FLAW IN THE REASONING QUESTIONS
The correct answer will identify the error in the author’s reasoning and describe that error in general terms. Closely examine the relationship between the premises and the conclusion
1. UNCERTAIN USE OF A TERM OR CONCEPT
Ambiguous use/different meaning/in two different ways/equivocate/shift in meaning/fails to define
2. SOURCE ARGUMENT(针对人)
Attacks the person (or source) instead of the argument they advance.
Makes an attack on the character of opponents
It is directed against the proponent of a claim rather than against the claim itself
He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself
It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position’s source
Assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
3. CIRCULAR REASONING（the premise and the conclusion are identical in meaning）
Assumes as true what is supposed to be proved.
It assumes what it seeks to establish
Argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises
Presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove
The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate
It takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish
It offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion
4. ERROR OF CONDITIONAL REASONING
It is often used the word “sufficient(assured)”, “necessary(required)” to indicate this kind of errors
Taking the nonexistence of sth as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist (MISTAKEN NEGATION)
Mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it (MISTAKEN REVERSAL)
It treats sth that is necessary for bringing about a state of affairs as sth that is sufficient to bring about a state of affair(CONFUSES A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR A SUFFICIENT CONDITION)
From the assertion that sth is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized (CONFUSES A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR A SUFFICIENT CONDITION)
Confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition (CONFUSE A SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR A NECESSARY CONDITION)
Infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that it could only have resulted from that cause.
5. MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT
Note the frequency with which the word “cause ” or ”effect” are used
(1) assuming a causal relationship on the basis of the sequence of events
mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship
(2) assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation exists
confusing the coincidence of two events with a causal relation between the two
assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated
(3) failure to consider an alternative cause for the effect, or an alternative cause for both the cause and the effect
fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect
overlooks the possibility that the same thing may causally contribute both to education and to good health
(4) failure to consider that the events may be reversed
the author mistakes an effect for cause
6. STRAW MAN
The author attempts to attack an opponent’s position by ignoring the actual statement made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process. Often use the phrase “what you’re saying is” or ”if I understand you correctly” to preface the refashioned and weakened argument
Refutes a distorted version of an opposing position
Misdescribing the student representative’s position, thereby making it easier to challenge
Portrays opponents’ views as more extreme than they really are
Distorts the proposal advanced by opponents
7. GENERAL LACK OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE FOR THE CONCLUSION
The author cites irrelevant data
Draws a conclusion that is broader in scope than is warranted by the evidence advanced
It uses irrelevant facts to justify a claim about the quality of the disputed product
It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches
It introduces information unrelated to its conclusion as evidence in support of that conclusion
8. INTERNAL CONTRADICTION
Bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other
The author makes incompatible assumptions
Introduce information that actually contradicts the conclusion
Offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory
Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided
Assumes sth that it later denies, resulting a contradiction
9. APPEAL FALLACIES
(1) appeal to authority
the judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant
the argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the major
it relies on the judgment of experts in a matter to which their expertise is irrelevant
accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring sufficient justification
(2) appeal to popular opinion/numbers
it treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim
attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment
a claim is inferred to be false merely because a majority of people believe it to be false
the argument, instead of providing adequate reasons in support of its conclusion, makes an appeal to popular opinion.
(3) appeal to emotion
attempts to persuade by making an emotional appeal
uses emotive language in labeling the proposals
the argument appeals to emotion rather than reason
10. SURVEY ERRORS
(1) use a biased sample
uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative
generalizes from an unrepresentative sample
states a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group about which the generalization is supposed to hold true
(2) questions are improperly constructed
(3) respondents give inaccurate responses
11. EXCEPTIONAL CASE/OVERGENERALIZATION
Takes a small number of instances and treats those instances as if they support a broad, sweeping conclusion.
Supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example
The argument generalizes from too small a sample of cases
Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment
Bases a general claim on a few exceptional instances
12. ERRORS OF COMPOSITION AND DIVISION
COMPOSITION: attributes a characteristic of part of the group as a whole or to each member of the group
DIVISION: attributes a characteristic of the whole or each number of the whole to a part of the group.
Judgments about groups and parts of a group
Assuming that because sth is true of each parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself
Improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic
Takes the view of one lawyer to represent the views of all lawyers
Presumes, without justification, that what is true of a whole must also to be true of its constituent parts
13. FALSE ANALOGY
Treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect
Treats two kind of things that differ in important respects as if they do not differ
14. FALSE DILEMMA
Assume that only two course of action are available when there may be others
Fails to consider that some students may be neither fascinated by nor completely indifferent to the subject being taught
15. ERRORS IN THE USE OF EVIDENCE
(1) Lack of evidence for/against a position is taken to prove that position is false/true
treats failure to prove a claim as constituting denial of that claim
taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining that claim
treating the failure to establish that a certain claim is false as equivalent to a demonstration that the claim is true
(2) only some evidence against/for a position is take to prove that position is false/true(draw must be conclusion from some evidence)
it confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false
the argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true
16. TIME SHIFT ERRORS
Treat a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period
Uncritically draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future
17. NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE ERRORS
The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on a program with the overall amount spent on that program
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-10-11 08:05:00
楼主
