Fallacy Study Guide Flash Cards Using The Logical Fallacies ✓ Solved

Fallacy Study Guide Flash Cardsusing The Logical Fallacies Me

Fallacy Study Guide (Flash Cards) Using the Logical Fallacies Media piece (located in “Topic 3 Study Materials” tab) create flash cards to help you study for the fallacy quiz in Topic 4. To do so, fill in a definition and an example on each fallacy card below. After you have submitted this completed document to your instructor for a grade, you can print it out, cut out each fallacy card, and fold them in half to study with.

Hasty Generalization

Definition: A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is drawn from an insufficient amount of evidence. It involves making assumptions based on a small sample size or an unrepresentative sample.

Example: "My grandfather smoked his entire life and lived until 97, so smoking can't be that bad for you."

Appeal to Ignorance

Definition: This fallacy occurs when it is argued that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. It shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

Example: "No one has proven that aliens do not exist, so they must exist."

Either/Or

Definition: Also known as a false dichotomy, this fallacy presents two options as the only possibilities, when in fact more options may exist.

Example: "You're either with us, or against us."

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Definition: This fallacy posits that if one event occurs after another, the first event must be the cause of the second. It overlooks other factors that could influence the outcome.

Example: "I started wearing red shoes, and then I got a promotion. My shoes must have caused my promotion."

Extravagant Hypothesis

Definition: An extravagant hypothesis fallacy occurs when a complex or elaborate explanation is offered for something that can be explained more simply.

Example: "The sudden increase in crime rates is due to the new black hole that has formed in the city."

Composition

Definition: This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole. It overlooks how the parts can interact in ways that change the overall outcome.

Example: "Each player on the basketball team is excellent, so the team will definitely win the championship."

Slippery Slope

Definition: The slippery slope fallacy argues that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in a significant (often negative) effect.

Example: "If we allow students to redo their assignments, soon they will expect to redo all their tests, and then they won't take their studies seriously."

Appeal to Authority

Definition: This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because an authority or expert believes it, rather than providing actual evidence.

Example: "Celebrity X says this diet works, so it must be effective."

Circular Reasoning

Definition: Also known as begging the question, this fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.

Example: "I believe that freedom is important because being free is essential."

Division

Definition: The division fallacy assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of the individual parts, failing to account for individuality.

Example: "This team is the best in the league, so every player on the team must be the best player."

Appeal to Tradition

Definition: This fallacy posits that something is true or better simply because it has always been done that way.

Example: "We've always taught history this way, so it must be the best way to do it."

Is/Ought

Definition: The is/ought fallacy occurs when one claims that because something is a certain way, it ought to be that way as well, without providing justification.

Example: "People have always lied, so we ought to expect lies from everyone."

Bandwagon Appeal

Definition: This fallacy occurs when it is argued that one should accept a conclusion simply because it is popular or widely held.

Example: "Everyone is using this product, so it must be the best option available."

False Analogy

Definition: A false analogy fallacy arises when an argument is based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons between two things.

Example: "Using a phone is like driving a car; both can lead to accidents, so we should ban phones to prevent accidents."

Paper For Above Instructions

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. Understanding these fallacies is critical not only for academic success but also for everyday reasoning and debate. Throughout history, the study of logical fallacies has evolved, allowing individuals to identify and avoid common pitfalls in arguments, ultimately enhancing clarity and understanding in communication.

The concept of Hasty Generalization exemplifies a common error where we erroneously generalize based on limited evidence. For instance, saying someone is a bad driver based solely on one incident fails to recognize the broader context of their driving history (Walton, 2008).

Appeal to Ignorance is another prevalent fallacy, where individuals claim that something is true simply because it has not been disproven, as seen in debates over issues like climate change (Bowell & Kemp, 2010). This fallacy misplaces the burden of proof onto the opposing side, sidestepping the necessity for solid evidence.

Evidently, the Either/Or fallacy simplifies complex situations into a binary choice that does not encompass the full scope of possibilities. Such black-and-white thinking can lead to misguided conclusions in nuanced discussions, affecting areas such as politics and social issues (Toulmin et al., 1984).

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc illustrates a misunderstanding of causation; just because one event follows another does not imply a causal relationship. For instance, attributing economic growth solely to a new policy while neglecting other contributing factors is a flawed approach (Kahneman, 2011).

An Extravagant Hypothesis posits overly complex explanations when simpler alternatives exist. In scientific discussions, proposing convoluted theories rather than acknowledging established data can obscure understanding (Lindley, 2006).

The Composition fallacy operates under the assumption that what is true of individual parts must apply to the whole. This is evident in team sports, where exceptional individual talent does not guarantee a team's overall success (Cohen, 1989).

The Slippery Slope argument suggests that a minor action will lead to severe consequences without substantiating the chain of events. This tactic is commonly used in legislative debates, where opponents may exaggerate outcomes to instill fear (Walton, 1989).

By relying solely on an Appeal to Authority, one risks endorsing arguments without adequate evidence. While expert opinions are valuable, they do not substitute for rigorous analysis and verification (Fisher, 2001).

Circular Reasoning offers examples that create a loop in argumentation, where the conclusion repeats the premise, demonstrating a lack of substantive reasoning (Hurley, 2014).

The Division fallacy, similar to Composition, assumes what is true of the whole applies to its parts, leading to incorrect assumptions about individual members (Schum, 1994).

Appeal to Tradition valorizes old practices without questioning their validity, which can stifle innovation and progress. This fallacy often surfaces in discussions of social reform and technology adoption (Popper, 1974).

The Is/Ought fallacy merges descriptive claims with prescriptive conclusions, which distorts moral reasoning. Just because a pattern exists does not mean it should persist (Hume, 2000).

Finally, the Bandwagon Appeal suggests that popularity equates to validity, a dangerous fallacy that can mislead individuals in democratic societies (Cook, 1998).

References

• Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2010). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Taylor & Francis.
• Cohen, L. (1989). Applied Philosophy. Journal of Philosophy.
• Cook, D. (1998). A Review of Bandwagon Effect in Political Campaigns. Political Behavior.
• Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: A Beginner's Guide. Cambridge University Press.
• Hurley, P. J. (2014). A Concise Introduction to Logic. Cengage Learning.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Lindley, D. V. (2006). Understanding Uncertainty. Wiley.
• Popper, K. (1974). Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge.
• Schum, D. A. (1994). The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. Wiley.
• Walton, D. (1989). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, D. (2008). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. Destiny Books.
• Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning. Macmillan.
• Hume, D. (2000). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.