Argumentation Exam #2

A statement that establishes a relationship between two categories, or classes, of objects

Statements that make a positive claim about every member of a particular category. The subject term is distributed but the predicate term is undistributed.

An argument composed of three categorical statements—two statements that are its reasons, or premises, and one that is its conclusion

The first term in a categorical statement, the subject or principal focus of the argument

The second term in a categorical statement, the term that attributes or denies a quality to the members of the category represented in the subject term

The term that appears in both reasons and not in the conclusion

The two terms that appear once in a reason and once in the conclusion of a categorical argument

A term that, in a statement, refers to every member of the category of objects it represents

A claim that denies a specified quality to every member of a category. Both the subject term and the predicate term are distributed

A claim that attributes a specified quality to only some members of a category. Both the subject term and the predicate term are undistributed.

A claim that denies that some members of a category possess a specified quality. The predicate term is distributed but the subject term is undistributed.

1-The middle term must be distributed exactly once

2-The end terms cannot be distributed only once

3-The number of negative premises must equal the number of negative conclusions

Less objectionable and often less accurate terms exchanged for harsh, condemning, or emotionally charged terms

Strategic placement of an object, person, or idea under a new heading

Characterizing a person, group, idea, or institution by introducing a suggestive name or term

Origin of a word

A representative example of the term or category in question: a typical member that defines the entire category

The meaning of a word or phrase in its original context, or what the initial definer of a term meant by it

More than one meaning of a word or phrase in a single context

The meaning of a term in everyday language

Ambiguity that occurs when a word or phrase carries more than one meaning in a particular context

Ambiguity that occurs because the structure or grammar of a sentence renders the meaning of a word or a phrase uncertain

Changing meaning of a key term in the course of an argument

A comparison of something with which we are familiar to something with which we are less familiar or about which we have some question

A direct comparison between two allegedly similar items or cases

A literal analogy that asserts that what is true of its evidence case is even more likely or even less likely to be true of its conclusion case. (“from that which is stronger”)

A literal analogy that insists on similar treatment for people, ideas, or institutions in similar circumstances

The idea that similar cases should be treated similarly

The claim that an exception should be made to the rule or principle that would otherwise apply

A comparison between things that are not of the same type, that come from different realms of experience

An argument that draws a conclusion about an entire class of objects or events based on a particular instance or a limited number of cases, rather than about a single member of a group

The use of one object to represent another associated object, or of a single attribute to represent a complex object

An explanatory statement affirming that one or more events cause another event to occur

A testable element in the alleged cause that is capable of producing an observed effect

An argument that reasons from an effect back to a cause

Is an effect of a well-known cause, one that allows us to reason back to the cause with some confidence

An effect that virtually always and only accompanies a particular cause

An effect with more than one possible cause, though one cause is typical

An argument that affirms a causal relationship between two categories, or classes, of events

Occur together with regularity

Attributing cause simply on the basis of events occuring or varying simultaneously

Seeks assurance that the suspected cause consistently accurs before the alleged effect

Attributing cause simply on the basis of one event preceding another. (“After this, therefore because of this”)

An argument that recommends or discourages a course of action on the basis of its practical consequences

Arguing that an alternative course of action carries greater advantages than the proposed plan does

Affirms that we should abide by values, principles, and duties, and avoid such actions that violate the same

An argument that affirms numerical considerations as an index of significance

An argument that affirms the inherent value in the unique, the beautiful, the rare, or the unusual

Looking for the simplest or least complex causal explanation that still accounts for observed effects

Arguments that focus on the “essence” or unchanging nature of an organization, object, person, entity, or work of art.

Arguments that look to origins as evidence of essential nature

An argument that affirms that the meaning or essential nature of an object or document is found in the intended meaning of its authors or designers

An argument that locates the essential nature of an object, event, or institution in its social or natural function

Prescription, Common Understanding, Form, and Current Need

An argument that looks to a person’s or group’s acts to find the true nature or character of that individual or group

Arguments conveyed through images or objects rather than words

An argument that is invalid or otherwise so seriously flawed as to render it unreliable

Falsely assuming that a conclusion can be reached on the basis of the absence of evidence

A false assumption that qualitative changes along a line of progression do not occur if we cannot agree about exactly where such changes occur

A fallacy that assumes that a debatable question can be treated as already answered.

An intentional effort to attack a person rather than an argument, by damaging an opponent’s character or reputation or by engaging in namecalling and labeling

Dismissing an individual as unqualified to speak on a topic based on some accident of circumstance

Falsely reasoning that someone who is guilty of an offense has no right to instruct others not to do something similar

Appealing to the audience and its sentiments rather than to the merits of the argument

Responding to a weakened version of an opponent’s case

A fallacy that focuses attention on minor or inconsequential points to draw attention away from important ones

The fallacy of creating a false sense of meaning by failing to fully describe a proposal or a crucial component in an opponent’s case

The strategy of making a claim about an issue by stating that you will not bring up that issue or that matter is insignificant

Promoting a false interpretation by presenting only some of the relevant evidence in a case, while intentionally excluding other evidence that would conradict the suggested interpretation

The fallacy that creates a false impression by ordering, associating, or grouping items in a misleading way

A persuasive strategy directed to the audience’s emotions, sense of humor, or deeply held loyalties and commitments

An appeal that urges compliance with the directive of a person, group, or document possessing power

Engaging the audience’s emotions for the purpose of persuading

An appeal that asks an audience to recognize an idea as either self-contradictory or as so unreasonable as to be absurd

UA- DU

UN- DD

PA- UU

PN- UD