Note: You may not rely on any fallacy websites. Attempting to use these websites is plagiarizing. If you do it, I will fail you for the entire class and I will report you to the administration for disciplinary action. Find five examples of fallacies from media sources. Each example is worth up to five points: Ø 1 point for finding an argument, rather than a report, illustration, explanation, unsupported claim, etc.; Ø 1 point for identifying the premises and conclusion of the argument, including any IP’s or IC; Ø 2 points for correctly naming the fallacy—Slippery Slope, Weak Analogy, etc.; Ø 1 points for correctly explaining why it’s that named fallacy. Ø If the argument is fallacious, but not one of our named fallacies, you may apply the counter-example method to the argument, worth 3 points. Note: Only one fallacy per passage. There may be more than one fallacy in each comment. That’s ok. But don’t use one passage for more than one fallacy. See my last sample below for an illustration of this. And notice that a report of an argument is not itself an argument. A good place to look for fallacies is in the online comments following newspaper and magazine articles, like the LATimes. Or, in any discussion forum on topics of controversy, political or religious.. I suggest you use Google news to find articles on controversial issues. These types of articles usually generate the most fallacy-filled comments. And you may not use advertisements as fallacy sources. Here’s what you must do: 1) Include the passage. Either cut and paste the passage into a word doc, or physically cut the article out and attach it to your assignment. 2) If needed, supply any unstated but implied premises (IP’s) or conclusion (IC) to complete the argument. 3) Identify the fallacy by name and briefly explain why it’s the fallacy you say it is; or apply the counter-example method to the argument. Here’s an example: From the comments following an article in the LA Times online about the Arizona Illegal Immigrant ID Law: trevor1331 at 9:13 AM May 02, 2010 (The author was responding to comments by those critical of the Arizona law.) “If, by the way, folks find America racist and unfair - there is a wonderful and simple solution:  Leave.” False Dilemma: The author seems to be saying that if one finds America racist and unfair then they should either not criticize America or they should leave. (He doesn’t actually say that they should not criticize America/Arizona. But since he’s responding to those who are criticizing the proposed Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship, there’s reason to say this is implied.) Of course, it follows then that critics have two options: Either leave or shut up—stop criticizing America/Arizona. But that’s a false dilemma. These aren’t the only options. This is a democracy. That means the citizens may speak out against what our government does, or proposes to do. It’s part of participating in.

1. Note: You may not rely on any fallacy websites. Attempting to
use these websites is plagiarizing. If you do it, I will fail you
for the entire class and I will report you to the administration
for disciplinary action.
Find five examples of fallacies from media sources. Each
example is worth up to five points:
Ø
1 point for finding an argument, rather than a report,
illustration, explanation, unsupported claim, etc.;
Ø
1 point for identifying the premises and conclusion of the
argument, including any IP’s or IC;
Ø
2 points for correctly naming the fallacy—Slippery Slope, Weak
Analogy, etc.;
Ø
1 points for correctly explaining why it’s that named fallacy.
Ø
If the argument is fallacious, but not one of our named fallacies,
you may apply the counter-example method to the argument,
worth 3 points.

2. Note: Only one fallacy per passage. There may be more than
one fallacy in each comment. That’s ok. But don’t use one
passage for more than one fallacy. See my last sample below for
an illustration of this. And notice that a report of an argument is
not itself an argument.
A good place to look for fallacies is in the online comments
following newspaper and magazine articles, like the LATimes.
Or, in any discussion forum on topics of controversy, political
or religious.. I suggest you use Google news to find articles on
controversial issues. These types of articles usually generate the
most fallacy-filled comments. And you may not use
advertisements as fallacy sources.
Here’s what you must do:
1)
Include the passage. Either cut and paste the passage into a
word doc, or physically cut the article out and attach it to your
assignment.
2)
If needed, supply any unstated but implied premises (IP’s) or
conclusion (IC) to complete the argument.
3)

3. Identify the fallacy by name and briefly explain why it’s the
fallacy you say it is; or apply the counter-example method to
the argument.
Here’s an example:
From the comments following an article in the LA Times online
about the Arizona Illegal Immigrant ID Law:
trevor1331
at 9:13 AM May 02, 2010 (The author was responding to
comments by those critical of the Arizona law.)
“If, by the way, folks find America racist and unfair - there is a
wonderful and simple solution: Leave.”
False Dilemma:
The author seems to be saying that if one finds America racist
and unfair then they should either not criticize America or they
should leave. (He doesn’t actually say that they should not
criticize America/Arizona. But since he’s responding to those
who are criticizing the proposed Arizona law requiring proof of
citizenship, there’s reason to say this is implied.) Of course, it
follows then that critics have two options: Either leave or shut
up—stop criticizing America/Arizona. But that’s a false

4. dilemma. These aren’t the only options. This is a democracy.
That means the citizens may speak out against what our
government does, or proposes to do. It’s part of participating in
democracy. (I would argue that it’s not just ok to do, but
required of us as citizens of a democracy.)
As this example illustrates, it’s not always easy to clearly
explicate the argument given. With arguments from these
sources, they’re often only half-given. Usually, the best course
is to re-construct what you think the author intends for the
argument to say, using the context and what the author actually
says as evidence. That’s what I tried to do above. The more
time you spend looking through sources, the more chance you’ll
have of finding easier ones to do where the author more clearly
and fully gives his/her argument.
Here’s more from the same comment:
Secondly, it is certainly unfair that laws are enforced - to
lawbreakers. What is fair about getting pulled over speeding?
What is fair about being busted for smoking pot? Oh, I
remember - because they are ILLEGAL.
Begs the Question
: The author cites the fact that it’s illegal as the reason why the
law is fair. But the issue is whether the law is fair or unfair. So
citing the fact that it IS the law presumes without argument that
this law is fair BECAUSE it’s the law; or (worse), presumes
that every law is fair BECAUSE it’s the law.

5. That’s clearly Begging the Question.
Here’s another example that’s more straightforward:
In Montana, an old arcade game worth a fortune (LA Times,
10/2011)
The outside world recently discovered this town's classic gypsy
fortuneteller booth. Only one or two of its kind are left in the
world. Collectors are offering millions, but cash-strapped
Virginia City won't sell. 'We love her,' says one official.
Janna Norby, a former curator whose position was one of the
five eliminated by the commission this year, said she wouldn't
want to see the gypsy sold even if it meant getting her job back.
"We set up the whole operation to save the town, not sell the
town," she said.
"You keep selling stuff, you'll have nothing left. No tourists, no
jobs, no town."
This is a
slippery slope fallacy
. She’s arguing that if the town sells the valuable gypsy
fortuneteller, it will lead to selling everything in the town, and
that will lead to “no jobs, no town.” IC: So, the town shouldn’t
sell the gypsy. But there’s no good reason to think selling the
gypsy will lead to any of that. That’s why it’s a slippery slope.
In fact, there’s more reason to think that by selling the gypsy

6. for millions, the town would have more chance of surviving
than if they don’t.
One more example, also from the LA Times:
UC San Diego professor who studies disobedience gains
followers -- and investigators
When protesting students spilled into University of California
campus courtyards in March, Ricardo Dominguez took to the
streets in his own way — digitally — leading a march to the
online office of the UC president.
Comment on this article:
Olivia G
at 11:25 PM May 6, 2011
Now we remember why we still import teachers from
Philippines and India, because the so called professors from that
side of the border are a bunch of cuckoos.
Remember: Don’t use a passage like this one for more than one
fallacy. There may be more than one fallacy in this short
passage, but you may only do one.

7. Ad Hominem (Abusive)
: The author doesn’t address the merits of what Prof Dominguez
did. She just resorts to trying to insult him by suggesting that he
is from “that side of the border”—south, presumably—and
professors from there are “cuckoos”.
First, we don’t know where he’s from. The article didn’t say. (I
didn’t include all of it, but trust me, it didn’t say.) And more
importantly, what she says is not in any way relevant to
assessing the merits of what he did, and that’s the issue being
addressed by the comments; so it’s an Abusive—or perhaps,
Circumstantial--
Ad Hominem
fallacy.