Summary

Reasoning and critical thinking are important both in constructing good arguments and in listening to the arguments of others.

Pseudoreasoning involves arguments that may appear sound at first glance but ultimately contain a fallacy of reasoning.

Argumentativeness is the trait of arguing for and against the positions taken on controversial claims.

Verbal aggressiveness is the trait of attacking the self-concept of those with whom a person disagrees about controversial claims.

Grounds for an argument consist of evidence supporting a claim, such as:

• examples
• facts
• statistics
• expert opinion
• explanation
• description
• narratives

Fallacies associated with defective grounds are:

• unsupported assertions
• distorted evidence
• isolated examples
• misused statistics

Claims of fact, value, or policy may contain the following fallacies:

• the red herring
• arguing in a circle

Warrants link grounds and claims by means of:

• generalization
• comparison
• cause
• sign
• authority

Backing is support for the warrant and is especially important in cases in which the audience is either unfamiliar with the warrant or unconvinced of its truth.

Fallacies associated with generalization warrants include:

• hasty generalization
• stereotyping
• false dilemmas

The fallacy associated with comparison warrants is:

• the false analogy

Fallacies associated with causation warrants are:

• post hoc, ergo propter hoc
• slippery slope

The fallacy associated with sign warrants is:

• mistaking correlation for cause

Fallacies associated with authority warrants are:

• the halo effect
• ad hominem

Qualifiers are an indication of the level of probability of the claim. Fallacies associated with qualifiers are:

• loaded language
• hyperbole

A rebuttal is an exception to or refutation of an argument. Fallacies associated with rebuttals are:

• straw person
• ignoring the issue

The non sequitur is a fallacy that occurs when an argument does not follow from its premises.