAPS =================================== An unwarranted leap or castle of cards happens when someone makes a big conclusion based on weak or shaky reasoning. It\'s like building a tower on a weak foundation-if the small details aren\'t solid, the whole argument can collapse. Example: \'If I miss one day of school, I\'ll fail the class, won\'t graduate, and end up with no future.\' Explanation: This is an unwarranted leap because the person jumps to extreme conclusions based on one minor event (missing one day of school). The chain of reasoning is weak, and the outcomes are not logically connected. SLIPPERY SLOPE ============== A slippery slope is when someone argues that one small action will lead to a chain of bigger, often negative, events without showing how each step is connected. It\'s like saying if one thing happens, it will start a slide downhill, even if that\'s not necessarily true. Example: \'If we allow students to use calculators in class, next they\'ll rely on them for everything and soon won\'t be able to do any math on their own.\' Explanation: This assumes that allowing calculators will lead to students losing all math skills, but it doesn\'t provide evidence for each step in this extreme outcome. ATTACKING THE PERSON - EMOTIVE LANGUAGE / AD HOMINEM ==================================================== Emotive language/attacking the person is when someone uses emotional words or insults to criticize the person making the argument, instead of addressing the argument itself. It\'s like focusing on making the other person look bad rather than discussing the actual issue. Example: \'You can\'t trust his opinion on climate change; he\'s not smart enough to understand science.\' Explanation: Instead of addressing the person\'s actual argument about climate change, this response attacks the person\'s intelligence, which is irrelevant to the argument itself. This is designed to trigger emotions rather than engage in logical discussion. GENERALIZATIONS =============== A generalization is when someone makes a broad statement about a group or situation based on limited or incomplete information. It\'s like assuming something is true for everyone or everything based on just a few examples. Example: \'All teenagers are lazy and spend too much time on their phones.\' Explanation: This statement unfairly applies a characteristic (laziness) to all teenagers based on a stereotype or a few examples, ignoring that many teenagers are hardworking and use their phones for productive things. MISREPRESENTATION OR TRIVIALIZATION =================================== Misrepresentation or trivialization happens when someone either changes or oversimplifies an argument to make it easier to criticize or dismiss. It\'s like twisting someone\'s words or making something sound unimportant when it\'s actually more complex or serious. Example:\ Person A: \'We should reduce how much plastic we use to help the environment.\'\ Person B: \'So you think banning plastic straws will save the planet? That\'s ridiculous.\' Explanation: Person B is trivializing Person A\'s argument by focusing on a small part of the issue (plastic straws) and making it sound silly, while ignoring the broader point about reducing plastic use to help the environment. RED HERRING =========== A red herring is when someone introduces a different topic to distract from the main issue, leading the conversation off-track. It\'s like throwing in something unrelated to avoid addressing the real point. Example:\ Person A: \'We need to discuss how to improve employee working conditions.\'\ Person B: \'But what about the company\'s profits? We should focus on making more money.\' Explanation: Person B changes the subject to profits, diverting attention away from the original topic, which was about improving working conditions. This distracts from the main issue instead of addressing it. STRAW PERSON ============ A straw person is when someone misrepresents or exaggerates another person\'s argument to make it easier to attack. It\'s like setting up a weaker version of the argument just to knock it down. Example:\ Person A: \'We should have more balanced school lunches.\'\ Person B: \'So you\'re saying we should stop letting kids have any treats? That\'s extreme.\' Explanation: Person B distorts Person A\'s argument by exaggerating it (claiming A wants to ban all treats), making it easier to criticize. But Person A never said that-they were just suggesting more balance. COMMON OPINION / AD POPULUM =========================== Ad populum (or appeal to common opinion) is when someone argues that something is true or right just because many people believe it. It\'s like saying something must be correct just because it\'s popular. Example: \'Everyone says this diet works, so it must be the best way to lose weight.\' Explanation: Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn\'t mean it\'s necessarily true. Popular opinion doesn\'t always equal fact or quality. APPEALS TO QUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY ================================= Appeal to questionable authority is when someone uses the opinion of a person or source that isn\'t really an expert in the topic to support their argument. It\'s like saying something is true because a person with no real knowledge on the subject says so. Example: \'This celebrity said this vitamin cures all illnesses, so it must be true.\' Explanation: The celebrity might not be an expert in medicine, so using their opinion as proof isn\'t reliable. Just because someone is famous or well-known doesn\'t mean they are qualified to speak on every topic. FALSE PREMISE ============= A false premise is when an argument is based on an idea or statement that isn\'t true. If the starting point is wrong, the whole argument falls apart, even if the reasoning seems logical. Example: \'All dogs are dangerous. So, you shouldn\'t adopt a dog.\' Explanation: The argument is based on the false premise that all dogs are dangerous, which isn\'t true. Because the initial idea is incorrect, the conclusion (not adopting a dog) doesn\'t hold up. FALLACIES ========= A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning or logic. It\'s when someone makes an argument that seems convincing at first, but when you look closer, it doesn\'t make sense or isn\'t based on solid evidence. Fallacies often trick people into thinking something is true, even though the reasoning behind it is flawed. In short, it\'s like an argument that looks right but is built on weak or false ideas. The typical features of an argument include several key components that together form a structured line of reasoning:   1. **Author's position/point of view**: This reflects the author's stance or opinion on the topic and is typically based on personal assumptions. This point of view is often expressed in the conclusion of the argument.   1. **Premises or propositions**: These are statements that the author believes to be true and presents as reasons supporting the argument. They are the building blocks of the argument, providing the basis for the reasoning.   1. **Line of reasoning**: This refers to the logical flow or order in which the premises are organized. The argument follows a clear and structured path from one point to the next.   1. **Conclusion**: The conclusion is a statement that reflects the author's overall point of view or position. It is usually derived from the premises and reasoning presented earlier.   1. **Attempt to persuade**: Arguments often aim to convince or persuade the reader or audience, especially through the conclusion. The attempt to persuade is typically most evident in the conclusion.   In addition, arguments frequently use **indicator and signal words** like \"therefore\" or \"accordingly\" to highlight the logical connections between different parts of the argument. Ein Bild, das Text, Schrift, Screenshot, Reihe enthält. Automatisch generierte Beschreibung Implicit argument: ================== Definition: An argument that is not directly stated but implied. The reader or viewer must infer the message. Example: An ad shows a luxurious car driving through scenic mountains, implying that buying the car will make you feel free and adventurous. The argument is not stated, but the message is clear. Explicit argument: ================== Definition: A clearly stated argument where the author or speaker directly expresses their point. Example: A politician says, \"We need to raise taxes to improve schools.\" The argument is directly communicated: raising taxes will fund better education. Denoted message: ================ Definition: The literal, straightforward meaning of something without interpretation. Example: A picture of a red apple on a poster. The denoted message is simply, "This is an apple." Connoted message: ================= Definition: The deeper, implied meaning or associations beyond what is literally presented. Example: That picture of the red apple might suggest health, freshness, or temptation (like the apple in the story of Adam and Eve). These are meanings that go beyond just being an apple. Inductive message: ================== Definition: A message where specific examples lead to a broader generalization or conclusion. Example: A blog describes how several successful companies started with small budgets. The inductive message might be, \"Even with a small budget, you can start a successful business.\" Inductive reasoning: ==================== Definition: A method of reasoning that involves starting with specific observations and then drawing a general conclusion. Example: You observe that your neighbor\'s dog barks every time the mailman arrives. After seeing this happen multiple times, you conclude, \"Dogs bark when mailmen come.\" Deductive reasoning: ==================== Definition: A reasoning process that starts with a general principle or rule and applies it to specific instances to reach a conclusion. Example: You know that all mammals have hearts, and your pet dog is a mammal. Therefore, using deductive reasoning, you conclude that your dog has a heart. Interim/intermediate conclusion: ================================ Definition: A conclusion reached partway through an argument that helps build towards the final conclusion. Example: In an essay about climate change, you might first conclude that \"Global temperatures are rising.\" This is an intermediate conclusion based on evidence, which you later use to support your overall argument that \"We need to take action to reduce emissions.\" Questions you need to ask yourself, while analysing your opponents argument: ============================================================================  Logical **contradictions**: Are there contradictions?  Logical **fallacies**: Any fallacies present?  Evidence: Is evidence appropriate and accurate?  False **premises**: What principles support the argument?  Unaddressed **objections**: What objections haven't been addressed?  Taken **for granted**: What does the argument assume?  Attacks: How can the argument be attacked by opponents?