Argument Assessment Flashcards

An argument form where the conclusion is already contained within one of the premises is called:

Answer: Begging the question (circular reasoning)

Circular reasoning (begging the question) occurs when an argument's conclusion is assumed in one of its premises, making it logically circular.

Premise 1: If it rains, the ground gets wet. Premise 2: The ground is wet. Conclusion: Therefore, it rained. This argument commits which error?

Answer: Affirming the consequent

Affirming the consequent is the invalid form of reasoning where one concludes the antecedent (it rained) from the consequent (ground is wet), ignoring other possible causes.

When assessing argument strength, 'counterexamples' are most useful for:

Answer: Showing that a universal generalization is false or a deductive argument is invalid

A single counterexample can refute a universal claim or demonstrate that a deductive argument form is invalid.

Which best distinguishes an 'explanation' from an 'argument'?

Answer: An argument tries to prove a conclusion is true; an explanation tries to show why something already accepted as true is the case

Arguments provide reasons to accept a conclusion, while explanations account for why something known to be true occurred or is the case.

A company's CEO says: 'Our new product must be safe because we have been making products for 50 years.' This is best classified as:

Answer: Appeal to tradition

The appeal to tradition (or longevity) fallacy assumes that because something has existed for a long time it must be acceptable or safe.

Which of the following is a necessary condition for an argument to be considered 'sound'?

Answer: The argument must be deductively valid AND have all true premises

Soundness requires both deductive validity (the conclusion follows necessarily from premises) and the truth of all premises.

Someone argues: 'We cannot trust what Dr. Lee says about climate change because she once made an error in a 1998 paper.' This argument strategy attempts to:

Answer: Undermine the credibility of the source rather than engage with the evidence

This is a genetic fallacy or ad hominem — it attacks the messenger's past record rather than evaluating the actual evidence or argument presented.