Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, an argument from inconvenience or argumentum ab inconvenienti, is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would seek to show that a proposed action would have unreasonably inconvenient consequences, as for example a law that would require a person wishing to lend money against a security to first ascertain the borrower ...
The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion, "The orator persuades by means of his hearers, when they are roused to emotion by his speech; for the judgments we deliver are not the same when we are influenced by joy or sorrow ...
Sensenig & Brehm [7] applied Brehm's reactance theory [8] to explain the boomerang effect. They argued that when a person thinks that his freedom to support a position on attitude issue is eliminated, the psychological reactance will be aroused and then he consequently moves his attitudinal position in a way so as to restore the lost freedom.
Appeal to higher loyalties. The offender claims the offence is justified by a higher law or higher loyalty such as friendship. [2] These five methods of neutralization generally manifest themselves in the form of arguments, such as: "It wasn't my fault" "It wasn't a big deal. They could afford the loss" "They had it coming"
For example, even though a spouse has shown only devotion, a person using emotional reasoning might conclude, "I know my spouse is being unfaithful because I feel jealous." This process amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a student may feel insecure about their understanding of test material even though they are ...
For example, presenting anecdotes or data regarding abstainers of alcohol or tobacco use can act as anchor points to solidify this idea. [ 13 ] Social judgment theory suggests that individuals assess incoming information based on their preexisting attitudes and beliefs, ultimately shaping their judgments and decisions.
Slothful induction, also called appeal to coincidence, is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference.An example of slothful induction might be that of a careless man who has had twelve accidents in the last six months and it is strongly evident that it was due to his negligence or rashness, yet keeps insisting that it is just ...
One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not at all relevant to the property of laziness (although this in particular is an example of a faulty generalisation rather than a false analogy).