Types of arguments

Different types of arguments are described in argumentation theory and rhetoric , occasionally also in other subject areas .

Intact arguments

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

Who came up with this system? Can this also be proven in reputable sources?

Deductive arguments

→ Main article : Deduction

As argumentum ad veritatem (proof of truth) deductive (or deductively valid) arguments are referred to, in which the conclusion logically from the premises follows, so the conclusion is true if the premises are true.

Logical utility argument

The logical utility argument consists of two or more premises and the logical conclusion. Example: “This new car only consumes five liters per 100 kilometers and its tank capacity is 50 liters. That means you can travel 1,000 kilometers on one tank of fuel without having to refuel on the way. "

enlargement

It mathematically relates two sentences to one another. The plausibility of a saving or a profit is shown from the calculated result. Example: "With savings of just 1.7 cents per printed page, you save 20,000 × 0.017 = 340 euros per month on your print run."

reduction

It is used to relativize possible counter-arguments, e.g. B. Acquisition costs or ongoing charges. Example: "The car costs 24,000 euros, but if it is used for 20 years that is only 100 euros per month." However, the above calculation does not take into account the interest and compound interest effect. Therefore the profitability calculation is cheaper.

Conclusion from the general to the special

The argumentum a posteriori (from a posteriori , 'in hindsight', 'from the following') works with evidence based on experience . This conclusion is used to gain specific knowledge from general theories . Example: “For 6000 years war has been one of the recurring strategies for securing scarce resources. Even today we are observing resources that are becoming increasingly scarce. So there will be another war. ”Or:“ All the people I knew died. So I will also have to die. ”This form is logically unclean, because from the area of ​​the experienced something is inferred from something not yet experienced.

Accounting

The accounting or utility analysis compares the pros and cons arguments and gives them a weighting factor. The summation gives a mathematically unambiguous result.

Inductive arguments

→ Main article : Induction closure

Inductive arguments are based on empirical observation and experience. In doing so, general conclusions are drawn from individual cases. While it is rational to hold the conclusion to be true when all the premises are true, the conclusion is not logically compelling, it is only probable to a certain extent .

Example: “All previous attempts to reform the spelling have shown that the performance of the students has deteriorated. So the performance of the students will decrease again with the introduction of the current spelling reform. "

Even if the statement “All previous reforms have led to poorer performance” should be confirmed without exception by empirical studies, the argument is only valid within a statistically reliable framework, as a single counterexample would refute the general validity.

The validity of inductive arguments is highly controversial.

Indirect arguments

A reverse conclusion ( argumentum e contrario , proof by contradiction) underpins the own thesis with the falsification of the opposite ( indirect proof ). Example: Euclid's proof of the irrationality of root 2 or: “The opponents of the spelling reform claim that the students would make more mistakes with the new rules. However, the latest studies show that the error rate has fallen by 20 percent since its introduction. "

Other individual argument types

Basic assumption

With the argumentum a priori , a proof is made by means of purely logical conclusions, which does not require empirical knowledge. However, this assumption cannot be falsified. Example: "Assuming that all people are mortal and that Socrates is a person, it follows that Socrates must be mortal."

Cant

The argumentum a fortiori shows that the existing assertion is even more certain than one that has already been proven with sufficient certainty. "It has been proven beyond doubt by means of series of tests that a concentration of 10 mg / kg of the agent in question is harmful to health. However, my client was exposed to a much higher concentration for much longer, so that the damage to my client's health is beyond question. "

Fallacy and other problematic arguments

System according to Damer

An attempt based on fallacies arguments ( Engl. Fallacies systematize), has the American philosopher 1980 T. Edward Damer taken. Damer assumes that a good argument satisfies five principles:

Structural principle

“Anyone who argues for or against a position should use an argument that satisfies the basic structural requirements of a well-formed argument. Such an argument does not use justifications that contradict one another, that contradict the conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. "

Relevance principle

"Anyone who argues for or against a position should only use reasons that provide evidence to support the truth of the conclusion."

Acceptability principle

“Anyone who presents an argument for or against a position should present reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet the standard criteria of acceptability.”
Damer classifies arguments that are themselves as “unacceptable” or contradict the appearance.

Zulänglichkeitsprinzip ( sufficiency principle )

"Anyone who puts forward an argument for or against a position should try to offer relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind that, taken together, are sufficient in number and weight to justify agreeing to the conclusion."

Widerlegungsprinzip ( rebuttal principle )

"Anyone who makes an argument for or against a position should include in that argument an effective refutation of any expected serious criticism that might be brought against the argument itself or against the position it supports."

Accordingly, Damer classifies defective arguments into five groups:

Principle that is violated	Argument group	Argument type	example
Structural principle	Petitio Principii	Circular reasoning	Dylan: "This college is very paternalistic about its student policy." Roman: "What reasons do you have to say that?" Dylan: "The students are treated like children."
		zirkel circuit type language ( question-begging language )	"The seller cheated on me, so the court should come to the conclusion that I was cheated by the seller."
		Question with implicit subordination ( complex question )	A asks B: "What did you do with my watch after you stole it from me?" (B did not admit that the watch would be removed.)
		Idem per idem ( question-begging definition )	E: "True love never ends in separation or divorce." F: "But X and Y really loved each other, and then separated." E: "Then it wasn't true love."
	Arguments that contradict themselves ( fallacies of inconsistency )	Conclusion from an inconsistent or incompatible premises ( incompatible premises )	Alan: “It is good to honor father and mother because God prescribed it to us in the ten commandments.” Bob: “And if God had commanded us to murder and rape?” Alan: “He would not have done that, for murder and rape are evil. ”(Alan's arguments are inconsistent, because first he declares that God does not follow a priori values, and then that he does follow a priori values.)
		Contradiction between premise and conclusion ( contradiction between premise and conclusion )	“All human life is sanctified and we must not destroy it. Abortion destroys life. Therefore it is not allowed, except in cases of rape. ”(The conclusion, with its implication, that life resulting from rape is not sanctified, contradicts the premise that all life is sanctified.)
	Fallacies in deductive Close ( fallacies of deductive inference )	Denial of Ante Zendens ( denying the antecedent )	“If I were to smoke heavily, smoking would shorten my life. That's why I don't smoke and will consequently get very old. "
		Reaffirming the consequence ( affirming the consequent )	“When I eat red meat after I haven't had one for a long time, I often get sick. This morning I woke up with a stomach ache. There must have been red meat in the soup I had in the restaurant yesterday. "
		Confusion of the inverse ( false conversion )	“A Christian takes an interest in other people. If you love people and take part in them, you must be a Christian, whether you call yourself that or not. "
		Non distributio medii ( undistributed middle term )	"Since some philosophers are bad discussion leaders and some of our professors are philosophers, we know that at least some of our professors are not good discussion leaders."
		Illicit Major ( illicit distribution of an end term )	"Those who ignore important facts can easily come to a wrong judgment, and because no criminal judge ignores relevant facts, it is very unlikely that a criminal judge will come to a wrong judgment."
Relevance principle	Fallacies of irrelevant premises ( fallacies of irrelevant premise )	Genetic fallacy	“You shouldn't be wearing a wedding ring. Didn't you know that wedding rings were originally symbolic of the anklets men used to chain their wives with? "
		rationalization	“Okay, I didn't do well on the entrance exam. But that doesn't mean anything, because I never do well in tests. Tests don't show what I can really do. "
		Draw false conclusions ( drawing the wrong conclusion )	“I believe in the sanctity of marriage. That is why I am convinced that marriage should only be concluded between a man and a woman. "
		Use false reasons ( using the wrong reasons )	"Cigarette advertising shouldn't be targeted at teenagers because tobacco causes cancer."
	Fallacies irrelevant appeals ( fallacies of irrelevant appeal )	Argumentum ad verecundiam	“We should accept the proposal. The university administration approved it unanimously. "
		Argumentum ad populum	"If solariums were unhealthy, they would not be used by millions of people."
		Argumentum ad baculum	"If we capitulate, the opponents will slaughter us."
		Traditional argument	"Parents should have their newborn boys circumcised because that's how it's always been done in our culture."
		Appeal to the self-interest ( appeal to self-interest )	“Why are you opposing the proposed law? With your high income, you would only benefit from the new regulation. "
		Emotions appeal ( manipulation of emotions )	“Nicole is lonely and sad and has not had a date with a man all year. If Brad has time, he should go out with her. "
Acceptability principle	Fallacies of linguistic confusion ( fallacies of linguistic confusion )	Equivocation ( equivocation )	Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky : " I did not have sexual relations with that woman " ( " I did not have a sexual relationship with this woman"). In the sense of the word "sexual" with the connotation of intercourse, Clinton's statement is correct, but in the colloquial and legal sense it is not.
		Ambiguity ( ambiguity )	"Fred never argues with his father when he's drunk."
		Betonungsmehrdeutigkeit ( misleading accent )	"If you drive around a dog that is on the road, you risk your car skidding." ( To drive vs. to drive )
		Invalid contrast ( illicit contrast )	Church officials: “If a priest assaults boys, it is a sin.” Listener: “As if it were okay for him to assault a girl.” (The mistake is on the side of the listener, who does not have sufficient reason assumes "boys" was intentionally said in contrast to "girls".)
		Suggestive allusion ( argument by innuendo )	“If you knew that one of the candidates in this election was receiving money from illegal resources, would that affect your voting decision? Investigate and see where the money my opponent uses to fund his election campaign is coming from. You might be surprised by the facts. "
		Abuse inaccurate designation ( misuse of a vague expression )	A: “Our college is losing students, which puts it in a difficult financial position. We should pay more attention to the underperforming students, because some of them drop out because of their poor grades. ”B:“ Shall we no longer graduate the grades ?! ”
		Distinction without a difference ( distinction without a difference )	“I'm not saying I'm against feminism; I am only firmly convinced that in a household the man should be in charge. "
	False conclusions from unjustified assumptions ( unwarranted assumption fallacies )	Fallacy of the relative insignificance ( fallacy of the continuum )	“Yes, I really want to lose weight. But a piece of cake more or less makes practically no difference. "
		"The whole is more than the sum of the parts" ( fallacy of composition )	“Dan is a wonderful young man and Rebecca is a wonderful young woman. They would make a wonderful couple. "
		Fallacy of division ( fallacy of division )	“I want to go to college with intimate, small classes. The University of Virginia is a very large school and is therefore out of the question for me. ”(Mistake: From the size of the school, the spokesperson concludes the size of the classes.)
		False dilemma ( false alternatives )	"If you are not for us, you are against us."
		Actual-fallacies ( is-ought fallacy )	Amanda: “Let's go to Paris in the spring.” Rick: “We shouldn't go to France. We go to a different country every year, and we've been to France. "
		Wishful thinking ( wishful thinking )	"Because most people want an afterlife, such an afterlife also exists."
		Abuse of a principle ( misuse of a principle )	“Because I want to run a used car dealership on my private property and can do whatever I want on my own property, I will also do this business.” (Incorrect, because the principle of domiciliary rights can experience certain restrictions due to legal provisions. )
		Argumentum ad temperantiam ( fallacy of the mean ) / golden mean	“Both the Palestinian and Israeli positions are extremes. It would be best if they met somewhere in the middle. "
		Faulty analogy ( faulty analogy )	“Smoking cigarettes is like taking arsenic. Both are proven to lead to death. If you didn't want to take a spoonful of arsenic, you shouldn't smoke either. ”(Incorrect, because the indicated dose of arsenic would lead to immediate death, whereas a smoker can live for many decades.)
Principle of sufficiency	Fallacies that are based on a lack of evidence ( fallacies of missing evidence )	Insufficient sample ( insufficient sample )	“My experience with my ex-wife was so bad that I would never get married again. In fact, I wouldn't recommend marriage to anyone. "
		Non- representative data ( unrepresentative data )	“In the simulated elections we had in college today, the Democratic candidate won. I am therefore pretty sure that the democratic candidate will also win the correct elections in November. ”(Distorted by the fact that voters from the Democratic Party are mostly over-represented among college students).
		Argumentum ad ignorantiam ( arguing from ignorance )	"I didn't see a 'no entry' sign, so I assumed it was okay to walk across the field."
		Counterfactual conditional ( contrary-to-fact hypothesis )	"If you had only tried the braised snails: you would have found them delicious."
		Argumentum ad iudicium ( fallacy of popular wisdom )	Jackie: "Now after the inheritance we can pay off the home loan." Tim: "No, I think it would be better to invest the money so that it brings in more than we lose with the home loan. That's how we save money. "Jackie:" What? That's crazy! It's common sense to pay off a loan as early as you can. "
		Demand for a privilege ( special pleading )	Jessie: "Please turn the music down, I just lay down." Katrina: "This is my room too . I just got this CD and I want to listen to it. "Jessie:" Listen to it another time. I want to sleep for half an hour now. "
		Omitting elementary reasons ( omission of key evidence )	“Let's get married, Melissa. We have the same preferences, we both like your dog, we go to the same church and we can save a lot of money. ”(Faulty because much more elementary reasons for marriage - mutual affection, the intention to spend the whole life together - are completely left out. )
	Causal false conclusions ( causal fallacies )	Confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions ( confusion of A Necessary with a Sufficient condition )	“This flashlight should actually work because I've just inserted new batteries. But it doesn't work. I'll take the batteries out and put others in. ”(Faulty, because functioning batteries are necessary, but not enough on their own to get the flashlight to work.)
		Too strong causal simplification ( causal oversimplification )	“Corporal punishment is no longer allowed in schools. That is why children today no longer have self-discipline and no more respect for authority. "(Faulty, because the causes of changed child behavior are far more complex than stated here.)
		Post hoc fallacy ( post hoc fallacy )	Landlord: “I can't help but think that you are the cause. Before you moved into the apartment, we never had any problems with the heating. "
		Confusion of cause and effect ( confusion of cause and effect )	“No wonder Natalie gets such good grades. She is the teacher's favorite. "
		Disregard a common cause ( neglect of a common cause )	“Most teachers have children of their own. Teaching may awaken a desire to have children. Or the experience of having children arouses the desire to become a teacher. "
		Dam break argument ( domino fallacy )	"If we allow same-sex marriage, soon someone will demand that group marriages be allowed, and in the end no one will bother to get married at all."
		Gambler's fallacy ( gambler's fallacy )	“Through the dating agency I have had very bad partner suggestions seven times in a row. The chances that the next proposal will be a success are therefore greater than ever before. "
Rebuttal principle	Against proof fallacies ( fallacies of counterevidence )	Deny and small talk of counter-evidence ( denying the counterevidence )	“I don't care what's in your biology book. I know I am not descended from any monkey. The Bible says that God created man in his own image. Unlike the Bible, your biology book is only an expression of the opinion of some author. "
		Ignoring counter-evidence ( ignoring the counterevidence )	“Riding a motorcycle is dangerous, only two people can ride and you have to wear an uncomfortable helmet. I don't understand why you want to buy a motorcycle. ”(What is ignored here is that many people ride a motorcycle mainly because they enjoy it.)
	ad hominem fallacies	Abusive ad hominem ( abusive ad hominem )	“No wonder you think sexual promiscuity is okay. You never had a good relationship with a woman. It's not surprising that you sleep around with women. "
		Well poisoning	“You are not a woman. Nothing you could say about abortion would ever hold up. "
		"One wrong cancels another" ( two-wrongs fallacy )	Father: “You really shouldn't drink. Alcohol dulls you, reduces your control and can make you addicted. "Son:" That is not a particularly convincing argument. Papa, you are standing here in front of me with a glass of bourbon in your hand. ”(The father's statement is not untrue just because he drinks.)
	Distraction fallacies ( fallacies of diversion )	Straw man argument	Marcia: "If we don't build a power plant here within the next ten years, we won't be able to meet the growing demand for electricity." David: "You mean to say that you can enjoy the flora and fauna, and even the lives of the people who are responsible for have to give up the construction of their apartments does not matter. "
		Insignificant objections ( trivial objections )	Suzanne: “Walking is the best exercise you can get. If you can, you should always go and not drive. If you go to the restaurant and don't drive, it is very good for your health. "Sherell:" But I don't eat in the restaurant at all. "
		Red Herring	Senator Y .: “Why don't you want to support my abortion law initiative? Does the fate of unborn children leave you cold? "Senator W .:" It doesn't leave me cold. What I don't understand is your stance on gun legislation. Does the fate of the thousands who are shot every year leave you indifferent? Why didn't you support our gun control legislative initiative? "
		Recourse to humor or ridicule	Reporter: “If you were elected president as a minority party candidate, you would have a very difficult time working with the US Congress. How would you go about implementing your reform ideas? ”Candidate:“ If I get elected, half of the members of Congress will drop dead with a heart attack. That would solve half of my problems immediately. "

Further classifications

Damer's attempt at systematization is just one of several that have been made in the English-speaking world over the past 40 years. The American philosopher Patrick J. Hurley ( University of San Diego ) made another systematization proposal in 1982 in his influential work A concise introduction to logic :

Group of fallacies	Argument type
Relevance fallacies	Argumentum ad baculum
	Argumentum ad misericordiam
	Argumentum ad populum
	Argumentum ad hominem
	Incorrect inclusion of an exception ( fallacies of accident )
	Straw man argument
	Ignoratio elenchi
	Red Herring
False conclusions based on weak induction	Argumentum ad verecundiam
	Argumentum ad ignorantiam
	Hasty generalization ( hasty generalization )
	Statement with a false cause ( fallacy of false cause )
	Slippery slope ( fallacy of slippery slope )
	Weak analogy
Fallacies based on assumptions, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy	Petitio Principii
	Question with implicit subordination ( complex question )
	False dilemma ( false dichotomy )
	Suppressed documents ( suppressed evidence )
	Equivocation
	Ambiguity ( amphiboly )
	"The whole is more than the sum of the parts" ( fallacy of composition )
	Fallacy of division ( fallacy of division )

Selection of further individual fallacy and other problematic arguments

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: pseudo causality argument

Here, two events function as premises, from their simultaneity ( cum hoc ergo propter hoc : simultaneously, i.e. therefore) or chronological sequence (post hoc ergo propter hoc: afterwards, i.e. therefore) an unproven causal connection is concluded. For example, ice cream sales correlate strongly (and robustly) with crime rates . Hence, ice cream causes crime. This argument is flawed because it ignores an actual explanation and there is no causality between crime rates and ice cream.

Explicit continuation

The argumentum ex concesso is based on a statement that has already been admitted to be true. “You admitted that you were at the scene at the time in question. Since, because of the structure of the crime scene, it is inevitable to see the blood stain when you enter the apartment, the question arises why you claim to have seen nothing. "

Hypothetical argument

This argument implies assumed premises with actual ones. The conclusion does not result in a (necessarily) true judgment, since the truth of the premises must be proven for this. Example: “If that were your child in intensive care, Doctor, what would you do to save his life? You would try anything! "

Bogus arguments

A bogus argument used with the intention of deceiving others is called a sophism . These are arguments that, if handled correctly, are logically flawless, but can also be used to (deliberately) wrong conclusions . While deductive as well as (conditionally) inductive and analogizing arguments actually serve to prove a thesis , the so-called fallacies are not valid arguments. While it is out of the premises , a conclusion drawn, but this does not take place according to the laws of logic .

A logical error to which the argumentator succumbs can e.g. B. the wrong use of the terms involved through a paralogism or an antinomy that has not been taken into account , which can also be based on a wrong dilemma .

While in the case of false conclusions , attempts are still made to argue objectively ( ad rem ) and rationally , a pseudo-argument ( informal fallacy ) does not require a logical structure.

Silence as an argument

With the argumentum ex silentio , the historian evaluates the non-mention of a certain event by a certain historical source as an indication that this event did not take place. This argument is not considered to be compelling in historical research, but if a source reports very closely about the time and place of the event in question, this argument has a certain plausibility.

Such an argumentum ex silentio is sometimes used in the context of legal interpretation . Here the argument “from the silence of the law” is used as a source of knowledge. An example:

“In almost all liability norms of civil law, a subjective element (i.e. intent or negligence) is required as a liability-establishing condition. With the liability norm of animal owner liability according to § 833 BGB, however, the law is silent about the presence of a subjective element. From the silence of the law it can be concluded that there is no intent or negligence in the context of animal owner liability. "

Repetition

The argumentum ad nauseam ( Latin for nausea, nausea) denotes a fallacy according to which a statement appears to be more correct through constant repetition.
“It wasn't me!”
“You were seen on the spot at the time of the crime.”
“It wasn't me!”
“You had a gun in your hand.”
“It wasn't me!”
“You threatened the victim last night . "
" It wasn't me! "

Apart from the fact that one gets the other discussant to give up or, more trickily, pretends to have refuted the objections by modifying the repetition, one thus leaves the framework of rational discussion, since it is only a matter of insisting on one's own opinion. A variation of this: It often happens that proponents of an opinion dishonestly repeat long disproved arguments to people who they believe are not yet familiar with the refutation.

Types of arguments that have been described outside of argumentation theory

Homicide argument , killer phrase

Colloquial terms for a Red Herring (especially an Argumentum ad rem ), with which contradiction against a position without Argumentum ad veritatem is to be stifled by the power of the speaker who assumes the authority of interpretation . For example: “That is out of the question, because we've never done it like this before.” The expression “killer phrase” goes back to Charles H. Clark's contributions to brainstorming ( management theory ). "Manslaughter argument" is a loan transfer of the English knock-out argument , but in terms of content, in the broadest sense of the word , it describes what is called thought-terminating cliché in English with the psychologist Robert Jay Lifton . A related term is that of the TINA principle ( acronym for There Is No Alternative , English for "There is no alternative") as a non-technical term for Red Herrings, with which a speaker wants to emphasize his position as above criticism.

Web links

• Website of the Chair of Application-Oriented Formal Verification: Michael Christian Nikelsky: Inductive Logic: Confirmation and Confirmability (German; PDF; 132 kB), explanation of problems in the construction or justification of a scientific, inductive logic system

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Georg JW Dorn: Inductive Countersupport. In: Journal for General Philosophy of Science 26 (1995), pp. 187-189; James Cussens: Deduction, Induction and Probabilistic Support. In: Synthesis 108 (1996), pp. 1-10; Ellery Eells: Popper and Miller, and Induction and Deduction. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Asian Logic Conference (1999).
2. ^ ^{A b} T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 7 ( [1] [PDF]).
3. ^ ^{A b c} T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 8 ( [2] [PDF]).
4. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 35 f . ( [3] [PDF]).
5. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 64 ( [4] [PDF]).
6. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 66 ( [5] [PDF]).
7. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 68 ( [6] [PDF]).
8. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 70 ( [7] [PDF]).
9. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 73 ( [8] [PDF]).
10. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 75 ( [9] [PDF]).
11. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 77 ( [10] [PDF]).
12. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 80 ( [11] [PDF]).
13. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 81 ( [12] [PDF]).
14. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 84 ( [13] [PDF]).
15. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 85 f . ( [14] [PDF]).
16. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 94 ( [15] [PDF]).
17. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 95 ( [16] [PDF]).
18. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 98 ( [17] [PDF]).
19. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 100 ( [18] [PDF]).
20. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 103 ( [19] [PDF]).
21. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 105 ( [20] [PDF]).
22. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 106 ff . ( [21] [PDF]).
23. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 108 ( [22] [PDF]).
24. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 110 ( [23] [PDF]).
25. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 113 ( [24] [PDF]).
26. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 121 ff . ( [25] [PDF]).
27. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 123 ( [26] [PDF]).
28. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 126 ff . ( [27] [PDF]).
29. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 128 ( [28] [PDF]).
30. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 131 ( [29] [PDF]).
31. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 131 ff . ( [30] [PDF]).
32. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 134 ( [31] [PDF]).
33. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 139 ( [32] [PDF]).
34. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 141 ( [33] [PDF]).
35. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 142 ( [34] [PDF]).
36. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 144 ( [35] [PDF]).
37. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 145 ( [36] [PDF]).
38. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 147 ( [37] [PDF]).
39. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 148 ( [38] [PDF]).
40. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 151 ( [39] [PDF]).
41. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 153 ( [40] [PDF]).
42. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 162 ( [41] [PDF]).
43. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 164 ( [42] [PDF]).
44. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 167 ( [43] [PDF]).
45. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 168 ( [44] [PDF]).
46. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 171 ( [45] [PDF]).
47. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 172 ( [46] [PDF]).
48. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 174 ( [47] [PDF]).
49. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 177 ( [48] [PDF]).
50. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 179 ( [49] [PDF]).
51. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 181 ( [50] [PDF]).
52. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 182 ( [51] [PDF]).
53. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 184 ( [52] [PDF]).
54. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 185 ( [53] [PDF]).
55. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 187 ( [54] [PDF]).
56. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 194 ( [55] [PDF]).
57. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 196 ( [56] [PDF]).
58. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 199 ( [57] [PDF]).
59. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 200 ( [58] [PDF]).
60. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 202 ( [59] [PDF]).
61. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 205 ( [60] [PDF]).
62. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 207 ( [61] [PDF]).
63. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 208 ( [62] [PDF]).
64. ^ T. Edward Damer: Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments . 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2009, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4 , pp. 210 ( [63] [PDF]).
65. ↑ Patrick J. Hurley: A concise introduction to logic . Wadsworth, 1982, ISBN 978-0-534-01120-8 ( online [PDF]).
66. ↑ See e.g. B. Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 7 May 2009, file number III ZR 48/08.