Week 4 Learning Activity¶
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW¶
Weasel words, or weaselers, are terms used to qualify a claim to make it easier to accept and more difficult to reject by introducing some degree of probability or “watering down” the claim without really changing its implied significance. Weasel words such as probably, most, seems, in a sense, up to, and many others can have this same effect—they make a claim sound better than it may actually be and make it more difficult to show that the claim is false.
The word "always" does not qualify (or weaken) a claim, so it is not a weasel word.
"It follows that" is a conclusion indicator, not a weasel word.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 8.2.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 2¶
Fallacies are errors in reasoning. More specifically, they are common patterns of reasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. As such, arguments are fallacious due to problems related to the inference, that is, how the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises, rather than problems with the truth of the premises themselves.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see the chapter 7 introduction.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 3¶
The fallacy of division makes conclusions about members of a population because of characteristics of the whole.
The fallacy of composition occurs when one reasons that a whole group must have a certain property because its parts do. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 7.3.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 4¶
An equivocation is when an ambiguous word is used with one meaning at one point in an argument and another meaning in another place in the argument in a misleading way.
This example commits the fallacy of equivocation because the word "sweet" in the premise means that the letter was very emotionally sweet, but the conclusion about the toothache would only follow if the word "sweet" were referring to something literally sweet, like sugar.
A non sequitur is a fallacy in which someone argues in an irrelevant manner so that the premises provide no support for the conclusion. The conclusion in this example appears to follow but actually does not because of an ambitguity in the premise. This is better described as an equivocation than a non sequitur.
The argument references emotion, but an appeal to emotion fallacy tries to get someone to do something out of emotion rather than rational assessment of the evidence. This example is not doing that but is changing the meaning of the word "sweet" between the premise and conclusion.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 7.3.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 5¶
Learning the fallacies helps one think critically and avoid erroneous reasoning. It can help us avoid falling for fallacies committed by others.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see the chapter 7 summary and resources.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 6¶
Hyperbole is just another term for exaggeration.
Euphemisms and dysphemismsare opposites. Dysphemisms are the opposite of euphemisms; these are descriptions used to put something in a more negative light. Euphemisms make something sound more positive than it might be otherwise.
A proof surrogate is used to provide some degree of authority to a claim without actually offering any genuine support.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 8.2.
Created: 2023-05-19