New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

PHL 3000: Critical Thinking Week 6 Notes

by: Haley Cochran

PHL 3000: Critical Thinking Week 6 Notes PHL 3000

Marketplace > Wright State University > Philosophy > PHL 3000 > PHL 3000 Critical Thinking Week 6 Notes
Haley Cochran
GPA 3.89

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover the lecture on October 7th, concentrating on #fallacies.
Critical Thinking
Dr. Scott Wilson
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Critical Thinking

Popular in Philosophy

This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Haley Cochran on Monday October 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHL 3000 at Wright State University taught by Dr. Scott Wilson in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 5 views. For similar materials see Critical Thinking in Philosophy at Wright State University.


Reviews for PHL 3000: Critical Thinking Week 6 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/10/16
Critical Thinking October 7th Fallacies of Weak Induction ➢ Arguments in which it is claimed that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true. ➢ In these fallacies, the premises are relevant to the conclusion. ➢ However, the connection between premises and conclusion is very weak. Appeal to Unqualified Authority ➢ Occurs anytime someone supports a conclusion by relying on the testimony of someone who, although an authority on some matter, is not an authority on the topic under consideration. ○ My doctor is going to buy stock xyz, so I will too. ○ Pamela Anderson hates furs, you should too. ○ *Question: Who are the qualified authorities? ■ Cannot be answered in a general way Appeal to Ignorance ➢ Occurs anytime someone concludes that, since a certain statement has not been proven true (false), that it must be relevant considerations. ○ Bob tried to prove that ghosts don’t exist. ■ Since he failed, ghosts are real. Hasty Generalization ➢ Occurs anytime someone concludes something on the basis of a non-representative examples. ○ Be sure to ask if you are relying on a closed group thinking. ○ Seek alternative sources. False Cause ➢ Occurs whenever someone argues that X causes Y, yet it is probably not true that X causes Y. ○ Every time I wash my car it rains, I must control the weather. ○ The coin has come up heads 10 times in a row; tails is due. ○ Our generation lives longer than any that came before it. Nutritional sciences is a wonder. ■ Claiming a small part of the cause is the whole cause. Slippery Slope ➢ Occurs any time someone claims that a conclusion follows from a faulty chain of cause and effect. Weak Analogy ➢ Analogical Reasoning: ○ X has properties A,B,C Y has properties A,B,C,D Therefore, X probably has D as well. ○ Since running and swimming places similar stress on the body, and since stretching is good for runners, stretching is probably good for swimmers. ○ No one would buy shoes without trying them on first, why would you get married without having sex first. ■ Very weak argument.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.