What is semantics in logic?
Semantics deals with literal meaning and truth conditions—how sentences relate to reality.
1/80
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| What is semantics in logic? | Semantics deals with literal meaning and truth conditions—how sentences relate to reality. |
| What is pragmatics in logic? | Pragmatics deals with meaning in use—how context, intention, and social factors shape interpretation. |
| Give an example showing the semantics/pragmatics difference. | “It’s cold here” → Semantically: describes temperature. Pragmatically: may mean “Please close the window.” |
| What are Walton’s six dialogue types? | Quarrel, Forensic Debate, Persuasion, Inquiry, Negotiation, Information-seeking/Deliberation. |
| Which dialogue type is Walton’s “gold standard” for rational argument? | Persuasion (critical discussion). |
| What is the primary goal of a quarrel? | To defeat the opponent emotionally, not to reason. |
| What is a dialectical shift? | A sneaky, unannounced change from one dialogue type to another (e.g., persuasion → quarrel). |
| What are the three stages of argumentative dialogue? | Opening, Argumentation, Closing. |
| What is established in the opening stage? | Type of dialogue, issue, procedural rules (turn-taking, commitments). |
| What happens in the argumentation stage? | Exchange of arguments and criticisms under agreed rules. |
| What is burden of proof? | The obligation to provide evidence for a claim. |
| What is a commitment store? | An invisible ledger tracking what each speaker has conceded in dialogue. |
| In persuasion, whose commitments should you use as premises? | Your opponent’s commitments. |
| What are the three levels of proof strength? | Deductive, Inductive, Plausible. |
| What is deductive proof? | If premises are true, conclusion must be true (100% certain). |
| Give an inductive proof example. | “Most students pass → Jane will likely pass.” |
| Give a plausible proof example. | “It’s widely believed that honesty is good → you should be honest.” |
| How does Walton distinguish fallacy from blunder? | Fallacy = intentional, deceptive rule-breaking. Blunder = accidental mistake. |
| Why is a fallacy more than just “invalid reasoning” in Walton’s view? | It’s a violation of cooperative dialogue norms, not just logical form. |
| What is the critic’s main task before judging an argument? | Restore cooperative sense—understand the argument in context before labeling it fallacious. |
| What is a presupposition of a question? | A hidden proposition assumed true before the question is answered. |
| What happens when you answer a loaded question directly? | You implicitly accept all its presuppositions. |
| Give the classic example of a loaded question. | “Have you stopped abusing your spouse?” → Presupposes you have a spouse and have abused them. |
| What makes a question complex in a fallacious sense? | It packs multiple sub-questions into one, often to trap the answerer. |
| What three features make the “spouse abuse” question a “perfect storm”? | It is complex, loaded, and formatted as a yes-no question. |
| What is a disjunctive question? | An either-or question that artificially limits choices (e.g., “Are you with us or against us?”). |
| What is the fallacious form of argument from ignorance? | “X has not been proven false → therefore X is true” (or vice versa). |
| When is arguing from ignorance not fallacious? | In contexts where burden of proof is clear: e.g., “Not proven guilty → innocent” in court. |
| Give a non-fallacious example from safety. | “I don’t know if the gun is loaded → I’ll treat it as loaded.” |
| When is it reasonable to reply to a question with a question? | When the original question is aggressive, loaded, or complex—to shift burden of proof back. |
| What is the strategic goal of questioning the question? | To force the questioner to prove their hidden presuppositions. |
| Define begging the question. | Circular reasoning—the premise assumes the conclusion it’s trying to prove. |
| Give an example of begging the question. | “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God wrote it.” |
| What is the wording effect in polls? | Small changes in phrasing can drastically shift responses (e.g., “forbid” vs. “not allow”). |
| What is push polling? | A deceptive tactic disguised as a poll, meant to spread negative claims, not gather data. |
| Give an example push poll question. | “Would you vote for Candidate X if you knew he was investigated for fraud?” |
| What is the fundamental rule of question-answer dialogue? | “He who asserts must prove.” |
| How does this rule protect answerers? | It gives them the right to challenge loaded questions and shift burden back. |
| What is the reasonable order of dialogue? | The logical sequence questions should follow (e.g., don’t ask “Have you stopped?” before “Did you ever?”). |
| Why is violating reasonable order fallacious? | It jumps ahead, forcing the answerer to accept later premises without establishing earlier ones. |
| What does ignoratio elenchi mean literally? | “Ignorance of refutation.” |
| What is the fallacy in practice? | Proving the wrong conclusion—missing the point of the issue. |
| Give the senator/housing bill example. | Senator argues “Everyone deserves housing” instead of “This bill will improve housing.” |
| Define global irrelevance. | A claim that doesn’t advance the speaker’s overall thesis in the dialogue. |
| Define local irrelevance. | A reply that fails to answer the specific question just asked. |
| Give a courtroom example of global irrelevance. | Prosecutor dwells on “murder is horrible” instead of proving *this* defendant guilty. |
| What is an agenda in dialogue? | A pre-agreed set of issues to keep discussion focused. |
| Why do arguments often derail without an agenda? | Participants may have different ideas of “the issue” and accuse each other of irrelevance. |
| How does wrong conclusion differ from red herring? | Wrong conclusion argues for a different but specific point; red herring is a pure distraction with no clear endpoint. |
| Give a red herring example. | “Professor Conway complains about parking? But did you know he had an affair?” |
| Give a wrong conclusion example. | “Taster’s Choice tastes better? No—you shouldn’t buy it because Nestle did something unethical.” |
| Define subject-matter relevance. | Premise and conclusion share topics/keywords. |
| Define probative relevance. | Premise actually provides a reason to believe/disbelieve the conclusion. |
| Why is subject-matter relevance insufficient? | Shared topic doesn’t mean logical support (e.g., “Bob has red hair” → “Bob is guilty”). |
| What mistake is made with complex conclusions? | Arguing for only part of a multi-part conclusion (e.g., proving “if A then B” only by proving A). |
| Can an argument with a true conclusion still be flawed? | Yes—if it uses irrelevant premises. |
| Example from Windsor? | To prove “Windsor is not grimy,” citing “fine schools” is largely irrelevant. |
| What are the two dimensions in Walton’s relevance framework? | Level (Global/Local) and Dimension (Subject-Matter/Probative). |
| Which combination is the true goal of argument? | Global + Probative relevance. |
| What is the root of all irrelevance criticisms? | Failure to fulfill one’s obligation to prove one’s designated thesis. |
| What is argumentum ad populum? | Appeal to popular sentiment or mass enthusiasm. |
| Give an example from advertising. | Insurance ad shows happy family but gives no policy details. |
| When is ad populum not automatically fallacious? | When it doesn’t evade burden of proof—e.g., building brand awareness, not making a logical claim. |
| How does argument from popularity work? | Claiming something is true/good because it’s widely accepted. |
| Give the politician-farmer example. | Politician poses as farmer to gain trust, appealing to group identity without policy substance. |
| When do emotional appeals become fallacious in Walton’s view? | When they evade or confuse burden of proof. |
| What should you ask when you encounter an emotional appeal? | “Is this emotion replacing evidence?” |
| When can emotion be legitimate evidence? | When it’s based on relevant experience (e.g., fear in danger, sympathy for injustice). |
| What is the continuum of emotional appeals? | From pure manipulation (no evidence) ←→ legitimate persuasion (evidence + emotion). |
| In which dialogue type are emotional appeals most appropriate? | Ceremonial speech or rally—where inspiration, not proof, is the goal. |
| Where are emotional appeals least appropriate? | Scientific debate or inquiry, where evidence must dominate. |
| How can emotional appeals hide a dialectical shift? | Shifting from persuasion (needing evidence) to quarrel (emotional combat) without notice. |
| What is in-group bias? | Favoring people perceived as part of one’s own group. |
| How is it exploited in emotional appeals? | “Real farmers support this” → pressures conformity, avoids scrutiny. |
| What are Walton’s three tiers of analyzing emotional appeals? | Propositional (what is claimed), Illocutionary (speech act performed), Perlocutionary (intended effect). |
| At which tier is emotion most likely fallacious? | Propositional—when emotion replaces factual content. |
| List two “emotional audit” questions. | 1. “Is this emotion doing evidentiary work or relationship work?” 2. “Would the argument collapse without the emotional elements?” |
| How do filter bubbles relate to emotional appeals? | They reinforce in-group emotion, making popularity feel like proof. |
| What is algorithmic emotional engineering? | Platforms optimizing content for emotional engagement, often bypassing critical thinking. |
| In one sentence, what is Walton’s key message about emotion in argument? | Emotional appeals aren’t inherently fallacious—they become problematic when they evade evidential responsibility or misrepresent the dialogue type. |