Please enter something

PHIL 201- Exam 2 Study Prep

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

Alternant
answer

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

Antecedent
answer

question

Consequent
answer

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
question

Cultural Bias
answer

question

Belief Bias
answer

question

Confirmation Bias
answer

question

Availability Heuristic
answer

question

False Consensus Effect
answer

question

Bandwagon Effect
answer