FLAW IN THE REASONING QUESTIONS1. 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 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 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) 5. MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT (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 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 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 2004-10-7 10:26:00
楼主
