* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Logical Fallacies Chart APLAC TERM DEFINITION EXAMPLE 1
Truth-bearer wikipedia , lookup
Willard Van Orman Quine wikipedia , lookup
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus wikipedia , lookup
Axiom of reducibility wikipedia , lookup
Foundations of mathematics wikipedia , lookup
Abductive reasoning wikipedia , lookup
Quantum logic wikipedia , lookup
Modal logic wikipedia , lookup
Jesús Mosterín wikipedia , lookup
Propositional calculus wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical logic wikipedia , lookup
Curry–Howard correspondence wikipedia , lookup
Intuitionistic logic wikipedia , lookup
Natural deduction wikipedia , lookup
History of logic wikipedia , lookup
Combinatory logic wikipedia , lookup
Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup
Law of thought wikipedia , lookup
Logical Fallacies Chart APLAC TERM 1. Dicto Simpliciter (Sweeping generalization; Stereotyping) 2. Hasty Generalization 3. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc 4. Contradictory Premises 5. Ad Misericordiam (appeal for sympathy) 6. False analogy 7. Hypothesis contrary to fact 8. Poisoning the well DEFINITION Argument based on unqualified generalization Argument based on limited or biased sample to reach conclusion; leads to faulty conclusion Assumes A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. Often superstitions arise from Post hoc logic. The two premises contradict; therefore, the logic is faulty; This fallacy's most popular appearance is in the form of a challenging question, because questions with contradictory premises are such brain teasers. Someone tries to win support for their argument or idea by exploiting her or his opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact. Where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. EXAMPLE 9. Equivocation (Circular Logic) Using the same term with different meanings 10. Non sequitur (“it does not follow”) The conclusion does not follow the argument; missing step: no direct relationship 11. Begging the question Assumes that something is true when it is in need of proof 12. Ignoring the question (red herring) Ignores the real issue by the use of distracting information 13. Faulty dilemma (either/or reasoning) 14. Ad hominem (to the person) All options are not taken into account in the solution posed by the major premise. ignores the real issue by turning attention to an individual; occurs in the midst of an argument. Logical Structures 15. Syllogism 16. Enthymeme Formal logical reasoning method containing 3 parts: 1 major premise, 1 minor premise, and a conclusion. Each part must be categorical. All A are B, All C are A, therefore all C are B. Syllogisms use careful diction and syntax. A “truncated syllogism” since either the major or minor premise of a syllogism is left implied; informal logic. All humans are mortal, Socrates is human, Therefore, Socrates is mortal. We cannot trust this man, for he has perjured himself in the past. Major premise omitted: Those who perjure themselves cannot be trusted.