AP English Language Review 3 (of 3)



AP English Language Review 3 (of 3)

Please make flashcards for the concepts in bold. The vocabulary will be written on one side; the definition on the other. Please write neatly.

40 Defend-In argument, this is to support (an argument, theory, etc.) in the face of criticism; prove the validity of (a dissertation, thesis, or the like) by answering arguments and questions and by providing examples.

41 Refute- In argument, this is to prove something as false or erroneous, as an opinion, argument, or charge.

42 Qualify- If you do this to your statement, you are adding some information, evidence, or phrase in order to make it less general. A thesis that takes this approach might begin “This statement is true when,” or “Only if.”

43 Claim- This is the overall thesis for which the writer is arguing. This answers the question “What are you trying to prove?”  It may appear as the thesis statement of your essay, although in some arguments it may not be stated directly. 

44 Data- This is evidence gathered to support the claim.

45 Counterclaim- This is a claim that negates or disagrees with the thesis/claim. A writer includes this to show that he or she has considered multiple angles of the argument.

46 Rebuttal- This is evidence that negates or disagrees with the counterclaim. A writer does this to shoot down the counterclaim.

47 Inductive Logic-    This is the form of reasoning in which we come to conclusions about the whole on the basis of observations of particular instances.  If you notice that all three of the instructors you saw on the first day of school were wearing faded jeans and running shoes, you might say that your teachers are generally informal in their dress.  You have made an inductive leap, reasoning from what you have learned about a few examples to what you think is true of a whole class of things.  

48 Deductive Logic- This is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct. While induction attempts to arrive at the truth, deduction guarantees sound relationships between statements.  If each of a series of statements, called premises, is true, deductive logic tells us that the conclusion must also be true.  Unlike the conclusions from induction, which are only probable, the conclusions from deduction are certain.  The simplest deductive argument consists of two premises and a conclusion.  In outline such an argument looks like this:

MAJOR PREMISE:      All students with 3.5 GPAs and above are part of the honor society.

MINOR PREMISE:       George has a 3.8 average.

CONCLUSION:            Therefore, he will be invited to join the honor society.

49 Syllogism- This is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion (see above).  The first proposition is called the major premise and offers a generalization about a large group or, class.  This generalization has been arrived at through inductive reasoning or observation of particulars.  The second proposition is called the minor premise, and it makes a statement about a member of that group or class.  The third proposition is the conclusion, which links the other two propositions, in much the same way that the warrant links the support and the claim. 

50 Fallacies- These are standard forms of flawed reasoning that seduce and often persuade us, but they are not logically sound and will lead to faulty conclusions.

51 False Dilemma- This is a fallacy in which the arguer claims that there are only two options, and one is unacceptable so we must accept the other. However in actuality there are other alternatives. Ex: Vote for me or die.

52 Straw Man- In this fallacy, the arguer makes her own position appear stronger by misrepresenting her opponent’s position. The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

53 Slippery Slope- In this fallacy, the arguer creates fear by saying if one thing is permitted, a whole host of the most extreme cases will occur. EX: “…[I]f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.” - Thomas De Quincey, "Second Paper on Murder"

54 Hasty Generalization- Any argument that draws a generalization based on a small or unrepresentative sample size is this type of fallacy. EX: You can't speak French; I can't; = no one at Godinez can speak French.

55 False Correlation- When the premise of an argument supports a particular conclusion, but then a different, often vaguely related conclusion is drawn, this fallacy occurs. The arguer is basically missing the point. Ex: Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate. The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.

56 Red Herring- When the arguer changes the subject and takes the listener down a different, unrelated path, this fallacy occurs. Ex: “Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of the accidents are caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would just exercise greater caution.”

57 Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning- In this fallacy, the arguer supports the conclusion simply by restating it as a premise or by leaving out a key premise. It never actually answers a question. Ex: Women should not be permitted to join men’s clubs because they are for men only.

58 Appeals to force/fear- In this fallacy, the arguer tries to get you to accept his view on the grounds that you will be harmed if you don’t. He attempts to motivate you from a position of fear rather than to logically persuade you. Ex: So you’re an animal rights activist. I’d consider changing my views if I were you because most of us here on the prairies are beef farmers and we don’t care too much for your kind.

59 Appeals to Pity- In this fallacy, the arguer tries to get you to accept his view on the grounds that he will be harmed if you don’t. Ex: Please don’t give me a homework card! If you do, my parents will beat me.

60 Faulty Appeal to Authority- In this fallacy, the arguer appeals to an authority whose area of expertise is irrelevant to the issue at hand, or appeals to a person who is famous but not an expert. Ex: Madonna is against animal testing. So animal testing is probably an unethical practice.

61 Ad Hominem/ Personal Attack- In this fallacy, the arguer suggests that her opponent’s view is unacceptable because of some negative character trait. Attack the person rather than the argument. Ex: People who say that hazing in the military is wrong are just a bunch of wimps.

62 Bandwagon- In this fallacy, the arguer appeals to the sheer number of persons who agree with the belief or to the popularity of the belief as evidence that it is true. Ex: Because a majority of Americans believe in UFO’s, they must exist! That many people can’t be wrong!

63 Post hoc ergo proctor hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”)- In this fallacy, the arguer uses the fact that one thing happened before another as evidence that the first thing caused the second thing. Ex: The quality of education in our schools has been declining for years. Clearly, our teachers aren’t doing their jobs.

64 False Analogy- In this fallacy, the arguer is comparing situations that are different and cannot accurately be compared. Ex: If we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to eliminate poverty.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download