NS4H Fall 2002 HE1 Study Guide

The following Informal Fallacies from Weird Things, and some additional critical thinking tools have been presented in class. The review session told you which of these will be emphasized at this point in the course and on the exam.

Begging the Question (tautology)
False Dilemma
Equivocation (2 word meanings)
Composition (parts --> whole)
Division (whole --> parts)
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Faulty Analogy
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to the Masses
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to the Person (ad hominem)
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Confirmational Bias (cherry picking)
Subjective Validation
Reconstructed Memories
Burden of Proof
Inductive & Deductive
Argument by Analogy
reductio ad absurdum

Be familiar with the presentations given in class (Freudian Psychology and Poltergeists) and review the readings assigned for these from Hines and from Weird Things. Both of these topics have been integrated into the exam questions.

The exam will employ the Logic and Language material covered in Chapters 1 and 2 of Moore. You will be asked to write a response to all questions. Please stay within the space provided--be clear and concise! There actually is one multiple choice question, but you get to defend the choice you make. If your choice is a response I think is wrong, the burden of proof will be on you to change my mind with your argument. If your choice agrees with mine, you still have to write a good argument for choosing it. Saying it is right because I said it was would be an Appeal to Authority, which is a you-know-what!

Specifially, be ready to:

• Read an argument, identify the issue and write it as a question, identify the conclusion, then rewrite the argument in Standard Form.
• Read a paranormal article, then identify any Informal Fallacies and explain how they were used.
• Analyze an argument, including any unstated premises or a missing conclusions. Establish if it is inductive or deductive, then explain if the argument succeeds or fails, and why. If the argument is inductive, you will have to evaluate the strength of the conclusion.
• Be prepared to write an argument by analogy on a topic stated in the question.
• Analyze an argument by analogy using the method of tables described in class. The example will be from a psuedoscientific health care claim.
  • Establish the strength of each premise, perhaps by identifying one of the Fallacies from the list above, or by using the methods in Moore on refuting arguments by analogy, or by identifying faulty science if you have knowledge in that area.
  • Establish the overall strength of the argument by analogy.