A fallacy a poor argument

its aim is to distract us from the argument in question, and to mislead us into taking a position that is not supported by evidence or reason
it persuades us in an illegitimate way
it is a mistake in reasoning
A good argument one that persuades is in a legitimate way, giving evidence and reason to support it's claim
the structure enables us to see the conclusion that follows the premise
Difference between fallacy an unsound argument :
fallacy deceitful, tempts us to be persuaded
unsound argument does not
Three different kinds of fallacies :
used to distract attention from the weak point of an argument
can appear to be sound because of a false link to a really sound argument
Distraction used by con artists
can be persuasive because of their tendency to distract our attention away from the weak points of an argument
illegitimate appeal to emotion
Emotion confuse emotion with reason
provide a motive for belief rather than supporting reasons
Structural appear to be sound because of a counterfeit resemblance to the form or structure of a valid argument
DISTRACTION FALLACIES
Begging the question (conclusion is Equivocation (use words Faulty analogy (comparison, partial
Slippery Slope Argument Strawman (visualise a scarecrow) begged) ambiguously) Complex Question likeness)
occurs when a word or expression
small aspect is blown up into a shifts meaning from one premise to
reasoning in a chain with conditionals strawman, only so that it can be another; i.o.w. when a word is used
(if X, then Y), where at least one of broken down - makes the opposing first in one sense in obne part of an when the pr5ocess of reasoning
the if-then premises is false or view look absurd by making the argument, and then in a different applied to one set of circumstances
doubtful, so that the conclusion does arguers position look strong and arguer takes for granted the truth of sense in another part of the same fallacy based on many questions - or characteistics is applied to another
not follow vice-versa what he is trying to prove argument usually 2 or more are combined set that is or seems similar
can be identified by looking for 2
false premises : (1) the one that
inaccurately presents the opponents an analogy in an argument only
view, and (2) the implicit premise that conclusion follows from the premise succeeds when the analogy is
attention distracted from the weak you either accept the :unacceptable in the trivial sense that it only a trick is used to roll 2 or more suitable to the case - if the analogy is
premise straight to th bottom of the position" or you must support the restates the premise in different claims are misleading and questions into one and demand a unsuitable, the argument is based on
slope (conclusion) arguers position words ambiguous yes or no answer faulty analogy
to test : push it to its limits and look
closes the door on critical and open at all aspects of the two things or
no other alternatives offered circular reasoning debate the
casesstrength
being of the analogy depends
compared
on the number of similarities between
to recognise, consider a question in two cases or concepts, as well as the
an argument - if they premieditate a reklevance of the similarities
audience is none the wiser at the particular answer and in doing so mentioned in the premises leading
feeble attempt end of the argument bias a critical debate, it's this fallacy up to the conclusion
ocurs when what is supposedly
proved by the conclusion is already
assumed to be true in the premise

Ad hominem arguments
does not tackle the issue at hand
arguer makes a personal attack on
the character, circumstances or
interests of the person who is
advancing a claim in an attempt to
discredit him/her - can work in 3
ways :
(1) personal attack that makes claims
about certain characteristics of an
individual that are almost impossible
to change e.g. age, height, weight,
disability
(2) attack on individuals
circumstances - attempt to discredit a
person for his/her political, social
affiliation, dietary choice, religion etc.
False appeal to authority
when the arguer cites a famous
person or person in authority to get a
point aqcceptd, rather than
grounding their conclusion on solid
evidence
the "expert" quoted is usually not an
expert in the field under discussion
EMOTION FALLACIES
Appeal to force or coersion Appeal to the masses False dilemma Hasty generalisation
arguer appeals to the threat of force,
coersion or violence in order to
induce the acceptance of a also called false dichotomy or when a generalisation is dawn on the
conclusion (not minipulation) excluded middle basis of insufficient evidence
an attempt to persuade an audience
based on popular feelings, mass
sentiment or enthusiasm or
patriotism, rather than offering presentation of an either-or choice, occurs in moral discourse where a
often used by people in a position of relevant evidence or good reasons where there ae actually more moral principle is drawn on the basis
authority and power for accepting a conclusion alternatives of insufficient evidence
can be njurious to people's careers rests on a confusion between a generalisation is drawn on the
and damaging to their emotional well negatives and opposites, and basis of too small a sample, or an
being confuses emotion with reason excludes any middle ground atypical case - stereotypes and other
poor inferences have bee4n drawn
about entire groups on the basis of
manifested in interpersonal black or white thinking, for or against either too little information, or a group
relationships etc. that is not representative

when evaluating arguments with

(3) deny the claims of an opponnt by premises based on generalisations
ocusing on the interests of the (quite legitimate), check whether they
person making the claim contain unfounded assumptions
confuse emotion with reason based on hasty heneralisations
STRUCTUAL FALLACIES
Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent
a conditional statement has the following form : if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent) - if I left my wallet at home
I would not have been able to pay for the groceries when someone argues that because the antecedent doesn't happen the consequent cannot happen
it is fallacious to deny the antecedent and to assume that this is a ground for denying the consequent
fallacy is committed when the consequent in a conditional statement is affirmed on the grounds that the fallacious reasoning occures when the arguer claims that because one causal factor did not happen, the effect
antecedent is true could not happen
How to analyse arguments
Signal/indicator words indicate which statements are premises and which are conclusions
premise indicators -
conclusion indicators - immdiately prior to the
immediately prior to the statement that is a
statement that is a premise - roughly mean
conclusion "for the reason that"
therefore because
in conclusion if…
so insofar as
it follows that seeing that
we can conclude that since
thus then… moveover
consequently firstly, secondly
this shows that for
accordingly for the reason that
subsequently in the light of
as a consequence
hence
indicator words often omitted from an argument because arguers assume it is obvious which of their statements are premis
to identify an argument with no indicator words, we
employ the principle of charitable interpretation

the structure of the argument is important when analysing - not the content or meaning of the statements, whether they pro
Method of identifying the Structure of the argument
structure of an argument (1) identify the conclusion - the issue being debated, the point that is being made in the argum
(2) determine the premises
(3) decide how the
premises are related to
the conclusion

missing
easy way premises,
to check is to delete one of the premises in an argument and determine if the remaining premise(s) conclusively
necessary
if yes, thento theaffirm
premises support the concusion independently
where the conclusion
acceptability of the is
ifimplicit,
no, then all the premises support the conclusion interdependently
conclusion, are referredour
we must draw to
ownassumptions
as conclusion from theor
- views
context
positionsoflikely
the argument
to b held by
the arguer, but not
explicitly stated
a sound argument is one in which the concluion is shown to be true or acceptable because it follows from the tr
valid structure of the argument
Analysing a complex argument
complex/chain argument contains sub-arguments
complex/chain argument
conclusion of a sub-argument may serve as a premise for a further sub-argument, and possib
for another argument
the acceptability of the main argument depends in part on the acceptability of the first argumen
if difficult to analyse, consider the argument in the context that it is presented
is it part of an article whose main point is communicated in the title? - If yes, how is the argum
paraphrase and simplify the passage - removal of confusing and inessential elements will mak

Steps for analysing an argument

(1) clarify whether an read entire passage and decide if it is an argument
argument is present does it have a conclusion with supporting premises?
(2) bracket and number number in order that they appear
statements ensure the statements make sense
statement : an assertion that is either true or false, it makes a claim about some state of affair
hold, and it does, then the statement is true; if it does not hold, the statement is false. A ques
statement - they cannot be either true or false
(3) identify the underline conclusion indicators
conclusion/s if the conclusion is implied, state it in full
(4) identify the premises underline the premise indicators
search for the premise/s that lead directly to the conclusion
do they support the conclusion independently or interdependently?
both types may be present in an agument
fill in any missing premises (if necessary) - find the conclusion first, then locate the statements
directly and add the implicit premise/s
(5) represent the structure identify the key components of the argument
of the argument i.e. what kind of argument - simple or chain?
identify the conclusion
identify the premises
 purpose is to reveal the structure of the argument
h statements are premises and which are conclusions

ument because arguers assume it is obvious which of their statements are premises and which is the conclusion
when more than one interpretation of an argument is possible, the argument should be interpreted so that the
premises provide the strongest support for the conclusion
to decide what is the most reasonable to believe
test each statement in an argument as the role of the conclusion, with the remaining statements acting as
premises - statement best supported by the others should be taken to be the conclusion
or, rewrite the argument and fill in the missing indicator words
when analysing - not the content or meaning of the statements, whether they provide good evidence for the conclusion
Structure of the argument
e conclusion - the issue being debated, the point that is being made in the argument
the premises
if the premises support the conclusion individually, it is called independently
1 premises 2

conclusion
where premises support the conclusion interdependently, both premises need to be true and support the
conclusion together
neither premise would support the conclusion on its own
1 premises 2

conclusion
premises in an argument and determine if the remaining premise(s) conclusively support(s) the conclusion
usion independently
nclusion interdependently

concluion is shown to be true or acceptable because it follows from the truth or acceptability of the premises and the
valid structure of the argument

arguments
 a sub-argument may serve as a premise for a further sub-argument, and possibly the conclusion for this argument as a premise
gument
ity of the main argument depends in part on the acceptability of the first argument (sub-argument)
nalyse, consider the argument in the context that it is presented
article whose main point is communicated in the title? - If yes, how is the argument related to the point?
nd simplify the passage - removal of confusing and inessential elements will make the argument clearer

Steps for analysing an argument

ssage and decide if it is an argument
a conclusion with supporting premises?
er that they appear
atements make sense
n assertion that is either true or false, it makes a claim about some state of affairs in the world - if it asserts that a state of affairs
oes, then the statement is true; if it does not hold, the statement is false. A question, exclamation, request or command is not a
ey cannot be either true or false
clusion indicators
on is implied, state it in full
premise indicators
premise/s that lead directly to the conclusion
ort the conclusion independently or interdependently?
ay be present in an agument
ing premises (if necessary) - find the conclusion first, then locate the statements that seem to support the conclusion most
dd the implicit premise/s
y components of the argument
of argument - simple or chain?
nclusion
emises
 Evaluating arguments
Why do we do it? to criticaly examine the plausibility of the claim/s being made
to identify assuptions, preconceived ideas, fallicious reasoning
finding possible solution
making informed & reasoned decisions
validity not the same as truth
a valid argument is one with premises that support the claim - valid structure
premises may be false, but if they give adequate support for the conclusion, they are valid
structural - not concerned with truth or uncertainty
soundness truth or strength of premises

Types of arguments
premises assert that some empirically determinable facts apply
arguments about facts
Empirical arguments premises support conclusion, or convince the audience that the conclusion is true
premises can be proved to be true - verified by using the senses
asserts a judgement or moral claim about what one ought or ought not to do
value - subjective - determines decisions we make, judgements etc.
value arguments are about values - not facts
Value arguments moral values are controversial and problematic because they cannot be verified or falsified w
difficult to determine
a good value argumentwhether valueargument
is a sound statements
- ifare
thetrue or false,follows
conclusion right orfrom
wrong
the premises, an
conclusion are acceptable
it is poor when it is fallacious or when reasons advanced are not true or certain
an argument in which the premises are supposed to give sufficient support for the conclusion
Deductive arguments :
not all deductive arguments are sound
two types Valid deductive argument
structure is valid
premises offer sufficient support for the
conclusion
to test whether premises provide sufficient
support for the conclusion, establish whether
the conclusion follows logically from the
premises
Inductive arguments : the conclusion can only be said to follow with probability even if the premises are assumed to
premises provide some support, but never conclusive support for the conclusions
inductive leap : when we infer something beyond the contents of the premise
three types Statistical extrapolations

common

used by arguers to strengthen their arguments

reference to statistical study or evidence

How to distinguish a good argument from a bad one

soundness and validity good reason is given to believe the premises, and the premises adequately support the concl
consistency premises do not contradict one another
valid a good argument provides evidence or reasons that support the conclusion
to establish whether a premise is relevant to a conclusion assume that it's false and then dec
conclusion
if it does not make a differece, then we can disregard the premise as irrelevant support for the
compatibility in a good argument the claims that are advanced in support of the conclusion are compatible
compatibility
to test, check whether or not the claims contradict other claims we know are true
 Evaluating arguments
of the claim/s being made
ideas, fallicious reasoning

ons

es that support the claim - valid structure

ive adequate support for the conclusion, they are valid
or uncertainty

Types of arguments
lly determinable facts apply

nvince the audience that the conclusion is true

verified by using the senses
about what one ought or ought not to do
sions we make, judgements etc.
not facts
problematic because they cannot be verified or falsified with evidence/lack of
statements
argument - ifare
thetrue or false,follows
conclusion right orfrom
wrong
the premises, and if the premises or reasons given for the

en reasons advanced are not true or certain

are supposed to give sufficient support for the conclusion to follow
nd
Invalid deductive argument
premises fail to give sufficient support for the
conclusion

ollow with probability even if the premises are assumed to be true

t never conclusive support for the conclusions
ething beyond the contents of the premise
Arguments from analogy Argument using cause-and-effect reasoning
care must be taken not to confuse correlation
comparison of two cases with cause
points to a common featureor principle in both correlation : two things or 4events are closely
cases related
cause : a certain fact or event produced
a familiar situation is compared to an unfamiliar something else - its effect or result
one, and then a common feature or principle is causal reasoning is a form of inductive
highlighted reasoning

premises, and the premises adequately support the conclusion

ther
e or reasons that support the conclusion
levant to a conclusion assume that it's false and then decide whether it makes a difference to the truth of the

we can disregard the premise as irrelevant support for the conclusion

are advanced in support of the conclusion are compatible with other claims we know are true
ims contradict other claims we know are true