PHIL 10 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Informal Fallacy, Lutefisk, Ad Hominem
Document Summary
Maybe it is explicitly stated, maybe not. Maybe they are explicitly stated, maybe not. Probably not controversial: when the premises and conclusion are clearly dis(cid:272)e(cid:396)(cid:374)ed, t(cid:396)(cid:455) to see the a(cid:396)gu(cid:373)e(cid:374)t(cid:859)s st(cid:396)u(cid:272)tu(cid:396)e, how is it that those premises are supposed to be supporting that conclusion, after (cid:455)ou(cid:859)(cid:448)e got all this: You know the argument structure: then you can assess whether it is a good argument, or whether it commits an informal fallacy, important note, we are assessing argument strength. Not the truth of the conclusion: a strong argument might have a false conclusion, and a weak argument might have a true conclusion. I know that the administrator said that filling out all these forms was crucial to obtaining financial support for the university. But these forms take a lot of time. Of course, an administrator wants there to be more pape(cid:396)(cid:449)o(cid:396)k. without fo(cid:396)(cid:373)s to p(cid:396)o(cid:272)ess, the(cid:455)(cid:859)d all (cid:271)e out of work.
