Section 4: Critical Thinking D265 WGU

Section 4: Critical Thinking D265 WGU

4.7 (3 reviews) Students also studied Terms in this set (28) Western Governors UniversityD 265 Save

WGU D265 Critical Thinking: Reason...

43 terms Atraniv_98Preview

Critical Thinking: Reason and Eviden...

124 terms MsDaniLaniPreview D265 Critical Thinking (STUDY THIS ...75 terms JessycaLockett Preview Week 6

• terms

not Practice questions for this set Learn1 / 6Study using Learn each premise is different and unrelated to each other but each support the conclusion Fallacies of RelevanceArguments that are really distractions from the main point Choose an answer 1single cohesive support mapping example 2related premise support mapping example 3 multiple independent support mapping example 4contradictory premise mapping example Don't know?

• Ad Hominem
• Appeal of Consquences
• Genetic Fallacy
• Equivocation
• Ad Populum
• Irrelevant Appeals

Types of Fallacies of Relevance ad hominem attackAn attack on a person rather than his or her argument Genetic FallacyCondemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.Irrelevant Appealsattempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand ad populum (aka bandwagon)This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to "everybody's doing it, so it must be a good thing to do." appeal of consquencesattempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving Equivocationthe use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication Fallacies of Weak InductionA group of informal fallacies that occur because the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

• Hasty Generalization

-Appeal to Ignorance

• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Types of Fallacies of Weak Induction Appeal to IgnoranceA fallacy that uses an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the conclusion's correctness.post hoc ergo propter hocThis fallacy is Latin for "after which therefore because of which," meaning that it is incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier. One may loosely summarize this fallacy by saying that correlation does not imply causation.Hasty GeneralizationA fallacy in which a faulty conclusion is reached because of inadequate evidence.Fallacies of PresumptionArguments that make unwarranted assumptions about either the data or the nature of a reasonable argument

• False Dilemma
• Burden of Proof

Types of Fallacies of Presumption false dilemma fallacyargument in which a speaker reduces available choices to only two even though other alternatives exist; also called the either-or fallacy

burden of proofthe obligation to present evidence to support one's claim Burden of proof shiftingWhen one decides that someone else must prove them wrong when, in reality, they are the person with the burden of proof.Argument MappingA way to visually analyze an argument so that the relation between the evidence and conclusions is clear conjoint supportWhen a premise doesn't seem to support the conclusion without the help of the other premises.independent supportWhen each premise seems like its an argument for the conclusion on its own.Hidden Assumptionsunstated premises and conclusions direct and independent support mapping example 2 solely supports the conclusion on its own multiple independent support mapping example each premise is different and unrelated to each other but each support the conclusion indiect support mapping example3 is indirect to the conclusion conjoint support mapping exampleboth premises are related to each other and are both needed to support the conclusion.mapping hidden assumptionsA hidden assumption will always offer conjoint support for its conclusion/sub- conclusion.hidden assumptions mapping example