| A | B |
|---|
| Argument from authority (simple form) | a affirmed p, therefore p is true |
| Argument from authority (conditions of validity) | a affirmed what he believes, his belief is based on careful observation or sound reasoning, and no equally reliable source denies p |
| Argument from authority (complex form) | a affirmed that b affirmed that c affirmed...p, therefore p is true |
| Argument from authority (definition) | the argument in which the conclusion that a proposition is true is drawn from the premise that a reliable source of information affirmed it |
| source (a) | an individual, group, book, and so on, whose affirmation or opinion provides the premise of an argument from authority |
| Information (p) | the proposition inferred to be true in an argument from authority |
| authority | one who is especially knowledgeable and can therefore provide information |
| relevant authority | an authority who is knowledgeable about the specific subject in question |
| the truthfulness condition | requires that the source of an argument from authority was in the proper frame of mind when he gave the testimony |
| The argument from analogy (simple form) | the argument in which, from the premise that two objects or groups of objects are similar, and that one has a given attribute, the conclusion is drawn that the other has that attribute (d is like i, d has A, therefore i has A); the data group and the inference group are SEPARATE |
| Argument from analogy (conditions of validity) | the data group must be sufficiently like the inference group in relevant aspects, and must be sufficiently large and varied |
| analogica argument (definition) | any argument in which, from the premise that two or more objects are similar is some respects, the conclusion is drawn that they are similar in further respects |
| Straight Argument Form | the attribute in the conclusion is EXACTLY the same as the one in the attribution premise |
| Cautious Argument Form | the attribute in the conclusion is BROADER or LESS SPECIFIC than the one in the attribution premise |
| Strength of analogical arguments | the strength of an analogical argument is inversely related to the strength of the conclusion, and directly related to the attribution premise (you can weaken the conclusion by changing must to might); the greater the data group, the stronger the argument; the greater the inference group, the weaker the argument; we want the population in the data group to be as similar as possible to those in the inference group |
| rash | an argument from analogy, enumerative induction, or syllogism in which the projected attribute is more specific, and therefore stronger, than the given attribute (fallacious) |
| given attribute | the attribute of the data group that is given in the premise |
| projected attribute | the attribute projected from the data group to the inference group |
| similarity premise | the premise in an analogical argument which says that two or more objects are similar |
| attribution premise | the premise in an analogical argument which says that one or more of the objects have a specified attribute |
| data object of group | the object or objects whose attributes are given in the premises of an analogical argument, enumerative induction or statistical syllogism |
| inference object or group | the object or objects whose attributes are inferred in the conclusion of an analogical argument, enumerative induction, or syllogism |
| population | the set of all objects in either the inference group or the data group |
| sample | the data group when it is a subset of the population |
| pure argument | an analogical argument, enumerative induction, or syllogism in which the inference group is inferred to have a given attribute from the premise that all the data group does |
| statistical argument | an analogical argument, enumerative induction, or syllogism in which the inference group is inferred to have a given attribute, even though not all of the data group does |
| Enumerative induction (pure form) | all observed P have A, therefore all P have A (the data group is a SUBSET of the inference group--everything in the data group is in the inference group; (the properties of a population are inferred from the fact that the observed subset of that population have those properties—from specific to general). |
| Enumerative induction (strength) | same as arguments from analogy |
| representative sample | a sample that is sufficiently large and varied, and sufficiently similar to the rest of the population |
| Biased | a non-representative sample |
| Enumerative Inductions (conditions of validity) | the group of observed P's is sufficiently large and varied, and is sufficiently similar to the group of unobserved P's in relevant aspects |
| Hasty Generalization | concluding that all P have A when the conditions of validity for enumerative induction have no been met (fallacy) |
| Enumerative Induction (statistical form) | r% of all observed P have A, therefore r% of all of P have A |
| Inductive Generalization | enumerative induction; or, a general statement inferred by enumerative induction |
| Enumerative Induction (definition) | the argument in which, from the premise that all (or a certain percentage) of the observed members of a class have a property, the conclusion is drawn that all (or the same percentage) of the members do |
| Random Sample | a sample selected in such a way that every member of the population had an equal and independent chance of being included |
| Statistical syllogism | the argument in which, from the general premise that a percentage of the population has a property, the conclusion is drawn that specific member do (ii. The inference group is a subset of the data group (the known properties of an entire population are used to infer properties about a subset of the population—from general to specific). |
| Statistical syllogism (conditions of validity) | the percentage of the population must exceed 50%, and the inference group must be sufficiently small |
| Statistical Syllogism (form) | r% of all P have A, i is P, therefore i has A |
| The strength of a statistical syllogism | depends on the percentage of r--the greater the percentage, the stronger the argument (the smaller the percentage, the weaker); when r is 100, the syllogism is pure and deductively valid; It strength also depends on the number of objects represented by i--the strongest case is when i represents only one object (the larger the inference group (i), the stronger the conclusion, so the weaker the argument. |
| counterevidence | evidence supporting a conclusion contrary to that of a given argument |
| undermining counterevidence | counterevidence which supports the falsity of a conclusion to such an extent that the conclusion is not probably even if the premises are true |
| The fallacy of exclusion | the fallacy committed when the premises of an argument exclude undermining counterevidence |
