The document discusses the offense of attempt and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. It provides context about cases related to determining what constitutes an act that is "more than merely preparatory." It also examines the requirements for the actus reus and mens rea for an attempted offense. Students are prompted to consider problems applying the law on attempts and justify imposing liability for attempts with reference to cases and principles.
The document provides strategies for approaching critical reasoning problems on the GMAT. It emphasizes using logic over grammar to analyze arguments by identifying premises, conclusions, and assumptions. It recommends restating arguments in your own words and predicting how additional information could strengthen or weaken the conclusion before evaluating answer choices. A 5-step approach is outlined: 1) Read the question first, 2) Read the argument, 3) Restate the argument, 4) Predict the answer, 5) Eliminate incorrect answers. Different critical reasoning question types are also briefly described.
RLGN 104 – Test 2, Liberty University (5 Versions), Complete SolutionsNiniProton
This document contains 20 multiple choice questions from 5 versions of an RLGN 104 Test 2 from Liberty University. The questions cover topics like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the trinity, types of fallacies, evidence and critical thinking.
Slides for the concepts of conjunction, negation, contradiction, the Principle of Noncontradiction, proof by counter-example, and reductio ad absurdams
This document provides the answers to a BUSN 410 midterm exam. It contains 25 multiple choice questions testing critical thinking and business communication concepts. To access the full exam answers, users are instructed to follow a link to download the file or contact the website for more information via email.
This document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether an argument is "good" based on criteria such as the acceptability of its premises, logical validity, clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness. Premises should not conflict with personal experience or background beliefs unless sufficient evidence is provided. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
The document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether they are good arguments and whether their premises are acceptable. A good argument must be logically valid/cogent, clear, precise, have relevant premises, be consistent, complete, and fair. For premises to be acceptable, they should not conflict with experience or background beliefs and should come from a credible source. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false/dubious or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
The document discusses the offense of attempt and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. It provides context about cases related to determining what constitutes an act that is "more than merely preparatory." It also examines the requirements for the actus reus and mens rea for an attempted offense. Students are prompted to consider problems applying the law on attempts and justify imposing liability for attempts with reference to cases and principles.
The document provides strategies for approaching critical reasoning problems on the GMAT. It emphasizes using logic over grammar to analyze arguments by identifying premises, conclusions, and assumptions. It recommends restating arguments in your own words and predicting how additional information could strengthen or weaken the conclusion before evaluating answer choices. A 5-step approach is outlined: 1) Read the question first, 2) Read the argument, 3) Restate the argument, 4) Predict the answer, 5) Eliminate incorrect answers. Different critical reasoning question types are also briefly described.
RLGN 104 – Test 2, Liberty University (5 Versions), Complete SolutionsNiniProton
This document contains 20 multiple choice questions from 5 versions of an RLGN 104 Test 2 from Liberty University. The questions cover topics like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the trinity, types of fallacies, evidence and critical thinking.
Slides for the concepts of conjunction, negation, contradiction, the Principle of Noncontradiction, proof by counter-example, and reductio ad absurdams
This document provides the answers to a BUSN 410 midterm exam. It contains 25 multiple choice questions testing critical thinking and business communication concepts. To access the full exam answers, users are instructed to follow a link to download the file or contact the website for more information via email.
This document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether an argument is "good" based on criteria such as the acceptability of its premises, logical validity, clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness. Premises should not conflict with personal experience or background beliefs unless sufficient evidence is provided. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
The document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether they are good arguments and whether their premises are acceptable. A good argument must be logically valid/cogent, clear, precise, have relevant premises, be consistent, complete, and fair. For premises to be acceptable, they should not conflict with experience or background beliefs and should come from a credible source. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false/dubious or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
This document provides guidance on developing critical reasoning skills, including how to write an argumentative essay. It discusses focusing on an issue, forming a stand, introducing arguments, addressing counterarguments, and concluding by restating the stand and arguments. The document also covers researching sources, questioning assumptions, and outlining an argumentative essay structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Key elements like a thesis, reasons, evidence, and previews are defined. Guidance is provided on counterarguments, rebuttals, titles, and engaging in group work to choose an issue for a critical reasoning assignment.
The document provides guidance on strategies for critical reasoning questions on the GMAT. It discusses that critical reasoning problems test logic rather than grammar. It outlines a 5-step approach to critical reasoning questions: 1) read the question first, 2) read the argument, 3) paraphrase the argument, 4) predict the answer, 5) use error identification to eliminate incorrect answers. It also discusses key terms like premises, conclusions, and assumptions and provides examples of strengthening and weakening arguments.
This document discusses definitions and truth. It defines key terms used in critical thinking such as contradiction, consistency, and conjunction. It explains that definitions should precisely specify a term's meaning by clarifying its extension or intension. To evaluate the truth of a claim, one must determine if the things referred to have the properties or stand in the relations stated. Definitions can be normative and stipulate a term's meaning or descriptive and report its actual use. Assumptions should be made carefully in critical thinking.
Critical thinking fall 2014 2015 (chapters 6,7,8,11 and 12 analyzing and eval...XixiViolet
Here are some potential fallacies you could commit in your sampling:
- Hasty generalization - Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a small, non-representative sample.
- Sampling bias - Only sampling data that agrees with your hypothesis and ignoring data that contradicts it.
- Leading/loaded question - Asking questions in a way that biases or leads respondents toward answering in a particular way.
- Confirmation bias - Seeking out or assigning more weight to information that confirms your preconceptions, and ignoring or undervaluing information that contradicts them.
- False dichotomy - Presenting sampling options as if they are mutually exclusive when there are actually other alternatives.
Being aware
The document reports on a mixed modes experiment that explored how different survey interview modes impacted responses. Key findings include:
- Face-to-face and telephone interviews resulted in less satisficing behavior and less socially desirable responses to sensitive questions compared to web interviews.
- However, not all hypothesized differences between modes were found, such as less primacy/recency effects.
- Cognitive interviews revealed some respondents chose categories for less than optimal reasons, though this was more common in web and telephone interviews.
- Ranking and rating questions showed different levels of non-differentiation between modes, with interviews faring better for ranking but similar for rating.
The document discusses the importance of precision in language to avoid misunderstandings. It provides examples of ways language can be imprecise, such as through vagueness, ambiguity, overgenerality, and different definitions of key terms. It also outlines various strategies for defining terms precisely, such as stipulating definitions, persuasive definitions, lexical definitions, and definitions by genus and difference.
This document discusses different types of inductive arguments and fallacies in reasoning. It provides examples and analysis of several common fallacies, including hasty generalization, weak analogy, accident, post hoc, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, and question begging. The key points are that memorizing fallacies is less useful than understanding the criteria to evaluate different types of arguments, and that some supposed fallacies are better understood as factual errors or criticisms rather than logical flaws.
The document discusses several logical fallacies of insufficient evidence including:
1) Inappropriate appeal to authority, which occurs when an unreliable authority is cited.
2) Appeal to ignorance, which claims something is true just because it hasn't been proven false.
3) False alternatives, which insists there are fewer options than actually exist.
4) Loaded questions, which contain hidden assumptions that make it difficult to answer without appearing to endorse those assumptions.
PHIL 201 Quiz 2 Liberty University Homeworksimple.comHomework Simple
https://www.homeworksimple.com/downloads/phil-201-quiz-2-liberty/
PHIL 201 Quiz 2 Liberty University
PHIL 201 Quiz 2: Logic, Fallacy and Argument
Module 2: Week 2
In deductive reasoning, the argument is either valid or invalid.
A one-to-one comparison between two or more things is:
Propositions are evaluated according to their
The most common form of inductive reasoning is:
“Something is or is not” comes under the category of a law of logic:
If a fallacy doesn’t break a formal rule, but there is still something wrong with the reasoning, it is called:
One should avoid using emotional language in an argument as it usually distorts and misleads the argument.
This fallacy argues erroneously from the whole to each of the parts:
Identify the fallacy: The Bible says we should do to others what we would have them to do for us. Therefore I have no problem sharing the questions and answers of this quiz with another student.
Identify the fallacy: Senator Newkirk’s arguments to increase federal spending for the military should be rejected. He is only arguing because he has several military bases in his state and is beginning his re-election campaign.
The Latin phrase that means ‘it does not follow’ is:
In a valid “mode of affirming” deductive argument, when the antecedent is affirmed in a premise, the only valid conclusion would be:
A valid deductive argument has a conclusion that is:
“God is perfectly loving. God judges evil.” These propositions, taken together, are technically described as:
While a formal fallacy is mistaken in the form of the argument, an informal fallacy makes a mistake in the content and the meaning of the content in the argument.
Which fallacy commits a mistake of relevance:
Occam’s razor says:
One factor that strengthens a causal argument:
Knowing the main point of the argument will help me find the conclusion.
The principle of simplicity says we should try to simplify complex arguments.
The term that refers to a set of beliefs in which none of them contradicts the others:
An analogy is an inductive argument.
Invalid deductive arguments are the same as inductive arguments.
A sound deductive argument could be invalid.
In a deductive syllogism, if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, then the argument is valid.
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
This document discusses logical fallacies and how to identify them. It begins by defining logical fallacies as common errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. It then explains key fallacies such as ad hominem, non sequitur, and slippery slope. The document provides examples of each fallacy type and emphasizes the importance of recognizing fallacies in order to craft strong arguments and evaluate counterarguments. It concludes with guidance on identifying fallacies in one's own writing.
Logical Fallacies and Arguments and Factual Evidences to Defend a Stand.pptxejamesmdavid
The document discusses logical fallacies and how to defend a position with strong arguments and evidence. It defines logical fallacies as errors in reasoning that weaken an argument. Some common fallacies explained are slippery slope, complex question, appeal to authority, bandwagon, attacking the person, hasty generalization, post hoc, straw man, inconsistency, and appeal to force. Guidelines are provided for developing a clear and well-supported position using claims, assessing opposing views, taking a firm stand, organizing arguments, and considering the audience.
Be happy english assessment complete get correct answers meritLily Liberty
Be Happy English Assessment complete get correct answers merit
Look for Liberty University Master having a lot of different quiz versions.
You won’t miss A grade for sure.
https://www.coursemerit.com/solution-details/25619/Liberty-University-UNIV-104-English-Assessment-complete-solutions-correct-answers-key
The document discusses different argument structures including Toulmin and Rogerian schemes. It provides an overview of the key elements of a Toulmin argument including the claim, reason, warrant and proof. It then gives examples of how to apply Toulmin analysis to evaluate arguments on various topics. The document also summarizes the key aspects of a Rogerian argument which aims to find common ground rather than convince the opponent.
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning and arguments. It defines the key terms and provides examples to illustrate the differences between deductive and inductive arguments. Specifically, it notes that deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support for conclusions based on premises, while inductive arguments provide probable support based on observations or experiences. It then examines various types of deductive and inductive arguments as well as common logical fallacies.
Examine written and visual advertisements.Select five advertgalinagrabow44ms
Examine
written and visual advertisements.
Select
five advertisements that demonstrate the use of five different fallacies outlined in the University of Phoenix Material: Common List of Logical Fallacies.
Write
a 350-word summary for each of your selected advertisements in which you address the following: in apa format
Summarize the content of the advertisement.
Identify the fallacy portrayed by the advertisement.
Describe how the fallacy is used as a persuasive argument.
Explain why you think that the creators of the advertisement used the fallacy to promote this product or concept.
Common Logical Fallacies
The following is a list of common fallacies. Some are covered in the textbook, and others are introduced by the faculty member. Use this document for your reference.
1. Ad hominem, or attacking the person: This fallacy involves attacking the arguer rather than his or her argument. Consider the following example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight because he is a convicted felon.
Note. Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If you are discussing a person—such as a politician—criticizing him or her does not mean you have created an ad hominem fallacy.
2. Ad ignorantium, or appeal to ignorance: This fallacy, sometimes called the burden of proof fallacy, involves arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven; if you can't prove that something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. Consider the following example: You can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist, so there must be one.
3. Ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority: This fallacy involves trying to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. This often involves an authority in one field speaking about a subject outside of his or her expertise. A sports star with little car expertise who endorses a car and the actor on a TV commercial who says "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV” are examples of this fallacy.
4. Affirming the consequent: This fallacy involves an invalid form of the conditional argument in which the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Consider the following example: If he wants to get that job, he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so he will get the job.
5. Amphiboly: This is a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity in which the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase; it is created by word placement. Consider the following example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. She should be reported for animal abuse.
6. Appeal to emotion: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logic to persuade the listener. This fallacy may appeal to v ...
Recognizing Fallacies
Constructing sound arguments requires valid logic and reasoning. If your premises (reasoning) are incorrect they are considered to be “fallacies”. There are several different types of fallacies that exist. Once you recognize the fallacies you are more likely to avoid them in your reasoning.
(Hint: refer to textbook Chapter 11 for more information on fallacies.)
1.
Match
each fallacy with its definition in the chart below.
A. Begging the question
G. Appeal to fear
H. Questionable cause
B. Hasty generalization
C. False dilemma
I. Two wrongs make a right
D Slippery slope J. Misidentification of the cause
E. Appeal to authority
F. Bandwagon
___
.
Also known as circular reasoning because the reasoning assumes the conclusion is true.
___
.
Sometimes occurs due to “peer pressure” or groupthink phenomenon when you may be influenced to conform to the opinion of the group.
___
.
A causal situation where we are unsure of the actual root cause of the issue. It’s possible to ignore a possible cause or to incorrectly assume a common cause.
___
.
This argument states that the action (or conclusion) is a justified response to another wrong action (or conclusion).
___
.
This occurs when there is no real evidence for the argument. Superstitions are a good example of this.
___
.
The “either/or” fallacy – the argument presents only two extreme alternatives and does not allow for alternative options.
___
.
Indicates that one negative action will lead to another, and then another worse one, and so on and so forth all leading to a terrible end result
___
.
Basing a belief on a source or person who is not qualified to give an expert opinion on the subject.
___
.
The argument supports its conclusion not by evidence, but by demands or threats of punishment or misfortune.
___
.
A general conclusion is reached based on a very small sample, so the reasons provide weak support for the conclusion.
Deductive Argument
In a deductive argument, the premises (reasoning) provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. Deductive arguments are VALID or INVALID.
EXAMPLE:
Valid
– All children are young.
Johnny is a child.
Therefore, Johnny is young.
Invalid – All children are young.
Johnny is a child.
Therefore, all children are Johnny.
Complete each deductive argument below with a valid conclusion.
2.
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: I am human.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am _______________
3.
Premise 1: All birds have feathers.
Premise 2: Cardinals are birds.
Conclusion: Therefore, cardinals have _______________
4.
Premise 1: There is a party at work today.
Premise 2: Jimmy is sick and not at work today.
Con.
This document discusses the logical fallacy of begging the question. It defines begging the question as using circular reasoning to avoid addressing the original question. An example is given where it is assumed that euthanasia is murder without proving that premise. Readers are taught to identify begging the question and other logical fallacies to avoid being manipulated. A number of examples are provided and discussed to illustrate when an argument does or does not constitute begging the question.
This document discusses informal fallacies in arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as a defect in reasoning other than false premises. Fallacies can be formal, identified through argument structure, or informal, identified through content analysis. The document then classifies 22 common informal fallacies into 5 groups: fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. It provides examples and explanations of 4 specific fallacies of relevance - appeal to force, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, and argument against the person. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid informal fallacies in their own reasoning.
This document discusses informal fallacies in arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as a defect in reasoning other than false premises. Fallacies can be formal, identified through argument structure, or informal, identified through argument content. The document then classifies 22 common informal fallacies into 5 groups: fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. It provides examples and explanations of 4 specific fallacies of relevance - appeal to force, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, and argument against the person. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid informal fallacies in their own reasoning.
This document provides guidance on developing critical reasoning skills, including how to write an argumentative essay. It discusses focusing on an issue, forming a stand, introducing arguments, addressing counterarguments, and concluding by restating the stand and arguments. The document also covers researching sources, questioning assumptions, and outlining an argumentative essay structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Key elements like a thesis, reasons, evidence, and previews are defined. Guidance is provided on counterarguments, rebuttals, titles, and engaging in group work to choose an issue for a critical reasoning assignment.
The document provides guidance on strategies for critical reasoning questions on the GMAT. It discusses that critical reasoning problems test logic rather than grammar. It outlines a 5-step approach to critical reasoning questions: 1) read the question first, 2) read the argument, 3) paraphrase the argument, 4) predict the answer, 5) use error identification to eliminate incorrect answers. It also discusses key terms like premises, conclusions, and assumptions and provides examples of strengthening and weakening arguments.
This document discusses definitions and truth. It defines key terms used in critical thinking such as contradiction, consistency, and conjunction. It explains that definitions should precisely specify a term's meaning by clarifying its extension or intension. To evaluate the truth of a claim, one must determine if the things referred to have the properties or stand in the relations stated. Definitions can be normative and stipulate a term's meaning or descriptive and report its actual use. Assumptions should be made carefully in critical thinking.
Critical thinking fall 2014 2015 (chapters 6,7,8,11 and 12 analyzing and eval...XixiViolet
Here are some potential fallacies you could commit in your sampling:
- Hasty generalization - Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a small, non-representative sample.
- Sampling bias - Only sampling data that agrees with your hypothesis and ignoring data that contradicts it.
- Leading/loaded question - Asking questions in a way that biases or leads respondents toward answering in a particular way.
- Confirmation bias - Seeking out or assigning more weight to information that confirms your preconceptions, and ignoring or undervaluing information that contradicts them.
- False dichotomy - Presenting sampling options as if they are mutually exclusive when there are actually other alternatives.
Being aware
The document reports on a mixed modes experiment that explored how different survey interview modes impacted responses. Key findings include:
- Face-to-face and telephone interviews resulted in less satisficing behavior and less socially desirable responses to sensitive questions compared to web interviews.
- However, not all hypothesized differences between modes were found, such as less primacy/recency effects.
- Cognitive interviews revealed some respondents chose categories for less than optimal reasons, though this was more common in web and telephone interviews.
- Ranking and rating questions showed different levels of non-differentiation between modes, with interviews faring better for ranking but similar for rating.
The document discusses the importance of precision in language to avoid misunderstandings. It provides examples of ways language can be imprecise, such as through vagueness, ambiguity, overgenerality, and different definitions of key terms. It also outlines various strategies for defining terms precisely, such as stipulating definitions, persuasive definitions, lexical definitions, and definitions by genus and difference.
This document discusses different types of inductive arguments and fallacies in reasoning. It provides examples and analysis of several common fallacies, including hasty generalization, weak analogy, accident, post hoc, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, and question begging. The key points are that memorizing fallacies is less useful than understanding the criteria to evaluate different types of arguments, and that some supposed fallacies are better understood as factual errors or criticisms rather than logical flaws.
The document discusses several logical fallacies of insufficient evidence including:
1) Inappropriate appeal to authority, which occurs when an unreliable authority is cited.
2) Appeal to ignorance, which claims something is true just because it hasn't been proven false.
3) False alternatives, which insists there are fewer options than actually exist.
4) Loaded questions, which contain hidden assumptions that make it difficult to answer without appearing to endorse those assumptions.
PHIL 201 Quiz 2 Liberty University Homeworksimple.comHomework Simple
https://www.homeworksimple.com/downloads/phil-201-quiz-2-liberty/
PHIL 201 Quiz 2 Liberty University
PHIL 201 Quiz 2: Logic, Fallacy and Argument
Module 2: Week 2
In deductive reasoning, the argument is either valid or invalid.
A one-to-one comparison between two or more things is:
Propositions are evaluated according to their
The most common form of inductive reasoning is:
“Something is or is not” comes under the category of a law of logic:
If a fallacy doesn’t break a formal rule, but there is still something wrong with the reasoning, it is called:
One should avoid using emotional language in an argument as it usually distorts and misleads the argument.
This fallacy argues erroneously from the whole to each of the parts:
Identify the fallacy: The Bible says we should do to others what we would have them to do for us. Therefore I have no problem sharing the questions and answers of this quiz with another student.
Identify the fallacy: Senator Newkirk’s arguments to increase federal spending for the military should be rejected. He is only arguing because he has several military bases in his state and is beginning his re-election campaign.
The Latin phrase that means ‘it does not follow’ is:
In a valid “mode of affirming” deductive argument, when the antecedent is affirmed in a premise, the only valid conclusion would be:
A valid deductive argument has a conclusion that is:
“God is perfectly loving. God judges evil.” These propositions, taken together, are technically described as:
While a formal fallacy is mistaken in the form of the argument, an informal fallacy makes a mistake in the content and the meaning of the content in the argument.
Which fallacy commits a mistake of relevance:
Occam’s razor says:
One factor that strengthens a causal argument:
Knowing the main point of the argument will help me find the conclusion.
The principle of simplicity says we should try to simplify complex arguments.
The term that refers to a set of beliefs in which none of them contradicts the others:
An analogy is an inductive argument.
Invalid deductive arguments are the same as inductive arguments.
A sound deductive argument could be invalid.
In a deductive syllogism, if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, then the argument is valid.
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
This document discusses logical fallacies and how to identify them. It begins by defining logical fallacies as common errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. It then explains key fallacies such as ad hominem, non sequitur, and slippery slope. The document provides examples of each fallacy type and emphasizes the importance of recognizing fallacies in order to craft strong arguments and evaluate counterarguments. It concludes with guidance on identifying fallacies in one's own writing.
Logical Fallacies and Arguments and Factual Evidences to Defend a Stand.pptxejamesmdavid
The document discusses logical fallacies and how to defend a position with strong arguments and evidence. It defines logical fallacies as errors in reasoning that weaken an argument. Some common fallacies explained are slippery slope, complex question, appeal to authority, bandwagon, attacking the person, hasty generalization, post hoc, straw man, inconsistency, and appeal to force. Guidelines are provided for developing a clear and well-supported position using claims, assessing opposing views, taking a firm stand, organizing arguments, and considering the audience.
Be happy english assessment complete get correct answers meritLily Liberty
Be Happy English Assessment complete get correct answers merit
Look for Liberty University Master having a lot of different quiz versions.
You won’t miss A grade for sure.
https://www.coursemerit.com/solution-details/25619/Liberty-University-UNIV-104-English-Assessment-complete-solutions-correct-answers-key
The document discusses different argument structures including Toulmin and Rogerian schemes. It provides an overview of the key elements of a Toulmin argument including the claim, reason, warrant and proof. It then gives examples of how to apply Toulmin analysis to evaluate arguments on various topics. The document also summarizes the key aspects of a Rogerian argument which aims to find common ground rather than convince the opponent.
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning and arguments. It defines the key terms and provides examples to illustrate the differences between deductive and inductive arguments. Specifically, it notes that deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support for conclusions based on premises, while inductive arguments provide probable support based on observations or experiences. It then examines various types of deductive and inductive arguments as well as common logical fallacies.
Examine written and visual advertisements.Select five advertgalinagrabow44ms
Examine
written and visual advertisements.
Select
five advertisements that demonstrate the use of five different fallacies outlined in the University of Phoenix Material: Common List of Logical Fallacies.
Write
a 350-word summary for each of your selected advertisements in which you address the following: in apa format
Summarize the content of the advertisement.
Identify the fallacy portrayed by the advertisement.
Describe how the fallacy is used as a persuasive argument.
Explain why you think that the creators of the advertisement used the fallacy to promote this product or concept.
Common Logical Fallacies
The following is a list of common fallacies. Some are covered in the textbook, and others are introduced by the faculty member. Use this document for your reference.
1. Ad hominem, or attacking the person: This fallacy involves attacking the arguer rather than his or her argument. Consider the following example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight because he is a convicted felon.
Note. Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If you are discussing a person—such as a politician—criticizing him or her does not mean you have created an ad hominem fallacy.
2. Ad ignorantium, or appeal to ignorance: This fallacy, sometimes called the burden of proof fallacy, involves arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven; if you can't prove that something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. Consider the following example: You can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist, so there must be one.
3. Ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority: This fallacy involves trying to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. This often involves an authority in one field speaking about a subject outside of his or her expertise. A sports star with little car expertise who endorses a car and the actor on a TV commercial who says "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV” are examples of this fallacy.
4. Affirming the consequent: This fallacy involves an invalid form of the conditional argument in which the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Consider the following example: If he wants to get that job, he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so he will get the job.
5. Amphiboly: This is a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity in which the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase; it is created by word placement. Consider the following example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. She should be reported for animal abuse.
6. Appeal to emotion: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logic to persuade the listener. This fallacy may appeal to v ...
Recognizing Fallacies
Constructing sound arguments requires valid logic and reasoning. If your premises (reasoning) are incorrect they are considered to be “fallacies”. There are several different types of fallacies that exist. Once you recognize the fallacies you are more likely to avoid them in your reasoning.
(Hint: refer to textbook Chapter 11 for more information on fallacies.)
1.
Match
each fallacy with its definition in the chart below.
A. Begging the question
G. Appeal to fear
H. Questionable cause
B. Hasty generalization
C. False dilemma
I. Two wrongs make a right
D Slippery slope J. Misidentification of the cause
E. Appeal to authority
F. Bandwagon
___
.
Also known as circular reasoning because the reasoning assumes the conclusion is true.
___
.
Sometimes occurs due to “peer pressure” or groupthink phenomenon when you may be influenced to conform to the opinion of the group.
___
.
A causal situation where we are unsure of the actual root cause of the issue. It’s possible to ignore a possible cause or to incorrectly assume a common cause.
___
.
This argument states that the action (or conclusion) is a justified response to another wrong action (or conclusion).
___
.
This occurs when there is no real evidence for the argument. Superstitions are a good example of this.
___
.
The “either/or” fallacy – the argument presents only two extreme alternatives and does not allow for alternative options.
___
.
Indicates that one negative action will lead to another, and then another worse one, and so on and so forth all leading to a terrible end result
___
.
Basing a belief on a source or person who is not qualified to give an expert opinion on the subject.
___
.
The argument supports its conclusion not by evidence, but by demands or threats of punishment or misfortune.
___
.
A general conclusion is reached based on a very small sample, so the reasons provide weak support for the conclusion.
Deductive Argument
In a deductive argument, the premises (reasoning) provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. Deductive arguments are VALID or INVALID.
EXAMPLE:
Valid
– All children are young.
Johnny is a child.
Therefore, Johnny is young.
Invalid – All children are young.
Johnny is a child.
Therefore, all children are Johnny.
Complete each deductive argument below with a valid conclusion.
2.
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: I am human.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am _______________
3.
Premise 1: All birds have feathers.
Premise 2: Cardinals are birds.
Conclusion: Therefore, cardinals have _______________
4.
Premise 1: There is a party at work today.
Premise 2: Jimmy is sick and not at work today.
Con.
This document discusses the logical fallacy of begging the question. It defines begging the question as using circular reasoning to avoid addressing the original question. An example is given where it is assumed that euthanasia is murder without proving that premise. Readers are taught to identify begging the question and other logical fallacies to avoid being manipulated. A number of examples are provided and discussed to illustrate when an argument does or does not constitute begging the question.
This document discusses informal fallacies in arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as a defect in reasoning other than false premises. Fallacies can be formal, identified through argument structure, or informal, identified through content analysis. The document then classifies 22 common informal fallacies into 5 groups: fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. It provides examples and explanations of 4 specific fallacies of relevance - appeal to force, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, and argument against the person. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid informal fallacies in their own reasoning.
This document discusses informal fallacies in arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as a defect in reasoning other than false premises. Fallacies can be formal, identified through argument structure, or informal, identified through argument content. The document then classifies 22 common informal fallacies into 5 groups: fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. It provides examples and explanations of 4 specific fallacies of relevance - appeal to force, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, and argument against the person. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid informal fallacies in their own reasoning.
The document discusses various types of logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning that can undermine arguments. It defines fallacies as violations of logical laws or erroneous forms of reasoning. The document then explains 12 common informal fallacies, including appeals to emotion, authority, popularity and ignorance. It provides examples to illustrate each fallacy. The document concludes by presenting statements containing potential fallacies and asking the reader to identify them, along with answering any additional questions.
The document discusses illogical logic and techniques used to win arguments without sound reasoning. It describes 10 tactics people may use, such as name-calling, criticism, changing the subject, playing the victim, and accusing others of bias. The document also contains a legal disclaimer stating the company providing advice is not responsible for how clients use that advice.
The document discusses logical fallacies and different types of faulty reasoning. It begins by explaining deductive and inductive reasoning, and how faulty syllogisms and incorrect premises or conclusions can lead to logical fallacies. It then defines a logical fallacy as an error in reasoning, and explains that fallacious arguments may sound convincing but are flawed. The document proceeds to discuss 9 common logical fallacies - red herring, post hoc, circular reasoning, hasty generalization, appeal to tradition, false dilemma, appeal to fear, false analogy, and non sequitur. It emphasizes the importance of being able to identify logical fallacies in one's own and other's writing.
The document discusses various logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, false dilemma, special pleading, argument ad ignorantiam, false analogy, and loaded questions. It then discusses reason and certainty, the three laws of thought (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle), and evaluating whether one should always be logical or if emotion has a role. Lateral thinking puzzles are presented and evaluated. In conclusion, an essay question is posed about the extent to which all knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism.
Similar to Liberty university phil 201 quiz 2 complete solutions correct answers key (18)
Liberty university biol 101 study guide quiz 7 solutions answers slideshareLiberty Liberty
This document is a study guide for a biology quiz that covers topics related to evolution and the origin of life. It includes review questions about Charles Darwin's observations and theory of evolution by natural selection. It also discusses challenges to explaining the origin of life through natural processes alone, such as how the first cells and genetic code may have formed. Additionally, it reviews evidence for evolution in structures like feathers and asks questions about the role of mutation and natural selection. The document evaluates both theistic and naturalistic perspectives on these topics.
Liberty university biol 101 study guide quiz 6 solutions answers slideshareLiberty Liberty
This document is a study guide for a biology quiz that covers topics related to organism responsiveness and reproduction. It includes questions about hormone signaling in the brain and lactose regulation in bacteria. It also addresses meiosis, sexual and asexual reproduction, human reproduction including gamete formation and fertilization. Questions cover birth control methods and philosophical debates around defining personhood and abortion.
Liberty university biol 101 study guide quiz 4 solutions answers slideshareLiberty Liberty
This study guide covers gene expression and protein synthesis. It provides questions to test understanding of key concepts like:
- Transcription of DNA into mRNA and how transcription solves problems for the cell.
- Translation of mRNA into proteins using tRNA and the ribosome. The genetic code and how it represents amino acids.
- Cell division, the cell cycle stages, and mitosis. Cancer results from mutations that disrupt normal cell division controls.
- Early human development from fertilized egg to embryo and fetus, including formation of germ layers and organ systems.
Liberty university biol 101 study guide quiz 3 solutions answers slideshareLiberty Liberty
This study guide covers key concepts in energy flow and cellular biology:
1. Living systems require a constant flow of energy to maintain structure and function. Energy exists in various forms and is converted between forms through chemical and physical processes.
2. Chemical reactions within cells are regulated by enzymes, which lower the activation energy needed for reactions to occur. Metabolic pathways involve sequences of enzyme-catalyzed reactions.
3. Aerobic respiration uses glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and electron transport phosphorylation to break down glucose and generate large amounts of ATP through oxidative phosphorylation. Photosynthesis uses light energy to synthesize carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water.
Liberty university biol 101 study guide quiz 2 solutions answers slideshareLiberty Liberty
This document contains a study guide and quiz questions for a biology course. It covers topics like the four main classes of biomolecules (carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, nucleic acids), their structure and functions. It also discusses prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell structure, organelles, and their various roles. The summary provides an overview of the document's content in 3 sentences:
The study guide covers biomolecules like carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, discussing their monomers, polymers, and functions in the body. It also examines prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell structure, comparing their organelles and membranes. Key cell structures like nuclei, ribosomes, mitochond
Liberty university biol 101 study guide quiz 1 solutions answers slideshareLiberty Liberty
This document provides a study guide and solutions for a biology quiz covering key concepts from the first chapter of a Liberty University biology textbook. It includes questions about biological levels of organization from atoms to ecosystems, principles of life like unity and diversity, teleology in nature, atomic structure and chemical bonding. Sample questions assess understanding of scientific method, experiments on sleep deprivation and prayer studies. The guide emphasizes complexity and efficiency in living systems at the molecular level, with carbon's role in organic molecules.
Liberty university hius 221 quiz 2 complete solutions correct answers key
Liberty university phil 201 quiz 2 complete solutions correct answers key
1. Liberty University PHIL 201 quiz 2 complete solutions correct answers key
More than 5 versions
Find the solution at
https://www.coursemerit.com/solution-details/15912/PHIL-201-quiz-2-complete-solutions-correct-answers-key
Question 1 It is possible for an argument to be valid and all the premises to be false.
Question 2 A onetoone comparison between two or more things is:
Question 3 We know that the laws of logic are selfevident and undeniable because
Question 4 In a valid deductive argument the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
Question 5 The Latin phrase that means ‘it does not follow’ is:
Question 6 This may be the most wellknown fallacy of presumption:
Question 7 Identify the fallacy: He's the third student I've caught cheating on the test. It just proves
that you can't trust students these days.
Question 8 The “fallacy of hypostatization” treats an abstract word like a concrete word.
Question 9 The red herring fallacy:
Question 10 The fallacy that applies a double standard without warrant is called:
Question 11 A positive/negative approach is the weakest approach to take in presenting an argument.
Question 12 The term for beliefs relating together in a way that is mutually supportive:
Question 13 The explanation that can be understood with the least amount of effort, vagueness, and
ambiguity has the best:
Question 14 The principle of simplicity says we should try to simplify complex arguments.
Question 15 One factor that strengthens a causal argument:
2. Question 16 An inductive argument is measured in degrees of probability:
Question 17 A sound deductive argument could be invalid.
Question 18 In a deductive syllogism, if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, then the
argument is valid.
Question 19 Type of argument that begins with a problem with an unknown explanation, forms a theory
and tests the theory.
Question 20 Identify this kind of argument: If naturalism is true, then all things are determined and
there is no free will. If there is no free will then morality makes no sense. Therefore, if naturalism is true
then morality makes no sense.
Question 1 The most common form of inductive reasoning is:
Question 2 The first and perhaps most primary law of logic is:
Question 3 A onetoone comparison between two or more things is:
Question 4 The “if” part of a hypothetical proposition is called the:
Question 5 The Latin phrase that means ‘it does not follow’ is:
Question 6 Identify the fallacy: He's the third student I've caught cheating on the test. It just proves
that you can't trust students these days.
Question 7 One should avoid using emotional language in an argument as it usually distorts and
misleads the argument.
Question 8 The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the meaning of a significant term changes in the
middle of an argument.
Question 9 This fallacy is sometimes referred to as the false dilemma:
Question 10 If a fallacy doesn’t break a formal rule, but there is still something wrong with the reasoning,
it is called:
3. Question 11 The principle of simplicity says we should try to simplify complex arguments.
Question 12 The two great enemies of good arguments are:
Question 13 Plausibility is the aspect of a best explanation approach that
Question 14 Knowing the main point of the argument will help me find the conclusion.
Question 15 A positive/negative approach is the weakest approach to take in presenting an argument.
Question 16 Type of argument that begins with a problem with an unknown explanation, forms a theory
and tests the theory.
Question 17 In a deductive syllogism, if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, th en the
argument is valid.
Question 18 An inductive argument is measured in degrees of probability:
Question 19 An analogy is an inductive argument.
Question 20 An inference drawn from statistical reasoning is deductive.
Question 1 The “if” part of a hypothetical proposition is called the:
Question 2 In a valid deductive argument the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
Question 3 The law of excluded middle states
Question 4 If an argument is sound, it means
Question 5 The Latin phrase that means ‘it does not follow’ is:
Question 6 The red herring fallacy:
Question 7 A fallacy of relevance:
Question 8 The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the meaning of a significant term changes in the
middle of an argument.
Question 9 The fallacy that applies a double standard without warrant is called:
4. Question 10 One should avoid using emotional language in an argument as it usually distorts and
misleads the argument.
Question 11 The two great enemies of good arguments are:
Question 12 One way to defeat an argument using an example is to respond with a counterexample.
Question 13 The term that refers to a set of beliefs in which none of them contradicts the others:
Question 14 A best explanation approach is often the best way to argue because many issues in
philosophy do not have perfect solutions.
Question 15 The principle of simplicity says we should try to simplify complex arguments.
Question 16 Type of argument that begins with a problem with an unknown explanation, forms a theory
and tests the theory.
Question 17 An argument where one gathers identical particular instances and arrives at a common
conclusion:
Question 18 An argument may be evaluated as “true” or “false.”
Question 19 Invalid deductive arguments are the same as inductive arguments.
Question 20 An inductive argument is measured in degrees of probability:
Question 1
We know that the laws of logic are self‑evident and undeniable because
Question 2
If an argument is sound, it means
Question 3
In a valid deductive argument the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
Question 4
The first and perhaps most primary law of logic is:
Question 5
According to the reading, even God cannot create a contradiction.
Question 6
The “fallacy of hypostatization” treats an abstract word like a concrete word .
Question 7
5. This fallacy occurs when an argument is distorted to an extreme and becomes a false
imitation of the original argument:
Question 8
This fallacy is sometimes referred to as the false dilemma:
Question 9
Identify the fallacy: Senator Newkirk’s arguments to increase federal spending for the
military should be rejected. He is only arguing because he has several military bases
in his state and is beginning his re‑election campaign.
Question 10
This fallacy claims that if a position is popular then it must be right:
Question 11
Explanatory Scope refers to :
Question 12
Which of the following should we do first in our analysis of an argument's validity?
Question 13
In the best explanation approach, illumination
Question 14
One factor that strengthens a causal argument:
Question 15
The term that refers to a set of beliefs in which none of them contradicts the others
Question 16
A sound deductive argument could be invalid.
Question 17
An analogy is an inductive argument.
Question 18
If you have enough evidence you can be logically certain of a conclusion arrived at
inductively.
Question 19
Invalid deductive arguments are the same as inductive arguments .
Question 20
The formal procedure for writing out a deductive argument is called
Question 1 The most common form of inductive reasoning is:
Question 2 A onetoone comparison between two or more things is:
Question 3 It is possible for an argument to be valid and all the premises to be false.
Question 4 A mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the premise denies the consequent is called:
6. Question 5 The Latin phrase that means ‘it does not follow’ is:
Question 6 Identify the fallacy: He's the third student I've caught cheating on the test. It just proves
that you can't trust students these days.
Question 7 “Begging the question” is a fallacy of presumption.
Question 8 Slippery slope and straw man are really doing the same thing, just in a different order.
Question 9 The “fallacy of hypostatization” treats an abstract word like a concrete word.
Question 10 The fallacy that applies a double standard without warrant is called:
Question 11 One way to resolve the problem of conflicting authorities is to:
Question 12 The two great enemies of good arguments are:
Question 13 Plausibility is the aspect of a best explanation approach that
Question 14 The principle of simplicity says we should try to simplify complex arguments.
Question 15 Which of the following should we do first in our analysis of the ‘validity’ of an argument?
Question 16 An analogy is an inductive argument.
Question 17 Invalid deductive arguments are the same as inductive arguments.
Question 18 An argument where one gathers identical particular instances and arrives at a common
conclusion:
Question 19 The formal procedure for writing out a deductive argument is called
Question 20 Identify this kind of argument: If naturalism is true, then all things are determined and
there is no free will. If there is no free will then morality makes no sense. Therefore, if naturalism is true
then morality makes no sense.