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: 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: 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. |