U2: Section 1

Page 1

Intermediate conclusion

- Drawn on the way to MC which supports it

- Can look like a reason

- Sometimes more than one]

Analogies

- Takes the situation or scenario to be sufficiently similar to another

- Indicator words = this is like, just as, this would be the same as

- Look for a sudden change in subject matter

- Does it help support the conclusion

When answering analogy question

- Identify common characteristics and how it relates to both things being compared

- Find several points of comparison by breaking down the analogy

Principles

- A general rule that acts as guidance

- May appear as a reason/ conclusion/ assumption

- Indicator words = should, must, ought, duty to

- Identify if its relevant to the reasoning

- Is the range appropriate (could be too general or too specific)

- Does it help support the conclusion

Use of evidence

- Identify alternative conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence

- Identify false assumptions made

- Assess its significance (context, incomplete info, use of average/mean/rates)

- Identify strengths and weaknesses

- Evaluate the use of statistics

Appeals

- If an appeal replaces reasoning, it is a weak appeal

- If an appeal adds to reasoning, it is a strong appeal

- Give the name of the appeal

- Explain in context

- Say whether it weakens or strengthens the argument

Popularity

- Uses weight of numbers

Authority

- Uses recognised source

Emotion

- Designed to provoke emotional response

History

- Uses evidence from a past event

Tradition

- Arguing because something is old or established

Argument flaws

Two wrongs don't make a right

- Justify wrong action by pointing to another, different wrong action

Tu quoque

- One attempts to defend oneself from criticism by turning the critique against the accuser, by justifying one wrong action on the grounds that someone else is guilty of the same, or similar wrong action

Hasty generalisation

- Generalising about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative

Sweeping generalisation

- Generalising about an individual or small group based upon a general rule or stereotype

Confusing correlation and case

- When one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events or types of event which occur simultaneously

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

- When one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events in which one occurs before the other

Oversimplifying cause and effect

- Analysing complex matters in terms of simplistic causes and effects

Confusing cause and effect

- Confusing the cause of an event with its effect

Circular argument

- In which the conclusion occurs as one of the reasons or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a reason of one of the earlier arguments in the chain

Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions

- Where a necessary (something that must be the case in order for a conclusion to follow) condition is confused with a sufficient (something that guarantees the conclusion will follow) condition

Restriction the options

- Presenting a limited number of options (usually 2) and declaring that because one option is undesirable, the other option is the only one

Slippery slope

- Reasons from one possible action, through a series of events that are not linked, to an extreme and undesirable conclusion

Ad hominem

- Attacks the person putting forward the opposing view rather than addressing the argument

Straw person

- The arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position but instead attacks a position not held by his opponent

Conflation

- Where the arguer uses the two or more different words or concepts but treats them as having the same meaning

Non sequitur

- The arguer draws a conclusion that does not follow from the reasons

Writing your own argument

Dos

- Do use the exact wording at start and end

- Do use extra argument elements

- Do use indicator words

- Do plan

Don'ts

- Don't use the first person

- Don't make up evidence

- Don't become emotionally involved

- Don't include flaws, appeals or principles

- Don't argue both sides

- Don't make the IC just a summary of earlier reasons

- Don't make your counter assertion an exact contradiction of the MC