Sophistical Syllogism: Illusory Premises, Deceptive Resemblances and Fallacies

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• How is sophistical syllogism classified among the five arts?
• Which kind of material appears in the source definition of sophistical syllogism?
• Why is “every existent can be pointed to” treated as illusory?
• What does “reasoning from the sensible to the non-sensible” warn against?
• Why do illusory premises resemble first principles?
• Which properly distinguishes a first principle from an illusory premise?
• What are mushabbahāt?
• Which classes can deceptive premises imitate according to the book?
• Using ʿayn as eye in one premise and spring in another causes which error?
• Why does one shared feature not establish full identity of two things?
• Presenting an unsupported assertion as “all scholars agree” can be what?
• Why is turning “some examples are valid” into “all are valid” deceptive?
• What distinguishes sophist and wrangler in the book?
• Why is sophistry called “not beneficial in itself”?
• What is the indirect benefit of learning sophistry?
• Which question tests corruption of the matter of a syllogism?
• Where is the defect in “All humans are animals; all horses are animals; therefore all horses are humans”?
• If an inference has a valid form but an untrue premise, how is it classified?
• Which case has corruption of both matter and form?
• Does a true conclusion automatically make its syllogism sound?
• Which sequence appropriately checks both matter and form?
• What chiefly distinguishes dialectic from sophistry?
• Why does a metaphor “hope is the sun” differ from proving that hope has solar heat?
• What is the main caution concerning wahm?
• Why does the text mention first principles, common, accepted and conceded premises?
• When two uses of a word resemble each other, what must be checked?
• If a claim is attributed to a source without evidence, what needs checking?
• What independent section begins next in the book?
• Why is an attractive-sounding conclusion insufficient to judge an argument?
• A false premise made to look like a first principle falls under which class?
• A valid-looking inferential structure proves that its premises are true.
• Mushabbahāt borrow the appearance of credibility without its proper warrant.
• An indirect benefit of studying fallacies is learning to avoid misleading inferences.
• An argument must be valid whenever the same word appears in two premises, even with different meanings.