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.
A brief discussion of some of the basic logical fallacies:
Dicto Simpliciter
Hasty Generalization
Post Hoc
Contradictory Premises
Ad Misericordiam
False Analogy
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
Poisoning the Well
Bandwagon Appeal
Begging the Question
Red Herring
Non Sequitur
Slippery Slope
Either/Or Argument
Equivocation
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.
A brief discussion of some of the basic logical fallacies:
Dicto Simpliciter
Hasty Generalization
Post Hoc
Contradictory Premises
Ad Misericordiam
False Analogy
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
Poisoning the Well
Bandwagon Appeal
Begging the Question
Red Herring
Non Sequitur
Slippery Slope
Either/Or Argument
Equivocation
1Running Head FALLACY JOURNAL5FALLACY JOURNALName.docxeugeniadean34240
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.docxeugeniadean34240
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.
Logical Fallacy
Logical Fallacy Paper
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Logical Fallacy
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. In other words it is a factual error or a failure to logically support the conclusion in an argument. An argument is a group of statements about a specific topic where a stand is taken applying premises needed to support their ultimate conclusion. A fallacy is a type of argument where the person uses bad arguments to support their conclusion but in order to be a fallacy it must be believed some of the time (Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1995). The different types of fallacies are mere assertion, circular reasoning, Ad hominem, red herring, pseudo-questions, false cause, sweeping generalizations, slippery slope, and equivocation or changing meanings.
Mere Assertion
Arguments by mere assertion simply mean a person uses a strong statement instead of any real fact to argue a point. Just because an argument is stated emphatically does not mean that statement is in fact true. In mere assertion even if there are facts to the contrary or that contradict the argument it will continue o be supported. Arguments by mere assertion are also considered rhetoric. Rhetoric is supporting the argument despite the fact there is no evidence the argument is true. It is a form of persuasion or blind faith in the mere assertion.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is a type of fallacy where the argument goes in circles while never actually being proved. Circular reasoning also known as begging the question involves the conclusion found in the premise. Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove (2009). For example the argument is the Bible is never wrong. Whatever the Bible says is a fact therefore the Bible is never wrong. The argument uses circular reasoning by circling back to the original argument without any fact everything in the Bible is in fact true.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem is a fallacy that simply means argument using personal attacks instead of using legitimate facts to prove the argument true. Ad hominem refers to using personal facts against other people in the argument to prove the point. Since the person cannot find a legitimate counter argument they will use slander and verbal attacks to win their argument. The ad hominem fallacy may use abusive words to win the argument or may attack their family, job, ethnicity, or personal beliefs, just to name a few.
There are many different arguments involving the ad hominem from the circumstance fallacy to guilt by association (Eemeren, F & Grootendorst, 1995). In the ad hominem argument needling is also used to cause the other person to err causing the false argument to appear more legitimate. People using this type of argument have poor character and lack the intelligence to develop a sound and logical arg ...
Why are we doing this again1) Generally speaking,.docxphilipnelson29183
Why are we doing this again?1) Generally speaking, humans are not very good at reasoning.2) The purpose of this class is to make you better at reasoning.3) Fallacies are specific examples of bad reasoning, and they are all around us.Thus, learning to recognize fallacies is likely to make you commit them less often, and consequently become a better reasoner.
Hasty generalizationHasty generalization: inappropriately generalizing from too few examples.Anecdotal evidence
Freewrite: Hasty Generalization
Is there reasoning behind prejudice? What is the motivating force of prejudice or racism (as a subcategory of prejudice)? Does a person’s limited experiences with another group lead them to unjustified conclusions about an entire race (in which case it’s a hasty generalization)? Or is it some deep-seated prejudice that goes beyond reason?
Generalization from an exceptional caseGeneralization from an exceptional case: Inappropriately generalizing from cases that are unique, or unusual.Biased sampleSelf-selection fallacy
AccidentAccident: Assuming a general claim applies to a specific case that could be unusual.Example: “In America we have the right to bear arms. So if I want to point a gun at a police officer, I should be able to do so.”
Weak AnalogyWeak analogy: a weak argument based on unimportant or irrelevant similarities between the things being compared.Example: “Going to SWC is like being in prison. After all, both the campus and the prison are buildings constructed by humans.”Example: “Corporations are like people. If people can be tried in a court of law, then so can corporations.”
Untestable ExplanationUntestable explanation: when someone provides an explanation that cannot even be tested in principle.Example: “Charlene is really good at helping people because she gives off such good vibes.”
Slippery SlopeSlippery Slope: the suggestion that something will progress by degrees to an exaggerated or undesirable outcome.
False cause/correlation is not causationFalse cause: assuming that because one event happened after (or around the same time as) another that it was caused by the other.In assuming that one event causes another, the person committing this fallacy can overlook:CoincidenceA common causeRandom variationRegression to the mean
False cause (random variation)“In our tests, we randomly selected men to drive a golf ball as far as they could. We then had them wear our magnetic bracelet and try again. On the second occasion the men hit the ball an average of ten feet further. Our bracelet can lengthen your drive as well.”
False cause (regression to the mean)“The girls were well below their average on Monday, so I made them do 50 sets of pushups. Guess what? Their average was much better on Tuesday. Pushups did the trick.”
Appeal to AuthorityAppeal to authority: giving the opinion of a non-authoritative source to support a claim.Example: “My smart friend says that Obamacare is bad for the country. So he mu.
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docxmydrynan
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 ...
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important to .docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
Faulty Arguments,Logical Fallacies and Poor Re.docxssuser454af01
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 ...
Through this we will be able to understand the fallacies of vagueness clearly with the help of examples. It shares some useful examples. the definitions and points are very clear here.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
1. FALLACIES
Formal fallacies are errors of reasoning by virtue of their forms. Informal fallacies are errors encountered in ordinary
discourse and, sometimes described as fallacies of language. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be
created intentionally in order to deceive other people. Sometimes the term “fallacy” is used even more broadly to
indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief.
Fallacies of Ambiguity (Unclear Meaning)
1. Fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
This is also called fallacy of four terms.
Example: God is love, but love is blind, therefore, God is blind.
2. Fallacy of accent. The accent fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity due to the different ways a word is emphasized or
accented.
Example: “Woman, without her, man is lost.”
3. Fallacy of amphiboly. This is an error due to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways
during the reasoning.
Example: Lost : The dog of a lady with a long tail.
4. Fallacy of composition. The composition fallacy occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that a characteristic
of some or all the individuals in a group is also a characteristic of the group itself, the group “composed” of
those members.
Example: Jose is an intelligent boy
But Jose studies at Lyceum
Therefore, all who study at Lyceum are intelligent
5. Fallacy of division. Merely because a group as a whole has a characteristic, it often doesn’t follow that
individuals in the group have that characteristic. If you suppose that it does follow, when it doesn’t, you commit
the fallacy of division.
Example: The jigsaw puzzle when assembled is circular in shape. Therefore, each piece is circular in
shape.
Fallacies of relevance (Irrelevant Premise or conclusion)
1. Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force or the threat of force). If you suppose that terrorizing your opponent
is giving him a reason for believing that you are correct, then you are using a scare tactic and reasoning
fallaciously.
Example: You have to be good to us, or else you will fail the student’s evaluation.
2. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity or emotions). You commit the fallacy of appeal to emotions when
someone’s appeal to you to accept their claim is accepted merely because the appeal arouses your feelings of
anger, fear, grief, love, outrage, pity, pride, sexuality, sympathy, relief, and so forth.
Example: You have to give me a passing mark, or else you’ll ruin my future.
ncjopson070710
2. 3. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people). If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument
is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then you’ve committed the fallacy of appeal to the
people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s
not what most everyone believes, then you’ve also committed the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is
not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of
error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you’re guilty of committing this fallacy.
Example: You should tune in to ABS-CBN, because it’s the most watched station this year.
4. Argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person). You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant
attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.
Example: He should not be entrusted with the position, because he’s from a family of drug addicts.
Fallacies of Presumption (Premise Assumed)
1. Fallacy of Accident. This fallacy presumes that a general rule can apply to all situations without due regard to
their accidental features.
Example: Brown is a color, a Filipino is brown, therefore, a Filipino is a color.
2. Fallacy of petition percipii. This means “begging the question.” A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion
is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion.
Example: Expert says that Joseph Estarda is the best president of the country,
Those experts are those who maintain that Joseph Estrada is the best president.
3. Fallacy of complex question. You commit this fallacy when you frame a question so that some controversial
presupposition is made by the wording of the question.
Example: “Have you stopped smoking marijuana?”
Fallacies of Indefinite Induction (Insufficient Samples)
1. Fallacy of false cause. Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another.
Example: He met an accident because he saw a black cat.
2. Fallacy of converse accident. If we reason by paying too much attention to exceptions to the rule, and generalize
on the exceptions, we commit this fallacy. This fallacy is the converse of the accident fallacy. It is a kind of Hasty
Generalization, by generalizing too quickly from a peculiar case.
Example: Some foreigners are pedophiles, therefore, all foreigners are pedophiles
3. Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to inappropriate authority). This fallacy is committed when one cites an
authority in support of one’s argument but this authority is misplaced.
Example: Aswangs exist because our grandparents have always believed in their existence.
4. Argumentum ad ignoratiam (appeal to ignorance). This appears when one appeals to ignorance to win a case.
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken
to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The
fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an
unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Example: Nobody has ever proved that God exists, therefore, God does not exist,
Dowden, Bradley. 2010. Fallacies. Available at http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy. Accessed last July 4, 2010
Gripaldo, Rolando M. 2008. Logic and Logical Theory. Included in The Philosophical Landscape 5th Edition. Quezon City : C&E Publishing.
Hurley, Patrick J. 2000. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Belmont, CA : Wadworth / Thompson Learning.
3. Timbreza, Florentino T. 1992. Logic Made Simple. Quezon City : Phoenix Publishing House Inc.
ncjopson070710