question

Laws of Logic

answer

Make discourse possible!

question

Law Of Non-Contradiction

answer

~(P.~P)

question

Law of Excluded Middle

answer

Something either is or is not P V ~P

question

Law of Identity

answer

Something is what it is P=P

question

Undeniable

answer

The laws of Logic

question

Premises

answer

Reasons tying to prove one of the other propositions

question

Conclusion

answer

The belief that one is trying to support

question

Inference

answer

The relationship between the premises and the conclusion

question

Validity

answer

refers to the structure of an argument; an argument is considered valid if the conclusion follows from the premises; it is invalid if the conclusion does not follow (non-sequitur).

question

Non-Sequitur

answer

The conclusion does not follow / No Inference

question

Truth Value

answer

The truth value of propositions in an argument has nothing to do with its validity or strength / The validity or strength has nothing to do with truth value

question

Sound

answer

Deduction/ Both are valid and premises are true arguments

question

Deduction

answer

A form of logical reasoning in which the aim is to arrive at a conclusion that is logically necessary given the premises

question

Syllogism

answer

A logical argument that consists of two premises and a conclusion that is structured according to the certain rules of valid inference that governs the particular syllogism being used

question

Syllogism (powerpoint def.)

answer

The formal procedure for writing out a deductive argument

question

Categorical proposition

answer

A proposition that affirms or denies something in terms of two categories: subject and predicate.

question

Disjunctive proposition

answer

A proposition which affirms or denies something in terms of two alternatives (known as alternants) in the form of an "either/or" statement.

question

Hypothetical proposition

answer

A conditional statement that affirms or denies something in terms of an antecedent (usually expressed as "If") and a consequent (usually expressed as "then").

question

Pure Hypothetical Syllogism

answer

Both of the premises, as well as the conclusion, are conditionals. For such a conditional to be valid the antecedent of one premise must match the consequent of the other. What one may validly conclude, then, is a conditional containing the remaining antecedent as antecedent and the remaining consequent as consequent.

question

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism

answer

One of the premises is an conditional while the other serves to register agreement (affirmation) or disagreement (denial) with either the antecedent or consequent of that conditional. There are thus four possible forms of such syllogisms, two of which are valid, while two of which are invalid.

question

Modus Ponens

answer

Means and Methods of affirming the consequent

question

Modus Tollens

answer

Means and Methods of denying the consequent

question

Denying the Antecedent

answer

If p, then q. Not p. Not q.

question

Affirming the Consequent

answer

If p, then q. q. p.

question

Induction

answer

form of argument in which the premises give grounds for the conclusion but do not necessitate it

question

Method of Generalization

answer

Most Common Type of Inductive Arguments. One gathers together identical particular instances and arrives at some form of generalization

question

Method of Analogy

answer

An argument from analogy occurs when one observes relevantly similar particulars and attempts to arrive at a probable conclusion

question

Probability Calculus

answer

Reasons on the basis of set rules in determining the likelihood of something occuring given all possible variables

question

Statistical Reasoning

answer

Based n the gathering of sample population and arriving at average percentages and general trends

question

Causal Inference

answer

Begins with observed effect and reasoned back to its cause

question

Hypothetical Reasoning

answer

Begins with an unknown explanation. A hypothesis is fomulates and tested with the goal of explaining the problem

question

Hasty Generalization

answer

Basing a conclusion on an insufficient number of particulars or amount of evidence

question

Sweeping Generalization

answer

Applying a generalization to a specific case to which the rule does not apply; treating a general principle as a hard and fast rule

question

False Analogy

answer

Drawing an analogy between two things that are not similar in relevant areas.

question

Fallacy

answer

An error in logic

question

False Cause

answer

Assuming a causal relation when there is little or no evidence of one.

question

Hypostatization

answer

Abstract terms are used concretely without clarification, usually through personification: "Morality is culturally determined", "Death with dignity"

question

Equivocation

answer

Terms change their meaning in the middle of the argument: "A woman has a right to have an abortion, therefore it is right for her to do so."

question

Begging the Question

answer

the main question or issue is not really addressed, but is ignored or evaded.

question

Bifurcation

answer

Only two options are presented when other options are possible

question

Special Pleading

answer

An illegitimate double standard is applied that distorts the facts

question

Ad Hominem

answer

attacking the person who is making the argument rather than the argument itself: "He's a liberal, therefore his argument obviously makes no sense."

question

Ad Populum

answer

appealing to the fact that a belief is popular or commonly believed as evidence for its truthfulness: "No one believes anymore that you should wait for marriage to have sex."

question

Rhetoric

answer

the art of persuasive writing and speaking

question

Rhetorical Force

answer

The attempt to persuade someone to adopt a belief based psychological or emotive response one has towards the idea.

question

Euphemism

answer

expressing a proposition in a favorable or good light; using positive imagery to portray a person or situation

question

Dysphemism

answer

expressing a proposition in a negative or bad light; using negative imagery to portray a person or situation

question

Weaselers

answer

A manner of phrasing an expression that allows the speaker to appear to make a direct claim while actually being evasive, vague, or ambiguous making the claim to be empty of meaning.

question

Downplayers

answer

A manner of phrasing a proposition that devalues or dismisses a claim to make it look less important than originally conceived. It is often accomplished by inserting a dismissive term: "just", "so-called" or just putting term in quotations: "He thinks he's a "scholar""

question

Stereotypes

answer

A cultural belief about a specific social group's characteristics, usually expressed in a simplified or exaggerated manner; can be positive or negative.

question

Innuendo

answer

The power of indirect or subtle suggestion to disparage (say something negative about) a person, event, or thing.

question

Loaded Question

answer

AKA Complex Question. A question whose purpose is to imply something rather than state it; similar to an innuendo but comes in the form of a question.

question

Hyperbole

answer

an extravagant overstatement or exaggeration normally not to be taken literally, but can influence one's thinking that a situation is better or worse than it is.

question

Proof Surrogate

answer

the suggestion that there exists legitimate evidence or authority for a claim while never actually citing it

PHIL 201- Exam 2 Study Prep – Flashcards

Unlock all answers in this set

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards