PHIL 201STUDY GUIDE: LESSON 5Informal FallaciesLesson OverviewIn our last lesson, we began a study in logic and overviewed the basic terminology and types of logical argumentation. In this lesson, we survey a number of well-known informal fallacies. Formal fallacies break specific rules of valid inference, but informal fallacies do not a break a specific rule. They are guilty of bad reasoning due to a flaw in the content of the argument. We will organize the fallacies around 4 types of flaws: weak induction, ambiguous language, questionable presumptions, and irrelevant issues.TasksRead and take notes on Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 6: “Informal Fallacies.” As you read, make sure you understand the following points and questions:1. Explain the difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy. Formal: breaks a formal rule. Informal: breaks don't break a formal rule yet still have something wrong with the reasoning2. What is a fallacy of weak induction? error arises because the reasoning between the premises and the conclusion is inductively weak and leads us to a conclusion that may be presented as strong but does not follow3. Explain the fallacies of hasty generalization, sweeping generalization, weak analogy, and slippery slope. -Hasty Generalization: Arriving at a conclusion based on insufficient evidence; sample is qualitatively or quantitatively inadequate to reach any conclusion-Sweeping Generalization: Applying a general principle to a specific case to which that principle doesn't apply-Weak Analogy: the items being compared are not relevantly similar concerning the issue under consideration-Slippery Slope: A weak inductive argument that claims that given one event an alleged chain of events will follow but offers little to no evidence to support such claim4. Describe the fallacy of false cause and know the different types. Attempt to draw a causalinference between two events and there is little evidence that the two events are casually connected; posy hoc, non causa pro causa (“not the cause, for the cause”) & oversimplified cause5. What is a fallacy of ambiguity? family of fallacies arising from language problems6. Explain the fallacies of equivocation, hypostatization, amphiboly, composition, and division. -Equivocation: occurs when the meaning of a significant term changes in the middle of anargument and distorts and usually invalidates the conclusion-Hypostatization: occurs when one treats an abstract word as if it were a concrete word-Amphiboly: usually results of ambiguous grammatical construction or poor sentence structure that introduces a lack of clarity in the sentence -Composition and division: part/whole fallacies because it assumes errorly that what is true for one must be true of the otherPage 1 of 4PHIL 2017. What is the problem with using language that is emotionally loaded or a cliché in an argument? clichés can’t stand in for well-though-out arguments8. What is a fallacy of presumption? Explain the difference between assuming and presuming. One is not given the opportunity to investigate all the options in an argument because the argument has been framed and presented in such a way as to ignore or distort or evade certain facts that may have been significant bearing on the argumentassuming: take something for granted without investigating it presuming: obligation exists that usually is not present with a simple assumption9. Explain begging the question and its different forms. Presumes the issue is settled or doesn't need to be addressed and arrives at a conclusion without presenting the premise orallowing other to examine it;10. Explain the fallacies of bifurcation, special pleading, and complex question. -Bifurication: false dilemma; we are presented only two possible options, usually extremes, when other options are possible.-Special pleading: one applies a double standard without warrant; one standard for them, and another for us-Complex question: a question is asked that contains two questions but is phrased so that the responder can give only one answer and is not allowed to address both questions separately ie- how many cookie did you steal from the cookie jar11. What is a fallacy of relevance? premises irrelevant to the conclusion being proposed12. Explain the 3 different types of ad hominem fallacies. "against the man"1. abusive: the personal character of the opponent is attacked2. circumstantial: the persons motives are attacked 3. Tu Quoque "you also": the person making the argument is guilty of the practice she is arguing against so her argument is invalid13. Explain the 3 different types of ad populum fallacies. "appeal to the people"1. showing that a large number of people agree with a proposition and therefore you should too2. appeals to our vanity and tries t convince us to agree with the conclusion because doing so will include us as members of an elite class of individuals3. mob appeal: the crowd is whipped up into a emotional frenzy based on some noble ideal14. Explain the red herring, straw man and appeal to pity fallacies.1. Red herring- idea is to advert the attention of the listener by subtly changing the subject2. Straw man- like slippery slope and bifurcation and appeals to an extreme as part of itstactic, but occurs when one takes another's argument and distorts it to an extreme thenproceeds to tear down the distortion in the belief that the arguer has torn down the original argument3. Appeal to pity- rather than argue on the merits of the issue itself, a person makes an irrelevant emotional appeal meant to rouse sympathy for the person involved diverting attention away from the real issuePage 2 of 4PHIL 201TermsMake sure you fully understand the following terms and concepts:- Hasty Generalization- Sweeping Generalization- Weak Analogy- False Cause- Post Hoc- type of false cause; individual mistakenly concludes that because one event occurred temporarily after another event, the first event must have caused the second- Oversimplified Cause-type of false cause; overs simplication of an argument- Non causa pro causa-type of false cause; occurs when something that is not the cause inferred as being the cause for an event or effect with no evidence offered to support the inference- Ambiguity- Equivocate- Hypostatization- Personification- Amphiboly- Composition- erroneously thought thatwhat is true of each part of something must necessarily be true of the whole- Division- assumes that what is true of the