7 2 t4_chaptersevenpowerpoint
•Download as PPT, PDF•
4 likes•3,120 views
This document provides an overview of common types of fallacies, which are misleading or deceptive arguments. It discusses four major categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and formal fallacies. For each category, it provides examples and explanations of specific fallacies such as ad hominem attacks, slippery slope arguments, equivocation, affirming the consequent, and more.
Report
Share
Report
Share
![Introduction to Fallacies ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Logical fallacies
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 10 different fallacies - hasty generalization, post hoc, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, red herring, begging the question, and others. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and an example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works. The document aims to help readers identify and understand flawed arguments by learning to recognize these common logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies
This document discusses logical fallacies and how to identify them. It defines and provides examples of common fallacies such as hasty generalization, missing the point, post hoc, slippery slope, weak analogy, appeal to authority, ad populum, ad hominem, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, straw man, red herring, false dichotomy, begging the question, and equivocation. It encourages readers to ask questions to determine if an argument relies on one of these fallacious techniques rather than sound logic.
Fallacies
The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that uses poor reasoning, whether or not the conclusion is true. Fallacies can be formal, stemming from logical flaws, or informal. The document then examines different types of formal and informal fallacies identified by Aristotle, Richard Whately, and others. It provides examples of intentional and unintentional fallacies, as well as deductive fallacies. Specific fallacies like appeal to pity, scare tactics, and two wrongs making a right are explored in more depth.
Fallacies
The document discusses various logical fallacies and their definitions. It begins by explaining the origins of the word "fallacy" and provides some background. It then proceeds to define and give examples of several common fallacies, including ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, and argumentum ad populum. It concludes with reviewing the definitions of some fallacies and introducing new ones such as begging the question and red herring.
Critical thinking Logical Fallacies t
With a view to employing logic appropriately we should be aware of logical fallacies we might commit. Some are common and unintentional , others are deliberate .Some are tricks to win an argument, others are simply immoral and should be avoided.
Logical fallacy examples
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies used to invalidate arguments. It discusses fallacies such as ad hominem where one attacks the person instead of the issue, begging the question by assuming the conclusion as fact, false cause where an unrelated cause is cited to explain an event, and slippery slope implying one small step leads to catastrophe. Other fallacies presented include false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, two wrongs make a right, hasty generalization, and straw man.
3.2 Fallacies Of Relevance
Course lecture I developed over section 3.2 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Topic 3. methods of philosophical reasoning session2
This document provides a summary of 10 common logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum - Appealing to force or threat of force.
2. Appeal to Vanity - Using flattery to gain acceptance of an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Hominem - Attacking the person making an argument.
4. Tu Quoque - Accusing the opponent of the same fault being discussed.
5. Ignoratio Elenchi - Appearing to refute an argument while actually refuting something else.
6. Red Herring - Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
Recommended
Logical fallacies
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 10 different fallacies - hasty generalization, post hoc, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, red herring, begging the question, and others. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and an example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works. The document aims to help readers identify and understand flawed arguments by learning to recognize these common logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies
This document discusses logical fallacies and how to identify them. It defines and provides examples of common fallacies such as hasty generalization, missing the point, post hoc, slippery slope, weak analogy, appeal to authority, ad populum, ad hominem, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, straw man, red herring, false dichotomy, begging the question, and equivocation. It encourages readers to ask questions to determine if an argument relies on one of these fallacious techniques rather than sound logic.
Fallacies
The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that uses poor reasoning, whether or not the conclusion is true. Fallacies can be formal, stemming from logical flaws, or informal. The document then examines different types of formal and informal fallacies identified by Aristotle, Richard Whately, and others. It provides examples of intentional and unintentional fallacies, as well as deductive fallacies. Specific fallacies like appeal to pity, scare tactics, and two wrongs making a right are explored in more depth.
Fallacies
The document discusses various logical fallacies and their definitions. It begins by explaining the origins of the word "fallacy" and provides some background. It then proceeds to define and give examples of several common fallacies, including ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, slippery slope, hasty generalization, and argumentum ad populum. It concludes with reviewing the definitions of some fallacies and introducing new ones such as begging the question and red herring.
Critical thinking Logical Fallacies t
With a view to employing logic appropriately we should be aware of logical fallacies we might commit. Some are common and unintentional , others are deliberate .Some are tricks to win an argument, others are simply immoral and should be avoided.
Logical fallacy examples
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies used to invalidate arguments. It discusses fallacies such as ad hominem where one attacks the person instead of the issue, begging the question by assuming the conclusion as fact, false cause where an unrelated cause is cited to explain an event, and slippery slope implying one small step leads to catastrophe. Other fallacies presented include false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, two wrongs make a right, hasty generalization, and straw man.
3.2 Fallacies Of Relevance
Course lecture I developed over section 3.2 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Topic 3. methods of philosophical reasoning session2
This document provides a summary of 10 common logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum - Appealing to force or threat of force.
2. Appeal to Vanity - Using flattery to gain acceptance of an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Hominem - Attacking the person making an argument.
4. Tu Quoque - Accusing the opponent of the same fault being discussed.
5. Ignoratio Elenchi - Appearing to refute an argument while actually refuting something else.
6. Red Herring - Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
1.2 Recognizing Arguments
This document discusses how to identify and analyze arguments. An argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion. It also discusses different types of statements that are not arguments, such as warnings, advice, opinions, and reports. Conditional statements on their own are not arguments, but can be used as part of an argument. Necessary conditions are required for something to occur, while sufficient conditions alone are enough to trigger something.
Fallacies
The document provides information about different types of logical fallacies, including fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. It defines what a fallacy is, and categorizes them into two types - fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. For fallacies of relevance, it gives examples and explanations of different types like personal attack, attacking the motive, look who's talking, two wrongs make a right, scare tactics, appeal to emotion, bandwagon argument, straw man, red herring, equivocation, and begging the question. For fallacies of insufficient evidence, it discusses false authority, appeal to ignorance, false dilemma, loaded question, false cause, hasty generalization, slippery slope, weak analogy
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Based from the book : "Logic Made Simple for Filipinos" by Florentino Timbreza here is the summary made into powerpoint of Lesson 12: The Categorical Syllogism.
It Includes:
Introduction to categorical syllogism
General Axioms of the Syllogism
Eight Syllogistic Rules
Figures and Moods of the Categorical Syllogism
Examples in these slides are our own, there were no examples derived from the book.
WEEK 3 ISSUES MORAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Here are some suggestions on what you should do in this situation:
1. Talk privately with your younger sister. Explain to her that stealing is wrong and will get her into serious trouble. Help her understand why she should not do it again.
2. Talk privately with your older brother as well. Explain what happened but do not accuse your sister. Suggest keeping a closer eye on his wallet instead of physically punishing your sister.
3. Involve your parents to help resolve the issue. Explain the situation to them and let them handle disciplining your sister appropriately without harming her. Their guidance can help prevent future stealing and resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner.
4. Consider your sister's
Logical fallacies powerpoint
This document defines logical fallacies and common types of fallacious arguments. It explains that an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and fallacies occur when arguments fail in certain ways. Sixteen specific fallacies are described, including hasty generalization, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, and equivocation. The document concludes with tips for preventing fallacious reasoning such as arguing against oneself and fairly characterizing opposing arguments.
Intro logic ch 4 categorical propositions
This document discusses categorical propositions and their components. It defines categorical propositions as statements that relate two classes or categories by asserting that all or some of one class is included in or excluded from the other class. Categorical propositions have four components - the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term. They also have attributes of quality, quantity, and distribution. Quality is either affirmative or negative, quantity is either universal or particular, and distribution determines if a term makes an assertion about every member of a class. Standard form categorical propositions clearly express these relationships between classes.
Identifying arguments
This document discusses arguments and how to identify their key components. An argument consists of premises that provide reasons or evidence to support a conclusion. Common words that indicate premises include "because" and "since," while conclusion indicators are words like "therefore" and "thus." To identify an argument's conclusion, determine what claim the author is trying to prove or see which statement fits best after "therefore." A passage only qualifies as an argument if it contains at least two statements and one is intended to support another as true or more probable. The document also differentiates arguments from reports, unsupported opinions, illustrations, conditional statements, and explanations.
Logic arguments and_fallacies
This document defines and discusses different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive and inductive arguments, and explaining how to identify them based on language used. Common types of deductive and inductive arguments are then outlined. The document also discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, and strength as they relate to arguments. Finally, it provides detailed descriptions and examples of many common logical fallacies, categorizing them as fallacies of relevance, weak induction, ambiguity, analogy, or formal fallacies.
The philosophical enterprise
The document discusses the philosophical enterprise and defines philosophy. It outlines that philosophy begins with questioning and the desire to understand one's identity. The document then presents the three disciplines of philosophy: 1) the discipline of questioning, which initiates philosophy through asking questions about oneself, 2) the discipline of liberation, which frees one from unquestioned conformity, and 3) the discipline of personhood, where each individual must philosophize to know and improve themselves. The goal of these disciplines is to philosophize through diversity rather than conformity and live a more meaningful life through questioning and liberation from ignorance.
Fallacy of ambiguity, kinds of ambiguity , emotively neutral language, kinds ...
Fallacy of ambiguity, kinds of ambiguity,
emotively neutral language,
kinds of agreement & disagreement,
5.3 Rules And Fallacies
The document outlines five rules for determining the validity of syllogisms:
1) The middle term must be distributed at least once. If not, it commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
2) Terms distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in the premises, otherwise it commits the fallacy of illicit major/minor.
3) Syllogisms cannot have two negative premises or it commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
4) A negative premise requires a negative conclusion and vice versa, otherwise it commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative/negative conclusion from negative/affirmative premises.
5) If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular or it
Inductive, Deductive, and Fallacies
The document discusses different types of reasoning and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive reasoning, which uses facts and rules to arrive at a conclusion, and inductive reasoning, which uses patterns to arrive at a conjecture. Examples of each are provided. Common fallacies are also explained, including fallacies of relevance where the argument is irrelevant, causal fallacies where the cause does not make logical sense, false generalizations from insufficient evidence, and fallacies of ambiguity from equivocal language. Overall, the document provides an overview of deductive and inductive reasoning as well as common logical fallacies that can undermine arguments.
Counterclaims
This document provides guidance on how to effectively identify and rebut counterclaims. It defines key terms like counterclaims, which are claims that negate or disagree with the thesis, and rebuttals, which are evidence that negate or disagree with counterclaims. Examples of counterclaims are provided for debates on raising the minimum wage and allowing Syrian refugees. The document advises that addressing counterclaims establishes credibility, finds common ground with readers, and responds to possible criticism. It provides guidance on structuring rebuttals with evidence and adding one's own commentary and analysis to further explain why one's position is correct. Sentence frames are also offered for introducing counterclaims and rebuttals.
Counterargument
This document provides guidance on using counterarguments and rebuttals to strengthen a persuasive essay. It explains that a counterargument addresses views that disagree with the thesis to demonstrate the writer considered alternative perspectives. Including counterarguments establishes credibility and shows other views are valid. The document advises determining opposing views and audiences' potential counterarguments. It provides templates for introducing counterarguments and rebuttals to refute issues raised. Finally, it discusses strategies for including counterarguments and rebuttals within body paragraphs or at the beginning or end of the essay.
Fallacies
There are several types of fallacies that can undermine arguments. Fallacies of relevance include appealing to emotion rather than facts, distracting from the issue by introducing irrelevant topics (red herring), misrepresenting the opponent's position (straw man), and making personal attacks. Fallacies of defective induction weaken arguments through lack of evidence, inappropriate authority, false connections, and hasty generalizations. Fallacies of presumption assume the conclusion, while fallacies of ambiguity confuse meanings or take things out of context. Identifying fallacies helps evaluate reasoning.
9 Logical Fallacies
The document outlines 9 common logical fallacies:
1. Over-generalization - Drawing too broad a conclusion from limited facts
2. Arguing in circles - Repeating an argument without evidence instead of supporting it
3. Black and white thinking - Presenting issues as having only two alternatives when more exist
4. Red herring - Introducing irrelevant topics to divert attention from the original issue
5. Loaded questions - Questions that assume unproven facts or opinions
6. Statistical fallacies - Misusing statistics to misrepresent rather than describe
7. Faulty causal relationship - Assuming correlation implies causation
8. Misleading comparisons - Inappropriately comparing different people or situations
9
Logical fallacies
The document discusses logical fallacies, which are faulty reasoning in arguments. It defines several types of logical fallacies: overgeneralization, circular reasoning, false analogy, either/or reasoning, single cause fallacy, and false cause fallacy. For each fallacy, it provides examples to illustrate what constitutes the fallacy and how to avoid it in one's own writing.
Logical Fallacies
The document discusses logical fallacies and different types of faulty reasoning. It begins by explaining deductive and inductive reasoning, and how faulty syllogisms and incorrect premises or conclusions can lead to logical fallacies. It then defines a logical fallacy as an error in reasoning, and explains that fallacious arguments may sound convincing but are flawed. The document proceeds to discuss 9 common logical fallacies - red herring, post hoc, circular reasoning, hasty generalization, appeal to tradition, false dilemma, appeal to fear, false analogy, and non sequitur. It emphasizes the importance of being able to identify logical fallacies in one's own and other's writing.
Transitional words
Transition words and phrases help connect ideas between sentences and paragraphs smoothly, making text easier to read. The document provides examples of transition words for various purposes, such as providing more information, examples, causes or reasons, results or effects, purposes or reasons, comparisons or contrasts, sequences, summaries, and conclusions.
Topic 5. determining truth
This document discusses various philosophical theories of truth and methods for determining truth. It defines truth as a core concept in inquiry and knowledge. The document outlines correspondence theory, which holds that something is true if it corresponds to reality, and coherence theory, which says something is true if it makes sense within a given context. It also discusses relativism, constructivism, and consensus theory. The document provides examples and analyzes factors like biases, facts vs opinions, and logical fallacies that can influence determining truth. Activities are included to help students apply these concepts.
Fallacies (2).pdf
The document discusses various types of logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning that can undermine arguments. It defines fallacies as violations of logical laws or erroneous forms of reasoning. The document then explains 12 common informal fallacies, including appeals to emotion, authority, popularity and ignorance. It provides examples to illustrate each fallacy. The document concludes by presenting statements containing potential fallacies and asking the reader to identify them, along with answering any additional questions.
Philosophy 150 Day612
The document discusses various types of informal fallacies, including fallacies of relevance such as ignoratio elenchi (missing the point), ad hominem (against the person), and fallacies that manipulate the audience such as ad populum (appeal to popularity), ad misericordiam (appeal to pity), and ad baculum (appeal to force). Sample arguments are provided for each fallacy to illustrate where the logical error occurs. Key details are emphasized on distinguishing different types of fallacies and avoiding fallacious reasoning.
More Related Content
What's hot
1.2 Recognizing Arguments
This document discusses how to identify and analyze arguments. An argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion. It also discusses different types of statements that are not arguments, such as warnings, advice, opinions, and reports. Conditional statements on their own are not arguments, but can be used as part of an argument. Necessary conditions are required for something to occur, while sufficient conditions alone are enough to trigger something.
Fallacies
The document provides information about different types of logical fallacies, including fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. It defines what a fallacy is, and categorizes them into two types - fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. For fallacies of relevance, it gives examples and explanations of different types like personal attack, attacking the motive, look who's talking, two wrongs make a right, scare tactics, appeal to emotion, bandwagon argument, straw man, red herring, equivocation, and begging the question. For fallacies of insufficient evidence, it discusses false authority, appeal to ignorance, false dilemma, loaded question, false cause, hasty generalization, slippery slope, weak analogy
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Based from the book : "Logic Made Simple for Filipinos" by Florentino Timbreza here is the summary made into powerpoint of Lesson 12: The Categorical Syllogism.
It Includes:
Introduction to categorical syllogism
General Axioms of the Syllogism
Eight Syllogistic Rules
Figures and Moods of the Categorical Syllogism
Examples in these slides are our own, there were no examples derived from the book.
WEEK 3 ISSUES MORAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Here are some suggestions on what you should do in this situation:
1. Talk privately with your younger sister. Explain to her that stealing is wrong and will get her into serious trouble. Help her understand why she should not do it again.
2. Talk privately with your older brother as well. Explain what happened but do not accuse your sister. Suggest keeping a closer eye on his wallet instead of physically punishing your sister.
3. Involve your parents to help resolve the issue. Explain the situation to them and let them handle disciplining your sister appropriately without harming her. Their guidance can help prevent future stealing and resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner.
4. Consider your sister's
Logical fallacies powerpoint
This document defines logical fallacies and common types of fallacious arguments. It explains that an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and fallacies occur when arguments fail in certain ways. Sixteen specific fallacies are described, including hasty generalization, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, and equivocation. The document concludes with tips for preventing fallacious reasoning such as arguing against oneself and fairly characterizing opposing arguments.
Intro logic ch 4 categorical propositions
This document discusses categorical propositions and their components. It defines categorical propositions as statements that relate two classes or categories by asserting that all or some of one class is included in or excluded from the other class. Categorical propositions have four components - the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term. They also have attributes of quality, quantity, and distribution. Quality is either affirmative or negative, quantity is either universal or particular, and distribution determines if a term makes an assertion about every member of a class. Standard form categorical propositions clearly express these relationships between classes.
Identifying arguments
This document discusses arguments and how to identify their key components. An argument consists of premises that provide reasons or evidence to support a conclusion. Common words that indicate premises include "because" and "since," while conclusion indicators are words like "therefore" and "thus." To identify an argument's conclusion, determine what claim the author is trying to prove or see which statement fits best after "therefore." A passage only qualifies as an argument if it contains at least two statements and one is intended to support another as true or more probable. The document also differentiates arguments from reports, unsupported opinions, illustrations, conditional statements, and explanations.
Logic arguments and_fallacies
This document defines and discusses different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive and inductive arguments, and explaining how to identify them based on language used. Common types of deductive and inductive arguments are then outlined. The document also discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, and strength as they relate to arguments. Finally, it provides detailed descriptions and examples of many common logical fallacies, categorizing them as fallacies of relevance, weak induction, ambiguity, analogy, or formal fallacies.
The philosophical enterprise
The document discusses the philosophical enterprise and defines philosophy. It outlines that philosophy begins with questioning and the desire to understand one's identity. The document then presents the three disciplines of philosophy: 1) the discipline of questioning, which initiates philosophy through asking questions about oneself, 2) the discipline of liberation, which frees one from unquestioned conformity, and 3) the discipline of personhood, where each individual must philosophize to know and improve themselves. The goal of these disciplines is to philosophize through diversity rather than conformity and live a more meaningful life through questioning and liberation from ignorance.
Fallacy of ambiguity, kinds of ambiguity , emotively neutral language, kinds ...
Fallacy of ambiguity, kinds of ambiguity,
emotively neutral language,
kinds of agreement & disagreement,
5.3 Rules And Fallacies
The document outlines five rules for determining the validity of syllogisms:
1) The middle term must be distributed at least once. If not, it commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
2) Terms distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in the premises, otherwise it commits the fallacy of illicit major/minor.
3) Syllogisms cannot have two negative premises or it commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
4) A negative premise requires a negative conclusion and vice versa, otherwise it commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative/negative conclusion from negative/affirmative premises.
5) If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular or it
Inductive, Deductive, and Fallacies
The document discusses different types of reasoning and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive reasoning, which uses facts and rules to arrive at a conclusion, and inductive reasoning, which uses patterns to arrive at a conjecture. Examples of each are provided. Common fallacies are also explained, including fallacies of relevance where the argument is irrelevant, causal fallacies where the cause does not make logical sense, false generalizations from insufficient evidence, and fallacies of ambiguity from equivocal language. Overall, the document provides an overview of deductive and inductive reasoning as well as common logical fallacies that can undermine arguments.
Counterclaims
This document provides guidance on how to effectively identify and rebut counterclaims. It defines key terms like counterclaims, which are claims that negate or disagree with the thesis, and rebuttals, which are evidence that negate or disagree with counterclaims. Examples of counterclaims are provided for debates on raising the minimum wage and allowing Syrian refugees. The document advises that addressing counterclaims establishes credibility, finds common ground with readers, and responds to possible criticism. It provides guidance on structuring rebuttals with evidence and adding one's own commentary and analysis to further explain why one's position is correct. Sentence frames are also offered for introducing counterclaims and rebuttals.
Counterargument
This document provides guidance on using counterarguments and rebuttals to strengthen a persuasive essay. It explains that a counterargument addresses views that disagree with the thesis to demonstrate the writer considered alternative perspectives. Including counterarguments establishes credibility and shows other views are valid. The document advises determining opposing views and audiences' potential counterarguments. It provides templates for introducing counterarguments and rebuttals to refute issues raised. Finally, it discusses strategies for including counterarguments and rebuttals within body paragraphs or at the beginning or end of the essay.
Fallacies
There are several types of fallacies that can undermine arguments. Fallacies of relevance include appealing to emotion rather than facts, distracting from the issue by introducing irrelevant topics (red herring), misrepresenting the opponent's position (straw man), and making personal attacks. Fallacies of defective induction weaken arguments through lack of evidence, inappropriate authority, false connections, and hasty generalizations. Fallacies of presumption assume the conclusion, while fallacies of ambiguity confuse meanings or take things out of context. Identifying fallacies helps evaluate reasoning.
9 Logical Fallacies
The document outlines 9 common logical fallacies:
1. Over-generalization - Drawing too broad a conclusion from limited facts
2. Arguing in circles - Repeating an argument without evidence instead of supporting it
3. Black and white thinking - Presenting issues as having only two alternatives when more exist
4. Red herring - Introducing irrelevant topics to divert attention from the original issue
5. Loaded questions - Questions that assume unproven facts or opinions
6. Statistical fallacies - Misusing statistics to misrepresent rather than describe
7. Faulty causal relationship - Assuming correlation implies causation
8. Misleading comparisons - Inappropriately comparing different people or situations
9
Logical fallacies
The document discusses logical fallacies, which are faulty reasoning in arguments. It defines several types of logical fallacies: overgeneralization, circular reasoning, false analogy, either/or reasoning, single cause fallacy, and false cause fallacy. For each fallacy, it provides examples to illustrate what constitutes the fallacy and how to avoid it in one's own writing.
Logical Fallacies
The document discusses logical fallacies and different types of faulty reasoning. It begins by explaining deductive and inductive reasoning, and how faulty syllogisms and incorrect premises or conclusions can lead to logical fallacies. It then defines a logical fallacy as an error in reasoning, and explains that fallacious arguments may sound convincing but are flawed. The document proceeds to discuss 9 common logical fallacies - red herring, post hoc, circular reasoning, hasty generalization, appeal to tradition, false dilemma, appeal to fear, false analogy, and non sequitur. It emphasizes the importance of being able to identify logical fallacies in one's own and other's writing.
Transitional words
Transition words and phrases help connect ideas between sentences and paragraphs smoothly, making text easier to read. The document provides examples of transition words for various purposes, such as providing more information, examples, causes or reasons, results or effects, purposes or reasons, comparisons or contrasts, sequences, summaries, and conclusions.
Topic 5. determining truth
This document discusses various philosophical theories of truth and methods for determining truth. It defines truth as a core concept in inquiry and knowledge. The document outlines correspondence theory, which holds that something is true if it corresponds to reality, and coherence theory, which says something is true if it makes sense within a given context. It also discusses relativism, constructivism, and consensus theory. The document provides examples and analyzes factors like biases, facts vs opinions, and logical fallacies that can influence determining truth. Activities are included to help students apply these concepts.
What's hot (20)
WEEK 3 ISSUES MORAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES
WEEK 3 ISSUES MORAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Fallacy of ambiguity, kinds of ambiguity , emotively neutral language, kinds ...
Fallacy of ambiguity, kinds of ambiguity , emotively neutral language, kinds ...
Similar to 7 2 t4_chaptersevenpowerpoint
Fallacies (2).pdf
The document discusses various types of logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning that can undermine arguments. It defines fallacies as violations of logical laws or erroneous forms of reasoning. The document then explains 12 common informal fallacies, including appeals to emotion, authority, popularity and ignorance. It provides examples to illustrate each fallacy. The document concludes by presenting statements containing potential fallacies and asking the reader to identify them, along with answering any additional questions.
Philosophy 150 Day612
The document discusses various types of informal fallacies, including fallacies of relevance such as ignoratio elenchi (missing the point), ad hominem (against the person), and fallacies that manipulate the audience such as ad populum (appeal to popularity), ad misericordiam (appeal to pity), and ad baculum (appeal to force). Sample arguments are provided for each fallacy to illustrate where the logical error occurs. Key details are emphasized on distinguishing different types of fallacies and avoiding fallacious reasoning.
Chapter 1 (part 3)
The document discusses common fallacies of reasoning. It aims to help readers recognize and discard errors in reasoning by describing fallacies of relevance, including subjectivism, appeal to ignorance, limited choice, appeal to emotion, appeal to force, inappropriate appeal to authority, personal attack, begging the question, and non sequitur. It also discusses fallacies involving numbers and statistics such as appeal to popularity, appeal to numbers, hasty generalization, availability error, false cause, and issues with percentages. The overall goal is to help evaluate information critically and carefully exercise reasoning.
Fallacies[1]
This document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples of common fallacy types. It defines a fallacy as a flawed argument that appears sound but violates logic. Advertisements often use fallacies to persuade. Some fallacy types discussed include ad hominem, bandwagon, false dilemma, slippery slope, and appealing to fear. The document analyzes examples of fallacious arguments and advertising to help identify different fallacy types.
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoning
This document discusses philosophical methods of reasoning and fallacies. It defines fallacies as flawed arguments. The document then provides examples of different types of fallacies, including fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. Specific fallacies discussed include appeal to force, pity, popularity, ignorance, and false analogy. The document encourages analyzing arguments to identify fallacious reasoning.
Why are we doing this again1) Generally speaking,.docx
This document discusses reasoning and fallacies. It begins by stating that the purpose of the class is to make students better at reasoning by learning to recognize fallacies. It then provides examples of different types of fallacies, such as hasty generalization, generalization from exceptional cases, slippery slopes, false causes, appeals to authority and popularity, and irrelevant conclusions. It also discusses factors that can influence credibility, such as expertise, bias, prior knowledge, plausibility, interested vs disinterested parties, and media sources. Throughout, it gives examples to illustrate each fallacy and concept.
For this assignment, I want you to take any four of the Logical Fall.docx
For this assignment, I want you to take any four of the Logical Fallacies from the list under "Midterm Quiz Materials" and explain how you have heard those fallacies used in real life. You may have used them yourself, heard a friend or family member use them, heard them used in class, or even on television or in a speech. Just explain to us what the circumstances were and what they said that you feel fits that particular Logical Fallacy. Do that for four different Fallacies from the list by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 22. Also, make one good comment on at least one other student's submission. You are welcome to comment on as many as you like, but I will only require one.
--
Logical Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others' arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the vital art of self-defense in a debate..
Ad Hominem
, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well": Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if it is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:
(1) Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.
(2) Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simpl ...
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docx
Faulty Arguments,
Logical Fallacies
and
Poor Reasoning
Faulty ArgumentsThis PowerPoint contains some of the common errors people make in reasoning. If you listen, you will hear many of these fallacies in everyday conversation.The “natural” cure and herbal medicine literature is rife with glaring examples of poor argumentation.Study these generic examples and you will be able to spot them in the assigned articles with ease.
Poor Logic
Emotional AppealThis is an attempt to sway the listener by getting him emotionally involved. Emotions shut down reason!Sick or scared people are especially vulnerable.
Ad Hominem/ Personal AttackArguments of this kind focus on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. They attack the arguers rather than the arguments.Politicians are often subjected to ad hominem attacks
Bandwagon/ Ad PopulumThe difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, whereas the ad populum suggests that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.
Appeal to AuthorityFor example, an appeal to authority argument seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. The degree of support that such an appeal lends to a claim varies depending on the particular authority in question, the relevance of their expertise to the claim, and other factors, but in all cases is limited.
Appeal to AuthorityAn appeal to authority argument seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. Celebrity endorsements sell products.Even worse, celebrity endorsements of political figures win votes. Yikes!
Faulty StatisticsMisunderstanding or misusing statistics to shore up a weak argument.Example: “We must fund our schools better! Half our children are below average on their math tests!”People pull bogus statistics out of thin air to sound impressive.
Research by ExegesisResearch by exegesis is using a book as an infallible reference source.Usually it refers to the supposedly infallible Bible, but not always.People cite Bible verses to convince people that being gay is wrong.
Either/Or & Slippery SlopeSlippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do.They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Slippery Slope Example“If you go out with that kind of guy, you will get pregnant and end up dropping out of college.”Either you stay in school or you won’t get a good job.
Red HerringThe red herring ...
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL5FALLACY JOURNALName.docx
1
Running Head: FALLACY JOURNAL
5
FALLACY JOURNAL
Name
Institution
Date
Emotionally Loaded Language
This fallacy arises when one uses the terms that shows more about ones feelings on the issues other than the rational basis from which those feelings are derived or when one uses emotions to alter the belief or behavior of others. Emotionally loaded language uses terms to evoke emotional response towards a particular product rather than explaining the reasoning for using or purchasing the product (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009). This fallacy manipulates emotions in order to get ones attention away from an important issue. An emotional appeal is directed to divert the audience emotions and often uses the appeal of prejudice rather than offer a good assessment of a situation (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009).
In the advertisement words positive connotation also known as glittering word such as glamour, intrigue and power have been used. The audience associates the words glamour, intrigue, power and sex with an internationally known icon, playboy Bunny (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009). The fallacy is in the inference. By purchasing the key to the play boy club lifestyle and one can own powerful sexuality. Ones reasoning contain the fallacy of appeal to emotions when ads appeal one to purchase the product merely because the appeal arouses ones feelings of sexuality.
Sexuality is a strong emotion. Sexual connection is instinctive, immediate and appeals to everyone. A person doesn’t usually apply critical thinking to sexual impulses, so this type of advertisement pays off quickly.
Appeal to ignorance
This fallacy argues on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. It holds the belief that if one cannot prove that something is false then it must be true and vice versa.
Appeal to ignorance occurs when one believes something to be true that is not, because one has no knowledge about the subject to prove otherwise. For instance, an argument that is based on stereotype (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009).
The cigarette advertisement asks the audience to accept the truth of the claim that pleasure tastes great in red because there no proof that the contrary exists. In this case, there is no reason for holding to this belief but one is asked to accept the statement as true because it cannot be proven false. The assumption that pleasure tastes great in red is an error in reasoning. The audience is made to assume that pleasure does not taste great in blue, yellow or green. This advert is simply illogical rhetoric that also uses an appeal to emotional language. The meaning associated with the word pleasure is universally positive.
Inconsistency
A fallacy is inconsistent if it contains two assertions either implicit or explicit, which are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency may occur between words or actions. The fallacy occurs when one accepts an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when one accept a claim that logically confl.
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL2FALLACY JOURNALName.docx
1
Running Head: FALLACY JOURNAL
2
FALLACY JOURNAL
Name
Institution
Date
Emotionally Loaded Language
This fallacy arises when one uses the terms that shows more about ones feelings on the issues other than the rational basis from which those feelings are derived or when one uses emotions to alter the belief or behavior of others. Emotionally loaded language uses terms to evoke emotional response towards a particular product rather than explaining the reasoning for using or purchasing the product (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009). This fallacy manipulates emotions in order to get ones attention away from an important issue. An emotional appeal is directed to divert the audience emotions and often uses the appeal of prejudice rather than offer a good assessment of a situation (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009).
In the advertisement words positive connotation also known as glittering word such as glamour, intrigue and power have been used. The audience associates the words glamour, intrigue, power and sex with an internationally known icon, playboy Bunny (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009). The fallacy is in the inference. By purchasing the key to the play boy club lifestyle and one can own powerful sexuality. Ones reasoning contain the fallacy of appeal to emotions when ads appeal one to purchase the product merely because the appeal arouses ones feelings of sexuality.
Sexuality is a strong emotion. Sexual connection is instinctive, immediate and appeals to everyone. A person doesn’t usually apply critical thinking to sexual impulses, so this type of advertisement pays off quickly.
Appeal to ignorance
This fallacy argues on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. It holds the belief that if one cannot prove that something is false then it must be true and vice versa.
Appeal to ignorance occurs when one believes something to be true that is not, because one has no knowledge about the subject to prove otherwise. For instance, an argument that is based on stereotype (Frans van Bart and Bert 2009).
The cigarette advertisement asks the audience to accept the truth of the claim that pleasure tastes great in red because there no proof that the contrary exists. In this case, there is no reason for holding to this belief but one is asked to accept the statement as true because it cannot be proven false. The assumption that pleasure tastes great in red is an error in reasoning. The audience is made to assume that pleasure does not taste great in blue, yellow or green. This advert is simply illogical rhetoric that also uses an appeal to emotional language. The meaning associated with the word pleasure is universally positive.
Inconsistency
A fallacy is inconsistent if it contains two assertions either implicit or explicit, which are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency may occur between words or actions. The fallacy occurs when one accepts an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when one accept a claim that logically confl.
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docx
Faulty Arguments,
Logical Fallacies
and
Poor Reasoning
Faulty ArgumentsThis PowerPoint contains some of the common errors people make in reasoning. If you listen, you will hear many of these fallacies in everyday conversation.The “natural” cure and herbal medicine literature is rife with glaring examples of poor argumentation.Study these generic examples and you will be able to spot them in the assigned articles with ease.
Poor Logic
Emotional AppealThis is an attempt to sway the listener by getting him emotionally involved. Emotions shut down reason!Sick or scared people are especially vulnerable.
Ad Hominem/ Personal AttackArguments of this kind focus on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. They attack the arguers rather than the arguments.Politicians are often subjected to ad hominem attacks
Bandwagon/ Ad PopulumThe difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, whereas the ad populum suggests that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.
Appeal to AuthorityFor example, an appeal to authority argument seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. The degree of support that such an appeal lends to a claim varies depending on the particular authority in question, the relevance of their expertise to the claim, and other factors, but in all cases is limited.
Appeal to AuthorityAn appeal to authority argument seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. Celebrity endorsements sell products.Even worse, celebrity endorsements of political figures win votes. Yikes!
Faulty StatisticsMisunderstanding or misusing statistics to shore up a weak argument.Example: “We must fund our schools better! Half our children are below average on their math tests!”People pull bogus statistics out of thin air to sound impressive.
Research by ExegesisResearch by exegesis is using a book as an infallible reference source.Usually it refers to the supposedly infallible Bible, but not always.People cite Bible verses to convince people that being gay is wrong.
Either/Or & Slippery SlopeSlippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do.They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Slippery Slope Example“If you go out with that kind of guy, you will get pregnant and end up dropping out of college.”Either you stay in school or you won’t get a good job.
Red HerringThe red herring ...
Fallacies
The document discusses different types of logical fallacies including fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. It provides examples for each type of fallacy such as appeal to authority, ad hominem, red herring, begging the question, slippery slope, and circular reasoning. The examples are used to illustrate incorrect or irrelevant reasoning patterns that undermine the validity of an argument.
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning Rev. Jul.docx
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning
Rev. July 2005
COMMON FALLACIES (OR ERRORS) IN REASONING
Learning about some common errors in reasoning will help you to spot weak points in arguments. This
handout will help you identify some of those errors, also known as fallacies. Some of these fallacies are
known by different names (alternative names are given in parentheses). Many more fallacies than those
listed are possible because the ways arguments may go wrong are many and these have been characterized
in a variety of ways.
NON SEQUITUR
The stated conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of the facts presented.
Ex.: All the homes in this area are expensive; therefore, they must be well built.
Expensive does not necessarily mean well built.
ARGUMENT TO THE PEOPLE (AD POPULUM)
The attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of
the multitude rather than by appeal to the facts.
Ex.: This Country has been run too long by old, out-of-date, out-of-touch, entrenched
politicians protecting the special interests that got them elected.
The argument appeals to the emotion rather than to reason.
FALSE COMPARISON (FAULTY ANALOGY)
This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they
are necessarily alike in some other respect or in all respects.
Ex.: No one objects to a physician looking up a difficult case in medical books. Why, then,
shouldn’t students taking a difficult examination be permitted to use their textbooks?
People who have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function have no less a
problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to sustain them.
Do not assume that the two situations are alike in all respects
because they are alike in some respects.
EITHER / OR FALLACY (BLACK OR WHITE FALLACY / FALSE DILEMMA)
The writer asserts that a complex issue has only two sides -- often one right, one wrong.
Ex.: America: Love It or Leave It.
Students come to college either to work hard or to loaf.
There are more options to consider than the two presented.
HASTY GENERALIZATION
An argument that is based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence commits this fallacy.
Ex.: Deaths from drug overdoses in Miami have doubled in the last two years. Therefore, more
Americans are dying from drug abuse.
Is the evidence about increased drug use in Miami
representative of drug use in the United States?
PERSONAL ATTACK (AD HOMINEM)
Attack is made on a person’s character or circumstances rather than his or her argument.
Ex.: If you hold that nothing is self-evident, I will not argue with you for it is clear that you are
a foolish quibbler who will not be convinced.
Criticize the argument about self-evidence not the arguer.
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reason.
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning Rev. Jul.docx
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning
Rev. July 2005
COMMON FALLACIES (OR ERRORS) IN REASONING
Learning about some common errors in reasoning will help you to spot weak points in arguments. This
handout will help you identify some of those errors, also known as fallacies. Some of these fallacies are
known by different names (alternative names are given in parentheses). Many more fallacies than those
listed are possible because the ways arguments may go wrong are many and these have been characterized
in a variety of ways.
NON SEQUITUR
The stated conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of the facts presented.
Ex.: All the homes in this area are expensive; therefore, they must be well built.
Expensive does not necessarily mean well built.
ARGUMENT TO THE PEOPLE (AD POPULUM)
The attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of
the multitude rather than by appeal to the facts.
Ex.: This Country has been run too long by old, out-of-date, out-of-touch, entrenched
politicians protecting the special interests that got them elected.
The argument appeals to the emotion rather than to reason.
FALSE COMPARISON (FAULTY ANALOGY)
This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they
are necessarily alike in some other respect or in all respects.
Ex.: No one objects to a physician looking up a difficult case in medical books. Why, then,
shouldn’t students taking a difficult examination be permitted to use their textbooks?
People who have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function have no less a
problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to sustain them.
Do not assume that the two situations are alike in all respects
because they are alike in some respects.
EITHER / OR FALLACY (BLACK OR WHITE FALLACY / FALSE DILEMMA)
The writer asserts that a complex issue has only two sides -- often one right, one wrong.
Ex.: America: Love It or Leave It.
Students come to college either to work hard or to loaf.
There are more options to consider than the two presented.
HASTY GENERALIZATION
An argument that is based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence commits this fallacy.
Ex.: Deaths from drug overdoses in Miami have doubled in the last two years. Therefore, more
Americans are dying from drug abuse.
Is the evidence about increased drug use in Miami
representative of drug use in the United States?
PERSONAL ATTACK (AD HOMINEM)
Attack is made on a person’s character or circumstances rather than his or her argument.
Ex.: If you hold that nothing is self-evident, I will not argue with you for it is clear that you are
a foolish quibbler who will not be convinced.
Criticize the argument about self-evidence not the arguer.
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reason ...
7. Fallacies.pptx
This document provides information about logical fallacies and common types of flawed reasoning in arguments. It discusses two main categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion, and fallacies of insufficient evidence, where the premises fail to sufficiently support the conclusion. Specific fallacies explained include personal attacks, straw man, appeal to emotion, false authority, hasty generalization, slippery slope, and inconsistency. The document emphasizes identifying faulty patterns of reasoning and assessing whether evidence and comparisons are appropriate to draw the stated conclusion.
Unit Lesson Key Terms 1. Capitalism 2. Communism 3..docx
Unit Lesson
Key Terms
1. Capitalism
2. Communism
3. Democracy
4. Egocentric-blindness
5. Egocentric-hypocrisy
6. Egocentric-memory
7. Egocentric-myopia
8. Egocentric oversimplification
9. Egocentric righteousness
10. Egocentric-submission
11. Oligarchy
12. Patriotism
13. Plutocracy
14. Socialism
15. Terrorism
Informal Logical Fallacies
An integral portion of critical thinking is learning about informal logical fallacies that vitiate many
arguments and ideas that surround us. A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that invalidates the
claims that someone else is making. Fallacious reasoning is false reasoning. It often mimics logical
argumentation in subtle ways. Certain varieties of fallacious reasoning are so prevalent that they have
been given names. Many of the informal logical fallacies have Latin names because many of them were
identified during the medieval period. Learning these names is merely the beginning of understanding
how to recognize them and combat them in your personal life. It takes hours of work and experience in
order to recognize these fallacies off the cuff. Hopefully, this lecture will give students initial insight into
some of these fallacies. There are many online resources for fallacies that students can go to for more
in-depth analysis, examples, and descriptions of some of the less common fallacies. Our discussion will
focus on those fallacies that are most common in the hope that this analysis will allow students to
understand the foundations of the most common forms of fallacious reasoning.
Scapegoating
In the Old Testament (Leviticus 16), the high priest of Israel would symbolically lay the sins of the whole
nation of Israel on the head of a goat and this goat would then be cast off into the wilderness. This goat
would carry the sins of the people of Israel off to a place far away from those who actually committed
the sins. Scapegoating is laying blame for a problem in society on the heads of a specific group of
people. The scapegoater blames everything on a specific group for no logical reason. This group often
has few connections to those problems. However, those who scapegoat care little for logical thinking in
relation to problems. Groups that have been scapegoated in the United States include minorities,
women, illegal immigrants, gay people, Christians, Muslims, political leaders, etc (insert group here). It is
easy to blame a group of people for the problems in a society. However, unless there are sound reasons
to believe that those problems are caused by that group, then one is merely scapegoating.
Argumentum Ad Baculum (Scare Tactics)
Scare tactics involve playing on another’s fear in order to get that person to do something or believe
something to be true. Students often confuse this fallacy with appeal to emotion (to come later).
However, when someone uses scare tactics, you are appealing only to one emotion: fear. This form of ...
Eng 72 83 r week 13 day 2 april 23 logical fallacies
This document outlines an English class agenda that includes peer reviewing rough drafts of research essays, discussing logical fallacies, and having a literature circle discussion. It then provides a detailed explanation of 12 common logical fallacies: ad hominem, begging the question, false cause, post hoc ergo propter hoc, either-or fallacy, evasion, false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, slippery slope, and two wrongs make a right. Examples are given for each fallacy and students are instructed to analyze arguments for logical fallacies.
Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWelcome to week three! This week w.docx
Week 3 - Instructor Guidance
Welcome to week three! This week we will jump ahead to the inductive method of logical reasoning. If you will remember, inductive movements go from general to particular, and the logic of induction operates in the realm of probability. In inductive reasoning you are not certain about the answer with the given information, but you can make an educated guess. You will come across inductive arguments all the time in everyday life. Just think about buying a car. Most of us judge whether or not to buy a certain kind of car based upon past experiences that we have had or our friends have had. If the past two cars that I bought were a Ford, and they fell into pieces after a couple of years, then odds are I will not buy a Ford again when I am perusing the car lot. There are several different kinds of inductive argument.
One major type of inductive argument (like the one I just mentioned) is the argument from analogy or analogical inductive argument. An analogy is where you compare the property of one thing to the property of another. You can spot these when they are in written form because “like” English principles of speech, an analogy compares two things together using “like” or “as”. For example, “Men are like parking spots. All the good ones are taken, and the rest are handicapped.” This was a funny analogy that my sister used to say when she was single. What is the “target” of the analogy and what is the “property” in question being related. It is obvious in this example that men are the targets of the analogy (and the butt of my sister’s joke). The properties in question are availability and desirability because since in the one instance the good guys are already taken by other women, and in the second instance the remaining men are not of good quality. You will probably be able to spot these analogous thought processes in your everyday thinking if you stop and think about it. Inductive arguments are not valid (like deductive arguments) they are strong or weak depending on the logic. For analogical arguments, it is the closeness of the properties being compared between the two things that matters. If you were comparing someone who hurt your feelings to Adolf Hitler, then the analogy would be pretty weak.
Another form of inductive reasoning is “inductive generalization”. This is where you take a sample or piece from a class of things and “generalize” about the whole group or class. If you are shopping for an apple at the grocery store and the first five apples you pull out are completely rotten, then you might generalize that the whole bin is spoiled. We would be more inclined to affirm that the whole bin is spoiled if there were only ten apples than if there were 100 apples. This is because the larger the sample size of the generalization the stronger the induction. This is most true when you consider scientific studies or social science surveys. You want the cancer study to have used a sample group of larger than .
Logicalfallacies
Here are some potential fallacies or types of bad logic I saw:
1. For the Jaguar commercial:
- Appeal to emotion (pathos) through beautiful cinematography and music rather than facts/reasons about the car
- Suggestion that owning this car will make one sophisticated/successful like the people shown, when quality of a person's character isn't defined by what they drive (false association)
2. For my own ads:
- Potentially making promises or claims I can't necessarily keep to get people to click/engage further (exaggeration)
- Focusing more on how using my service might benefit the user emotionally rather than providing concrete evidence it will be
Logic & critical thinking (fallacies unit 3)
A fallacy is an invalid argument that appears valid. There are formal fallacies involving logical form and informal fallacies involving content. Informal fallacies include relevance fallacies, arguments against the person, ambiguity fallacies, and fallacies of missing the point. Fallacies arise from careless reasoning, unchecked emotions, or intentional deception and can be avoided by developing logical skills and self-awareness.
Similar to 7 2 t4_chaptersevenpowerpoint (20)
Why are we doing this again1) Generally speaking,.docx
Why are we doing this again1) Generally speaking,.docx
For this assignment, I want you to take any four of the Logical Fall.docx
For this assignment, I want you to take any four of the Logical Fall.docx
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docx
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docx
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL5FALLACY JOURNALName.docx
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL5FALLACY JOURNALName.docx
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL2FALLACY JOURNALName.docx
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL2FALLACY JOURNALName.docx
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docx
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docx
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning Rev. Jul.docx
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning Rev. Jul.docx
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning Rev. Jul.docx
READING – Common Fallacies (or Errors) In Reasoning Rev. Jul.docx
Unit Lesson Key Terms 1. Capitalism 2. Communism 3..docx
Unit Lesson Key Terms 1. Capitalism 2. Communism 3..docx
Eng 72 83 r week 13 day 2 april 23 logical fallacies
Eng 72 83 r week 13 day 2 april 23 logical fallacies
Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWelcome to week three! This week w.docx
Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWelcome to week three! This week w.docx
More from sagebennet
Existentialism sartre etc.-
Existentialism was concerned with radical freedom, the nature of being, and responsibility. Key figures included Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Martin Heidegger, and Edmund Husserl. Sartre believed that existence precedes essence, meaning humans define themselves through their actions rather than having a predetermined nature. For Sartre, people are condemned to be free without excuses or God, resulting in anguish over absolute responsibility. De Beauvoir applied existentialist thought to feminism, arguing that womanhood is a social construct used to oppress women. Phenomenology focused on investigating conscious experiences without assumptions, while Heidegger explored the question of being and our tendency to get lost
New thought
New Thought is a distinctively American religious movement that began in the 19th century based on the ideas that thoughts can create reality and healing. It emphasizes the power of the mind in areas like intuition, spiritual healing, and creating one's own reality through affirmative prayer and meditation. Some key figures in the development of New Thought include Ralph Waldo Emerson, Phineas Quimby, Mary Baker Eddy, and Ernest Holmes. The document contrasts the concepts of visualization, which uses premeditated ideas, and visioning, which tries to let visions come without preconceptions in order to be pulled by a higher vision.
15 2 t4echapter15_powerpoint(2)
The document provides an overview of legal reasoning skills and the LSAT exam. It discusses the range of legal reasoning skills, including analyzing arguments and precedents. It explains how precedents from previous similar cases can help or hinder new cases. It also outlines the four sections of the LSAT exam and provides tips for the reading comprehension and analytical reasoning sections.
10b 2 t4_powerpoint_new
The document discusses different types of logical relationships between categorical propositions:
1) Contraries are propositions that cannot both be true but could both be false, with one being necessarily false if the other is true.
2) Subcontraries are propositions that cannot both be false but could both be true, with one being necessarily true if the other is false.
3) Contradictories are propositions that cannot both be true or both be false.
It also discusses inferences that can be drawn between categorical propositions, including subalternation, obversion, conversion, and contraposition.
10b 2 t4_powerpoint_new
The document discusses different types of logical relationships between categorical propositions:
1) Contraries are propositions that cannot both be true but could both be false, with one being necessarily false if the other is true.
2) Subcontraries are propositions that cannot both be false but could both be true, with one being necessarily true if the other is false.
3) Contradictories are propositions that cannot both be true or both be false.
It also discusses inferences that can be drawn between categorical propositions, including subalternation, obversion, conversion, and contraposition.
10a chaptertenpowerpoint new
The document discusses various rules of inference used in deductive reasoning. It defines validity and provides examples of valid argument forms like modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism. It also discusses fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent that invalidate arguments despite having true premises. The document aims to explain logical reasoning tools to evaluate arguments.
8 chapter eightpowerpoint
This document summarizes key concepts in causal and statistical reasoning. It discusses cause and effect relationships, associations versus causal relationships, and fallacies involving false correlations. It also outlines philosopher John Stuart Mill's methods for determining causation, including the method of agreement, method of difference, joint method, and method of concomitant variation. Finally, it discusses aspects of statistical studies such as sample size, diversity, and margin of error, as well as the forms and strength of statistical arguments.
9 2 t4_chapterninepowerpoint
The document discusses syllogisms, which are logical arguments with two premises and a conclusion. It defines the key components of a syllogism, including terms, validity, categorical propositions, and the four figures or patterns that a syllogism can take. Rules for syllogisms are also outlined, such as that the middle term must be distributed at least once and premises and conclusions must align in terms of positive and negative forms.
3 -2 t4-chapter_three_powerpoint_w_teays
This document provides guidance on analyzing arguments and articles through critical thinking. It discusses evaluating evidence, including facts, testimony, statistics, and different types of reasoning. It provides a checklist for weighing evidence and outlines how to structure an analysis. Key points include examining an argument's thesis, approach, claims, and quality of support, as well as looking for bias, assumptions, and weaknesses in the reasoning. The goal is to assess how convincingly the case is made and determine if it is persuasive.
14b 2 t4_chapterfourteenpowerpoint
The document provides guidance on critically analyzing popular culture works through examining both their context and content. It emphasizes the importance of considering the context, such as the intended audience, socio-political climate, and any corporate or ideological influences. When assessing the content, it recommends analyzing elements like genre, plot, characters, narrative elements, and interpreting different levels of meaning. The tools outlined help readers develop a sophisticated understanding of popular culture.
14b 2 t4_chapterfourteenpowerpoint
The document provides guidance on critically analyzing popular culture works through examining both their context and content. It emphasizes the importance of considering the context, such as the intended audience, socio-political climate, and any underlying agendas. When assessing the content, it recommends analyzing elements like genre, plot, characters, narrative impact, and levels of interpretation. The tools outlined help readers look beneath the surface and draw meaningful insights about the influences and reflections of society within various popular works.
5 2 t4e_chapter_fivepowerpoint
This document provides an overview of deductive and inductive reasoning, including the key differences between the two. It defines deductive arguments as those where the premises are sufficient to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can only provide partial or probabilistic support for the conclusion because there is always a "wedge of doubt" between the premises and conclusion. The document also outlines different types of deductive arguments like categorical syllogisms and modus ponens, as well as examples of inductive arguments involving predictions, cause and effect, analogy, and statistics.
14a 2 t4_chapterfourteenpowerpoint_new
This document discusses the important role that journalists play in society by reporting news and analyzing issues in historical and political context. It warns against "tabloidism" and focuses too much on sensational stories rather than more significant issues. The document also emphasizes that a free press is vital for a democratic society by presenting a range of perspectives to help citizens become informed and think for themselves.
6 2 t4_chaptersixpowerpoint
The document discusses the use and analysis of analogical reasoning. It explains that an argument from analogy compares two things based on similarities to assert that a characteristic true of one thing is also true of the other. Analogies are commonly used in law, where previous cases set precedents that lawyers and judges use to reason about new cases. The document provides guidance on analyzing analogies, including identifying similarities and differences, and assessing whether an analogy is strong or weak based on the relative weight of the similarities versus differences. It also discusses how hypothetical scenarios are used in legal training to prepare students for analogical reasoning in applying laws and precedents to new cases.
13 2 t4e_chapterthirteen_powerpointw_teays
The document discusses how to critically evaluate information found on the internet. It provides tips for assessing the credibility of websites and content, including checking the author's credentials, purpose of the content, currency of information, and use of evidence and citations. It also warns about potential deception from websites, blogs, and wikis and emphasizes the need to approach online information with care and scrutiny.
13 2 t4e_chapterthirteen_powerpointw_teays
The document discusses how to critically evaluate information found on the internet. It provides tips for assessing the credibility of websites and content, including checking the author's credentials, purpose of the content, currency of information, and use of evidence and citations. It also warns about potential inaccuracies or biases that can exist in blogs, wikis, and other open content due to a lack of oversight or verification of author qualifications.
12 2 t4_chaptertwelvepowerpointw_teays
The document discusses advertising techniques and assumptions. It analyzes how ads today are more subtle and sophisticated than in the past. Ads routinely make assumptions about consumers' needs, desires, fears and prejudices. Key fallacies used in advertising include appeals to popularity, improper appeals to authority, accentuating words to distort meaning, presenting only two choices when more exist, and creating ambiguities through double meanings. Effective ads use shame, optimism, solutions and rationales to sell products by addressing perceived problems.
4 2 t4_chapterfourpowerpoint
The document discusses different types of logical propositions and logical connectives. It defines propositions, tautologies, contradictions, and contingent claims. It then explains the different types of compound propositions using logical connectives such as conjunctions, disjunctions, negations, conditionals, and biconditionals. Various logical forms are also summarized, such as categorical propositions, Demorgan's laws, transposition, material implication, exportation, and equivalence.
11 2 t4_chapter11powerpoint
The document discusses the power and importance of language. It explains that language can be used to describe, define concepts, and shape cultural norms. Descriptions, definitions, and acceptable language can vary based on context and culture. Language can also be used to mislead through ambiguity, loaded words, propaganda, and hate speech. However, language also has the power to transform society for good when used to inspire, uplift, and call people to action for positive change.
4 2 t4_chapterfourpowerpoint
The document discusses different types of logical propositions and logical connectives. It defines propositions, tautologies, contradictions, and contingent claims. It then explains the structure of simple and compound propositions. The five logical connectives - conjunction, disjunction, negation, conditional, and biconditional - are defined. Various propositional forms are also described, including categorical propositions, conditional claims, and equivalence. Logical rules like DeMorgan's laws, transposition, material implication, exportation, and equivalence are outlined.
More from sagebennet (20)
Recently uploaded
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)Academy of Science of South Africa
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.What is Digital Literacy? A guest blog from Andy McLaughlin, University of Ab...
What is Digital Literacy? A guest blog from Andy McLaughlin, University of Aberdeen
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS Template 2023-2024 by: Irene S. Rueco
Digital Artifact 1 - 10VCD Environments Unit
Digital Artifact 1 - 10VCD Environments Unit - NGV Pavilion Concept Design
The History of Stoke Newington Street Names
Presented at the Stoke Newington Literary Festival on 9th June 2024
www.StokeNewingtonHistory.com
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama University
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama UniversityAkanksha trivedi rama nursing college kanpur.
Natural birth techniques are various type such as/ water birth , alexender method, hypnosis, bradley method, lamaze method etcPCOS corelations and management through Ayurveda.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptxMohd Adib Abd Muin, Senior Lecturer at Universiti Utara Malaysia
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Community pharmacy- Social and preventive pharmacy UNIT 5
Covered community pharmacy topic of the subject Social and preventive pharmacy for Diploma and Bachelor of pharmacy
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
Hindi varnamala | hindi alphabet PPT.pdf
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Recently uploaded (20)
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)
What is Digital Literacy? A guest blog from Andy McLaughlin, University of Ab...
What is Digital Literacy? A guest blog from Andy McLaughlin, University of Ab...
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama University
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama University
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Pride Month Slides 2024 David Douglas School District
Pride Month Slides 2024 David Douglas School District
Community pharmacy- Social and preventive pharmacy UNIT 5
Community pharmacy- Social and preventive pharmacy UNIT 5
Film vocab for eal 3 students: Australia the movie
Film vocab for eal 3 students: Australia the movie
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
7 2 t4_chaptersevenpowerpoint
- 1. Chapter Seven Fallacies, Fallacies: Steering Clear of Argumentative Quicksand Wanda Teays Second Thoughts, 4 th ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Ed © 2010. Wanda Teays. All rights reserved.