4 Types of Inductive Arguments Common Associated Fallacy1. Statistical Hasty Generalization2. Causal Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc3. Analogical Apples & Oranges4. Expert Unqualified Expert1. Statistical (most common)2 criteria for representativeness: the sample encompasses the differences present in the targetsizerandomness  carefully selected from the target to avoid bias; blindness to differenceIf there is a significant difference in the target, and therefore affects the question, it must be present in the sampleContains the same proportions of different groups in the sample that the target has.Allows every group in the target to have a sayHasty Generalization Fallacysample is unrepresentative2. Causalcausal connections are never observed, they are inferreda pattern of observed instances are  correlation3 criteria for causal reasoning – lexical: one must come before the otherone must come before the other (priority/precedence)do so repeatedlysome plausible, real-world possibility/explanation for it to occurPost Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacyassumes it causal just because one precedes the other.Standard superstitions3. Analogical2 criteria for analogyliteral sameness = strong argument (truth)similar in relevant ways (relevance)Apples & Oranges Fallacyweak & irrelevant4. Expert2 criteria for expert testimonyCredibility (credentials, training, experience)  should be relevant & up to dateIndependenceno vested interests (getting paid)not getting “paid” but have been solicitedselected based on their views and get paid indirectlyDo they have a professional connection to an advocacy organization?Think tanks or front groupsPotential for source or filter biasPersonal or emotional connection to the issue?Additional Fallacies5. Accident6. Ad Hominem7. Ad Populum8. Appeal to Ignorance9. Appeal to tradition10. Begging the Question11. CompositionIf something is true for the parts, it is true for the whole12. DivisionIf something is true for the whole, it will be true for the parts***Composition/Division deal with wholes and parts13. Genetic Fallacy14. Red Herringgeneral; garden variety  any subject will doAd hominem  irrelevant personal character attackGlittering generalities  positive sounding & vague15. Slippery Slope16. Straw Man~ “negates”1. Hasty generalizationInadequate sample  conclusion about target2. Post HocClaim that x precedes y  x causes y3. Apples & OrangesBad analogy x:y, claim about x  conclusion about y4. Unqualified expertclaim by expert who is ~credible or ~independent  conclusion1. Accidentgeneralization trend  particular conclusion2. Ad hominemIrrelevant / Personal attack  conclusion3. Ad PopulumEverybody says, believes, knows that x  x is therefore right4. Appeal to ignoranceDon’t know x is false  x is true5. Appeal to traditionWe’ve always though x is true or right  x is true or right6. Begging the questionx is the case  x is the case7. Genetic Fallacyx was true of source or origin  x is true now8. Compositionx is true for part or parts  a is true for whole9. Divisionx is true for whole  x is true for part or parts10. Red Herringx is true  y is true11. Slippery Slope12. Straw ManType Switches Valid Pattern FallacyDisjunctive Either/Or A or B, ~A, B A or B or C, ~A, BHypothetical If/Then If A  B, A, B ATC, DTA, BCCategorical ALL All A are B, x=A, x=B All A are B, x=B, x=AAre they fallacies or not?Are they valid?**Logical switches are underlying structures; not words.**Not an indicator, it is the structure of the argument.HypotheticalAntecedents & consequentsAntecedents logically come before; do not necessarily need to be said first. They contains the if or when; always get the earlier letter in the alphabet.Sufficient, not necessary conditions- don’t assume it’s the only condition.All major premises are the same (If A then B)The only difference is the minor premiseCategoricalUniversal, positiveRecognizing Deductive Fallacies3 steps:Basis analysis to see if the argument follows or notLook at premises; one of them must be the major premise which contains a logical switch and indicates which type of statement the argument is. The minor premises determines if it’s a valid patterns or a typical fallacy.Replace the words with letters consistently.Assessing Inductive Arguments 04/24/20144 Types of Inductive Arguments Common Associated Fallacy1. Statistical Hasty Generalization2. Causal Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc3. Analogical Apples & Oranges4. Expert Unqualified Expert1. Statistical (most common)- 2 criteria for representativeness: the sample encompasses the differences present in the target o sizeo randomness  carefully selected from the target to avoid bias; blindness to difference- If there is a significant difference in the target, and therefore affectsthe question, it must be present in the sample- Contains the same proportions of different groups in the sample that the target has. - Allows every group in the target to have a say Hasty Generalization Fallacy - sample is unrepresentative2. Causal- causal connections are never observed, they are inferredo a pattern of observed instances are  correlation- 3 criteria for causal reasoning – lexical: one must come before the other o one must come before the other (priority/precedence)o do so repeatedlyo some plausible, real-world possibility/explanation for it to occur Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy- assumes it causal just because one precedes the other. - Standard superstitions 3. Analogical- 2 criteria for analogyo literal sameness = strong argument (truth)o similar in relevant ways (relevance) Apples & Oranges Fallacy- weak & irrelevant4. Expert- 2 criteria for expert testimonyo Credibility (credentials, training, experience)  should be relevant & up to dateo Independence no vested interests (getting paid) not getting “paid” but have been solicited  selected based on their views and get paid indirectly  Do they have a professional connection to an advocacy organization? Think tanks or front groups  Potential for source or filter bias Personal or emotional connection to the issue?Additional Fallacies5. Accident6. Ad Hominem7. Ad Populum8. Appeal to Ignorance9. Appeal to tradition10. Begging the Question11. Composition- If something is true for the parts, it is true for the whole12. Division- If something is true for the