Argument fallacies

Questão	Responda
Ad Hominem Image: 4c2569ba-dc9b-4aec-b562-d45e3eb76cb4.gif (image/gif)	Refers to any attack(s) on the person advancing the argument, rather than on the validity of the evidence or logic.
Affirming the Consequent	means putting the cart before the horse, meaning reversing or confusing the general category with the specific/sub-category. Example: Ducks are birds, ducks swim in water, chickens are birds, chickens swim in water
Argument from Ignorance or Non-Testable Hypothesis	This is the fallacy that that which has not been proven false must or is likely to be true.
Argument from Authority	is the flip side of the ad hominem; in this case, the argument is advanced because of those advancing it.
Bandwagon	popular ideas are presumably and necessarily right. Fallacy Ex: “C’mon, dude, everybody’s doin’ it.”
Begging the Question or Circular Arguments	Basically, repeating the claim and never providing support for the premises, or, in other words, repeating the same argument over and over again.
Dogmatism	is the unwillingness to consider the opponent’s argument. It’s ultimately the assumption that those who disagree with you are “biased”, while you are “objective”.
Black/White, Excluded Middle Fallacy	This fallacy simply paints an issue as one between two extremes with no possible room for middle ground or nuance or compromise.

Resumo de Recurso

	Criado por Phillip M. mais de 8 anos atrás