I hope we're all ready for tomorrow. I noticed some terms that were difficult to distinguish from one another and am hoping others will benefit from clarification as much as me.
1. We're asked to define claim twice on the review sheet, once in 1(beside argument) and again in 8 (in relation to the Toulmin Schema). How do the two definitions differ? In 1, is a claim simply an utterance or statement? And how is it different from a proposition? I understand in the Toulmin Schema a claim includes a thesis, qualifiers, and exceptions. I also understand that a proposition is a description of a state of affairs that qualifies as true or false. Can't a claim be a description (It is raining), and couldn't it be true or false?
And where does premise fall in all this? Can't a premise claim, just as proposition may, and be evaluated the same as its two counterparts? Also, why would a premise be any different from a conclusion if a premise concludes unstated warrants in order to get to other conclusions? Wouldn't every argument and conclusion (which indefinitely relies on premises) be Petitio Principii because argument assumes the premises as conclusions and the conclusions as premises. Arguments and questions already presuppose an answer merely by arguing and stating, it can only reach as far as the argument or question itself. Argument, conclusions, questions, return only to verify their initial endeavor and never really get beyond themselves... right?
2. What's the difference between a scheme and schema? Is it only grammatical (pl. and singular)? Also, how is trope different from scheme? The definitions are almost exactly alike, and I don't see how deviating from the ordinary is different from deviating from convention.
3. And what about metonymy and synecdoche? If metonymy is relation through contact and synecdoche parts and wholes, how can the two definitions remain distinct when relation itself depends on contact, when relation itself is necessarily a part or greater than the part it's related to?
4. Paronomasia (pun), isocolon, and auxesis. The ex. for paronomasia is, "Some folks are wise, some folks are otherwise." If paronomasia is word play, isn't this also a repetition of grammatical form and thus a isocolon? And isn't repetition always amplification and therefore auxesis? This is not the only example, nor the only terms, that overlap.
5. Enthymeme vs. Argument. On 6/8, Enthymeme is defined as a claim supported by reasons, while on 5/25 an argument is defined as a claim supported by reasons and/or evidence. Does only evidence distinguish enthymeme and argument? Does an enthymeme rely more on syllogism? And if deduction, like Dale said on 6/8, relies on the syllogism, how is it different from an enthymeme?
6. Lastly, are formal, logical fallacies confined to denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent? Can one commit a logical fallacy by affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent?
I hope this is helpful and not confusing!