MODR 1760 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1-5: Syntactic Ambiguity, Fallacy

33 views1 pages

beigecat335

19 Sep 2019

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Appeal to Ignorance

- presenting the fact that we cannot show something is false as evidence that it is true, or vice versa

EX: No one can actually prove that God exists; therefore God does not exist.

Why: Just because one says something is not true, does not logically mean that is not true

- Fallacy of Equivocation

- when the meaning of a term shifts throughout an argument

Why: one can’t logically support an argument if the usage of the term changes in their argument

- Fallacy of Amphiboly

- here the ambiguity results from poor sentence structure rather than the meaning of the terms

Ex: 'Dr. Ruth to Talk About Sex With Newspaper Editors''

Why: One cannot logically argue that the argument is correct simply because the argument makes no sense

Why: just because the argument does not make sense it does not logically mean that it is incorrect

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 1 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Presenting the fact that we cannot show something is false as evidence that it is true, or vice versa. Ex: no one can actually prove that god exists; therefore god does not exist. Why: just because one says something is not true, does not logically mean that is not true. When the meaning of a term shifts throughout an argument. Why: one can t logically support an argument if the usage of the term changes in their argument. Here the ambiguity results from poor sentence structure rather than the meaning of the terms. Ruth to talk about sex with newspaper editors"" Why: one cannot logically argue that the argument is correct simply because the argument makes no sense.

Related Questions

A statement that is necessarily false, or a group of statements that, taken together, are inconsistent. A) Division B) Suppression C) Questionable Cause D) Contradiction 2. An attack on oneâs opponent rather than oneâs opponentâs argument. A) Faulty Comparison B) Categorical Proposition C) False Dilemma D) Ad Hominem Argument 3. Consciously believing at a deeper level what we know to be dubious. A) Mood B) Conclusion C) Self-Deception D) Irrelevant Reason 4. A limited perspective shaped by the ideas, interests, and kinds of behavior favored by the groups with which we identify. A) Provincialism B) Delusional C) Composition D) Tokenism 5. Drawing conclusions about a population on the basis of a sample that is too small to be a reliable measure of that population. A) Minor Term B) Small Sample C) Suppressed Evidence D) Rationalization 6. Is the following argument valid or invalid? If valid, explain whether it is deductive or inductive. If invalid, explain why: âMr. Michaels believes that he is the only person on the ballot capable of running our town. He says so time and again in his campaign speeches and ads. What he fails to mention is that he is an alcoholic womanizer with no scruples. Who in their right mind could vote for that?â HTML Editor 7. The fallacy in which it is assumed parts of an item have a particular property because the item as a whole has that property. A) Premise B) Indirect Proof C) Division D) Unrepresentative Sample 8. The fallacious drawing of a conclusion from relevant but insufficient evidence. A) Appeal to Authority B) Hasty Conclusion C) Loyalty D) Middle Term 9. Valid reasoning from justified (warranted) premises that include all likely relevant information. A) Guilt by Association B) Indirect Proof C) Cogent Reasoning D) Contradiction 10. A comparison of one thing to another based on a perceived similarity. A) Indirect Proof B) Analogy C) Two Wrongs Make a Right D) Questionable Cause 11. Is the following argument valid or invalid? If valid, explain whether it is deductive or inductive. If invalid, explain why: âMrs. Kelvin has accused me of intentionally denting her rear fender. I neither confirm nor deny this, however in telling her story she leaves out an important point. As we were both leaving our driveways that morning, I backed onto the street first. She saw this and then deliberately pulled in front of my vehicle as I was preparing to continue down the street. Mrs. Kelvin intended to cut me off, so what happened to her car was entirely her fault.â HTML Editor 12. Is the following argument valid or invalid? If valid, explain whether it is deductive or inductive. If invalid, explain why: âAfter careful consideration, it is the determination of the board that free soda will no longer be provided in the break room. Before making this decision, a survey was distributed amongst all members of the upper management to determine their opinion on the matter. Based on the majority of responses, it was evident that withdrawing the free soda will not have any significant negative effect on morale.â HTML Editor 13. Use of a term in a passage to mean one thing in one place and something else in another. A) Cogent Reasoning B) Superstition C) Equivocation D) Inconsistent

MODR 1760 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1-5: Syntactic Ambiguity, Fallacy

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

MODR 1760 Lecture 9: Session 9 Lecture - Fallacies that undermine the argumentation process

MODR 1760 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Strawperson, Begging, Fallacy

MODR 1760 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Saddam Hussein, Ad Hominem, Presupposition

Related Questions