| Ambiguity | Uncertainty of meaning that arises when a word or phrase has two or more clearly distinct meanings and the context does not make clear which meaning is intended, 107--109, 153; semantic and syntactical, 108
|
 |
|
|
| Appeal to force | A logical fallacy that occurs when an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer's conclusion, 148, 160
|
|
|
|
| Appeal to pity | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion, when such feelings are not relevant to the arguer's conclusion, 148--149, 160
|
|
|
|
| Argument from authority | An argument in which the conclusion rests on a statement made by an allegically relevant reasons or evidence, 149--150, 160
|
|
|
|
| Attacking the motive | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer attacks another person's motive for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the merits of that argument or claim, 144--145, 159
|
|
|
|
| Bandwagon argument | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer appeals to a person's desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant reasons or evidence, 149-150, 160
|
|
|
|
| Begging the question | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer states or assumes as a premise the very statement he or she is seeking to prove as a conclusion, 154-155, 161
|
|
|
|
| Equivocation | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer uses a key word in two or more senses in the same argument and the apparent success of the argument depends on this shift in meaning, 153--154, 160
|
|
|
|
| Fallacies of insufficient evidence | Fallacies that occur because the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, 140, 162-188
|
|
|
|
| Fallacies of relevance | Fallacies that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, 140-161
|
|
|
|
| Fallacy | An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning, 140, 158
|
|
|
|
| Irrelevance | Lacking pertinence to the subject at issue. In logic, a statement, A, is said to be irrelevant to another statement, B, just in case A provides no evidence either for or against B, 3--4, 140, 142, 159
|
|
|
|
| Look who's talking (tu quoque) | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer rejects another person's argument because that person is a hypocrite, 145--146, 159
|
|
|
|
| Negative relevance | In logic, a relation in which one statement provides evidence against the truth of another statement, 141, 159
|
|
|
|
| Personal attack | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer rejects another person's argument or claim by attacking that person's character rather than examining the merits of his or her argument or claim, 143--144, 159
|
|
|
|
| Positive relevance | In logic, a relation in which one statement provides evidence for the truth of another statement, 140--141, 159
|
|
|
|
| Red herring | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer tries to sidetrack his or her audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has effectively been settled by the irrelevant diversion, 151--153, 160
|
|
|
|
| Relevance | Pertinence to the subject at issue. In logic, a statement, A, is said to be relevant to another statement, B, just in case A provides evidence for or against B, 3--4, 222-223, 140--142, 159
|
|
|
|
| Snob appeal | A variety of bandwagon argument that occurs when an arguer inappropriately plays on a reader or listener's desire to feel superior, 150
|
|
|
|
| Straw man | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument or claim in order to make it easier to attack, 150--151, 160
|
|
|
|
| Two wrongs make a right | A fallacy that occurs when an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse, 146-148, 159
|
2002 McGraw-Hill Higher Education