Pages in this set

Page 1

Preview of page 1

Ad hominem (flaw) Attacking the arguer. A form of reasoning which criticises the arguer's
features so that the readers will dismiss his argument.

Ambiguous A word or phrase with more than one meaning.
Analogy A form of argument in which two similar situations are compared. An
analogy is used to…

Page 2

Preview of page 2
Post Hoc Assuming that because A and B happened at the same time, A caused
B or B caused A. However, there could be a relation between the two
situations and it is possible that neither caused the other.
Confusing necessary and An argument that assumes that a necessary condition…

Page 3

Preview of page 3
Sweeping generalisation (flaw) A stereotype. A generalisation which moves from some to many to all.
It will sometimes move back to one individual.
Tu quoque (flaw) This means `you too'. An attempt to justify an action on the basis that
someone else is doing it.
Two wrongs don't make a…

Page 4

Preview of page 4
Personal observation
Statistical or numerical data
Statement from a source or witness
Make sure to know:
How many were surveyed?
Did the sample represent different categories of people?
Expertise of the person who did the survey
When was the survey conducted?
How well educated or experienced are the people?


Page 5

Preview of page 5
Plausibility This is whether something is reasonable. Something can be plausible.
For example: resigning from work to stay with the family. Many
people do that. But is it credible? Maybe the person got fired? Then it
will not be believable.
Ask: is it reasonable?
What are the reasons why it…

Page 6

Preview of page 6
Slippery slope
Reasons from one possibility through a series of events that are not properly or logically linked.
Extreme consequence.

Hasty generalisation
To draw a general conclusion from insufficient evidence. One reasoning or one example to
general conclusion.

Sweeping generalisation
A stereotype. A generalisation which moves from some to many…

Page 7

Preview of page 7
This is whether the accounts of different witnesses or sources agree with each other.
Inconsistency is when evidence contains two claims which cannot both be correct at
the same time.

A motive to lie.
To favour another person, party, newspaper.
Like paparazzi. They select what will be reported to…

Page 8

Preview of page 8
claim of `widespread support' for the blackout and that `vandalism and petty crime had
not increased'.
Although there is vested interest on both sides, the views of the person from Police
Superintendents' Association might be seen as more credible, as they do not
directly benefit from the reversal of the…


No comments have yet been made

Similar Critical Thinking resources:

See all Critical Thinking resources »