Scribd
Upload
124 views1 page

Cheat Sheet

This document defines and explains various types of logical fallacies, ambiguities, and cognitive biases. It discusses lexical, referential, syntactic, and vagueness ambiguities. It also outlines fallacies such as ad hominem, begging the question, red herring, straw man, and slippery slope. Additionally, it mentions suppressed evidence, post hoc fallacies, loaded questions, and various logical argument forms like modus ponens and modus tollens. Finally, it briefly discusses reportative versus stipulative definitions and types of disputes.

Uploaded by

ellie misener
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views1 page

Cheat Sheet

This document defines and explains various types of logical fallacies, ambiguities, and cognitive biases. It discusses lexical, referential, syntactic, and vagueness ambiguities. It also outlines fallacies such as ad hominem, begging the question, red herring, straw man, and slippery slope. Additionally, it mentions suppressed evidence, post hoc fallacies, loaded questions, and various logical argument forms like modus ponens and modus tollens. Finally, it briefly discusses reportative versus stipulative definitions and types of disputes.

Uploaded by

ellie misener
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ambiguity: expressions that mean or refer to more Lexical Ambiguity: word or expression when it has

than one thing more than one literal meaning


Equivocation: an argument equivocates when a key Referential Ambiguity: it is not clear what is being
term switch meaning referred to
Vagueness: a term when just in case it indeterminate Syntactic Ambiguity: expression can have multiple
exactly which thing applies grammatical structures with different meanings
Incomplete meaning: their presupposes certain Ad Hominem: arguing against an opponent by
standards of comparison, meaning is unclear attacking opponent rather than argument
Inappropriate emotional connotation occurs when Begging the question: making an argument with
emotional language is inappropriately used to bias our premises that presuppose its conclusions
reactions – Ex. “religion is the superstition in god” Red Herring: invoking irrelevant issue that diverts
Category Mistake: statement ascribes a property to attention from main subject
something that does not make sense for object to have Straw man: misrepresenting a claim or argument in
Empty meaning: provides little to no information order to make it easier to argue against
Jargon: specialized words for specialized people use Gamblers Fallacy: concluding that an event is more or
to communicate less likely because of independent events
Gobbledygook: obscure convoluted language of Supressed Evidence: presenting only confirming
jargon evidence when there is also disconfirming evidence
Non Sequitur: making an argument whose conclusions Naturalistic Fallacy: infirming something should be a
do not follow or support premises certain way because it is that way
Slippery Slope: falsely claiming that if we accept a False Dilemma: presenting a limited source of
claim we will have to accept an absurd or unacceptable alternatives when others should be considered
conclusion Genetic fallacy: judging that something has a property
Suppressed evidence: because it came from something else with that property
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: inferring X is a cause of Loaded Question: posing a question that contains
Y because y occurred before X unfair or unwarned assumptions

Modus Tollens: If P, then Q – Not Q, therefore not P Ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)


Modus Ponens: If P, then Q, P therefore Q Ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)
Disjunctive Syllogism: P or Q, Not-P Therefore Q Ad populum (app eal to popularity)
Hypothetical Syllogism: If P then Q, If Q then R,
therefore if P then R
Dilemma: P or Q, if P then R, if Q then S Therefore R
or S / P or Q If P then R, if Q then R Therefore R
Denying the Antecedent (not valid argument form):
If P then Q, Not P therefore not Q
Affirming the Consequent (not valid argument form)
If P then Q. Q therefore P
Logical possibility: just in case not contradictory
Nomological possibility: does not contradict laws of
Premises: 1-8
nature
Intermediate conclusion: P3, P6, P8
- An argument is valid if and only is there is no
Main conclusion: C
logical possible situation where all premises
# of sub arguments: 4
are true and conclusion is false

Reportative definitions: report a term existing Cognitive Bias: are persistency and widespread
meaning psychological tendencies that can be detrimental to
Stipulative definitions: definitions that assigns a objectively and rationality
meaning to a term Confirmation’s bias: look for evidence confirming
Verbal dispute: disagreement on the relevant facts but our own beliefs
use words differently
Factual dispute: which the parties disagree on a fact

You might also like