This document contains information about logical fallacies presented in a module on critical thinking. It defines what a fallacy is and divides them into two categories: fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. For fallacies of relevance, it provides examples and definitions of 11 different types including personal attack, attacking the motive, look who's talking, two wrongs make a right, and straw man. For fallacies of insufficient evidence, it defines 8 types such as inappropriate appeal to authority, questionable cause, hasty generalization, and inconsistency. The document concludes with an activity where students construct fallacious arguments in groups.
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
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.
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.
Logical Fallacies and Arguments and Factual Evidences to Defend a Stand.pptxejamesmdavid
The document discusses logical fallacies and how to defend a position with strong arguments and evidence. It defines logical fallacies as errors in reasoning that weaken an argument. Some common fallacies explained are slippery slope, complex question, appeal to authority, bandwagon, attacking the person, hasty generalization, post hoc, straw man, inconsistency, and appeal to force. Guidelines are provided for developing a clear and well-supported position using claims, assessing opposing views, taking a firm stand, organizing arguments, and considering the audience.
This document defines and provides examples of various types of formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are errors in reasoning based on logical form, while informal fallacies occur in everyday discourse. Some fallacies can be unintentional, but others are intentional ways to deceive people. The document then outlines specific fallacies such as fallacies of ambiguity involving unclear meanings, fallacies of relevance using irrelevant premises or conclusions, fallacies of presumption making unjustified assumptions, and fallacies of indefinite induction drawing conclusions from insufficient samples. Examples are provided for each fallacy type.
Critical thinking involves systematically evaluating beliefs and statements using rational standards. It examines life through examining one's beliefs, as Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. Critical thinking uses distinct procedures like identifying claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments to rationally assess existing beliefs and form new ones. Common impediments include self-interested, group, and subjective thinking. Deductive arguments aim to conclusively support conclusions while inductive arguments probably support conclusions. Fallacies involve irrelevant or unacceptable premises while various reasoning patterns help strengthen arguments.
This document defines and provides examples of logical fallacies, which are flawed arguments that contain mistakes in reasoning. It divides fallacies into two types - fallacies of relevance, where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion, and fallacies of insufficient evidence, where the premises do not provide enough support for the conclusion. Specific fallacies of relevance discussed include personal attacks, appealing to motives, and straw man arguments. Fallacies of insufficient evidence covered include appeals to authority, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, and weak analogies.
Fallacies are errors in logical reasoning that make arguments invalid. There are two main types: fallacies of relevance, where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion, and fallacies of insufficient evidence, where the premises do not provide enough support for the conclusion. Some specific fallacies of relevance discussed include personal attacks, attacking the motive, the "tu quoque" fallacy, two wrongs making a right, scare tactics, appeals to pity, bandwagon arguments, straw man arguments, red herrings, and begging the question.
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
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.
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.
Logical Fallacies and Arguments and Factual Evidences to Defend a Stand.pptxejamesmdavid
The document discusses logical fallacies and how to defend a position with strong arguments and evidence. It defines logical fallacies as errors in reasoning that weaken an argument. Some common fallacies explained are slippery slope, complex question, appeal to authority, bandwagon, attacking the person, hasty generalization, post hoc, straw man, inconsistency, and appeal to force. Guidelines are provided for developing a clear and well-supported position using claims, assessing opposing views, taking a firm stand, organizing arguments, and considering the audience.
This document defines and provides examples of various types of formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are errors in reasoning based on logical form, while informal fallacies occur in everyday discourse. Some fallacies can be unintentional, but others are intentional ways to deceive people. The document then outlines specific fallacies such as fallacies of ambiguity involving unclear meanings, fallacies of relevance using irrelevant premises or conclusions, fallacies of presumption making unjustified assumptions, and fallacies of indefinite induction drawing conclusions from insufficient samples. Examples are provided for each fallacy type.
Critical thinking involves systematically evaluating beliefs and statements using rational standards. It examines life through examining one's beliefs, as Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. Critical thinking uses distinct procedures like identifying claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments to rationally assess existing beliefs and form new ones. Common impediments include self-interested, group, and subjective thinking. Deductive arguments aim to conclusively support conclusions while inductive arguments probably support conclusions. Fallacies involve irrelevant or unacceptable premises while various reasoning patterns help strengthen arguments.
This document defines and provides examples of logical fallacies, which are flawed arguments that contain mistakes in reasoning. It divides fallacies into two types - fallacies of relevance, where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion, and fallacies of insufficient evidence, where the premises do not provide enough support for the conclusion. Specific fallacies of relevance discussed include personal attacks, appealing to motives, and straw man arguments. Fallacies of insufficient evidence covered include appeals to authority, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, and weak analogies.
Fallacies are errors in logical reasoning that make arguments invalid. There are two main types: fallacies of relevance, where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion, and fallacies of insufficient evidence, where the premises do not provide enough support for the conclusion. Some specific fallacies of relevance discussed include personal attacks, attacking the motive, the "tu quoque" fallacy, two wrongs making a right, scare tactics, appeals to pity, bandwagon arguments, straw man arguments, red herrings, and begging the question.
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.
Why are we doing this again1) Generally speaking,.docxphilipnelson29183
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.
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
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoningdan_maribao
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.
This document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether an argument is "good" based on criteria such as the acceptability of its premises, logical validity, clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness. Premises should not conflict with personal experience or background beliefs unless sufficient evidence is provided. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
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.
The document discusses logical fallacies, which are mistakes in reasoning that make an argument invalid. There are two major groups of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance occur when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion. Some examples of fallacies of relevance include personal attacks, attacking an argument's motive rather than its merit, ignoring one's own failures, and distorting or ignoring parts of an opponent's argument.
This document discusses different types of logical fallacies, or errors in reasoning. It defines a fallacy as an error in reasoning that arises from a failure to think or argue correctly. The document then categorizes and provides examples of different types of fallacies, including fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and composition/division. It concludes with exercises asking the reader to identify fallacies in various arguments and statements.
This document discusses different types of inductive arguments and fallacies in reasoning. It provides examples and analysis of several common fallacies, including hasty generalization, weak analogy, accident, post hoc, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, and question begging. The key points are that memorizing fallacies is less useful than understanding the criteria to evaluate different types of arguments, and that some supposed fallacies are better understood as factual errors or criticisms rather than logical flaws.
Here are 3 potential syllogisms based on the practice statements:
1. All public transportation reduces traffic congestion. Buses are a form of public transportation. Therefore, buses reduce traffic congestion.
2. The Thai education system does not adequately prepare students for the job market. Vocational training provides job skills. Therefore, adding more vocational training to the Thai education system would better prepare students for the job market.
3. The Prime Minister of Thailand holds a position of national leadership. Leaders impact policy decisions. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Thailand has the ability to influence policy decisions that impact the country.
This document discusses various methods and concepts for distinguishing opinions from facts and truth, including:
1. Activities that analyze statements as either facts or opinions, and determine truth through senses, facts, consensus, or documentation.
2. Key terms like arguments, fallacies, biases that can influence opinions. Logic, fallacies like appeals and biases must be considered when evaluating arguments.
3. Philosophical methods like the Socratic method, scientific method, and historical method can be used to determine truth from opinions in different situations. Understanding the difference between opinions and truth can guide us to wisdom in evaluating varied views and making wise decisions.
I) (This Section pertains to chapter 4-- These are NOT categorical.docxelishaoatway
I) (This Section pertains to chapter 4-- These are NOT categorical syllogisms.) Put the argument into standard form and then identify the INFORMAL fallacies that are committed (if any). Make sure to both defineand explain how the INFORMAL fallacies are committed. (9)
Example: In his History of the America Civil War, Jeffry Noland argues that the war had little to do with slavery. However, as a historian from Alabama, Noland could not possibly present an accurate account. Therefore, his arguments should be discounted.
Answer:
P: In his History of the America Civil War, Jeffry Noland argues that the war had little to do with slavery.
P: As a historian from Alabama, Noland could not possibly present an accurate account.
C: His arguments should be discounted.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem – an attack against a, generally irrelevant, characteristic of the person.
Explanation: Whether Noland is from the South or not should not automatically undermine his expertise in the area in which he’s studied.
A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better is than true love. So a crust of bread is better than true love.
We’ve all heard that millions of Americans are without adequate health care. But America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals are among the best in the world. Thousands of people come from abroad every year to be treated here. Clearly there is nothing wrong with our health care system.
On Friday, I took Jeff out to dinner. He told me that if I wasn’t interested in a serious relationship, I should forget about dating him. On Saturday I took Dave to a film. When we discussed it afterward over a drink, he could understand why I wasn’t interested in babies. Men are all alike. All they want is a secure marriage.
II) Use the traditional square of opposition along with conversion, obversion, and contraposition to determine the truth value of the second sentence is each pair. (6)
Example: All people who disagree with religion are saints. (T)
Some sinners agree with religion.
Answer: The terms don’t match up in two ways: they aren’t in the right spots (the subject and predicate terms are different in each sentence) and they are complements (i.e. sinners are non-saints.) So I need to get the right terms in the right spots and I can do that using contraposition on the first sentence. That gives me “All sinners are people who agree with religion.”
So now my two sentences are
All sinners are people who agree with religion. (T)
Some sinners agree with religion.
The top sentence is an A proposition and the bottom sentence is an I proposition. I know from the relationship of subalternation that if an A position is true and I proposition must also be true.
Final Answer: The second sentence must be true.
Some integers which are even numbers are not prime. (T)
All non-prime numbers are odd integers.
All inflammable substances are high in carbon isotopes. (T)
No incombustible substan ...
The document discusses different types of logic, including deductive and inductive reasoning. It notes that deductive reasoning is more certain but less informative than inductive reasoning. It also discusses what distinguishes good generalizations from bad ones, including considering number and variety of examples, exceptions, coherence, and subject area. The document describes how logic can help get closer to truth when premises are true and arguments are valid, but gives examples of when conclusions could be tentatively accepted. It also discusses common fallacies in reasoning such as post hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, and false dilemmas.
The document outlines the traditional format for debates. It describes the structure, including the order of speeches between the affirmative and negative sides. Each side has three speakers who give constructive speeches and responses. The debate is judged based on evidence, delivery, responses to questions, and rebuttals. Logical fallacies that should be avoided in arguments are also defined.
For this assignment, I want you to take any four of the Logical Fall.docxshanaeacklam
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 ...
This document discusses logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine arguments. It identifies four main categories of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance, defective induction, presumption, and ambiguity. Within these categories, 17 specific logical fallacies are covered. Examples of each fallacy type are provided to illustrate how the fallacies work. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using faulty reasoning in their own arguments.
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Dive...Steven Kolber
This document defines and provides examples of various logical fallacies related to rebutting arguments. It discusses fallacies of denying, ignoring, or trivializing counterevidence. It also examines ad hominem fallacies involving personal attacks or irrelevant personal characteristics of a speaker. Additionally, it outlines fallacies of diversion where the discussion is shifted to irrelevant side issues or misrepresentations to avoid the original topic.
Oxford – Oregon Debate (How to's and tips) Carmela Yasay
The document outlines the traditional format for debates, including the roles of the affirmative and negative sides in proving or disproving the debate proposition. It also details the structure of speeches and interpellations, as well as guidelines and best practices for participants. Key aspects include three speakers from each side, with constructive and rebuttal speeches of limited time periods, and interpellations between speeches where participants can ask questions.
Oxford – Oregon Debate (How to's and tips)Carmela Yasay
The document outlines the traditional format for debates, including the roles of the affirmative and negative sides in proving or disproving the debate proposition. It also details the structure of speeches and interpellations, as well as guidelines and best practices for participants. Key aspects include three speakers from each side, with constructive and rebuttal speeches of limited time periods, and interpellations allowing for questioning between speeches. The judges determine the winning team based on factors such as evidence, delivery, and rebuttals.
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.
Why are we doing this again1) Generally speaking,.docxphilipnelson29183
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.
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
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoningdan_maribao
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.
This document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether an argument is "good" based on criteria such as the acceptability of its premises, logical validity, clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness. Premises should not conflict with personal experience or background beliefs unless sufficient evidence is provided. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
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.
The document discusses logical fallacies, which are mistakes in reasoning that make an argument invalid. There are two major groups of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance occur when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion. Some examples of fallacies of relevance include personal attacks, attacking an argument's motive rather than its merit, ignoring one's own failures, and distorting or ignoring parts of an opponent's argument.
This document discusses different types of logical fallacies, or errors in reasoning. It defines a fallacy as an error in reasoning that arises from a failure to think or argue correctly. The document then categorizes and provides examples of different types of fallacies, including fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and composition/division. It concludes with exercises asking the reader to identify fallacies in various arguments and statements.
This document discusses different types of inductive arguments and fallacies in reasoning. It provides examples and analysis of several common fallacies, including hasty generalization, weak analogy, accident, post hoc, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, and question begging. The key points are that memorizing fallacies is less useful than understanding the criteria to evaluate different types of arguments, and that some supposed fallacies are better understood as factual errors or criticisms rather than logical flaws.
Here are 3 potential syllogisms based on the practice statements:
1. All public transportation reduces traffic congestion. Buses are a form of public transportation. Therefore, buses reduce traffic congestion.
2. The Thai education system does not adequately prepare students for the job market. Vocational training provides job skills. Therefore, adding more vocational training to the Thai education system would better prepare students for the job market.
3. The Prime Minister of Thailand holds a position of national leadership. Leaders impact policy decisions. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Thailand has the ability to influence policy decisions that impact the country.
This document discusses various methods and concepts for distinguishing opinions from facts and truth, including:
1. Activities that analyze statements as either facts or opinions, and determine truth through senses, facts, consensus, or documentation.
2. Key terms like arguments, fallacies, biases that can influence opinions. Logic, fallacies like appeals and biases must be considered when evaluating arguments.
3. Philosophical methods like the Socratic method, scientific method, and historical method can be used to determine truth from opinions in different situations. Understanding the difference between opinions and truth can guide us to wisdom in evaluating varied views and making wise decisions.
I) (This Section pertains to chapter 4-- These are NOT categorical.docxelishaoatway
I) (This Section pertains to chapter 4-- These are NOT categorical syllogisms.) Put the argument into standard form and then identify the INFORMAL fallacies that are committed (if any). Make sure to both defineand explain how the INFORMAL fallacies are committed. (9)
Example: In his History of the America Civil War, Jeffry Noland argues that the war had little to do with slavery. However, as a historian from Alabama, Noland could not possibly present an accurate account. Therefore, his arguments should be discounted.
Answer:
P: In his History of the America Civil War, Jeffry Noland argues that the war had little to do with slavery.
P: As a historian from Alabama, Noland could not possibly present an accurate account.
C: His arguments should be discounted.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem – an attack against a, generally irrelevant, characteristic of the person.
Explanation: Whether Noland is from the South or not should not automatically undermine his expertise in the area in which he’s studied.
A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better is than true love. So a crust of bread is better than true love.
We’ve all heard that millions of Americans are without adequate health care. But America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals are among the best in the world. Thousands of people come from abroad every year to be treated here. Clearly there is nothing wrong with our health care system.
On Friday, I took Jeff out to dinner. He told me that if I wasn’t interested in a serious relationship, I should forget about dating him. On Saturday I took Dave to a film. When we discussed it afterward over a drink, he could understand why I wasn’t interested in babies. Men are all alike. All they want is a secure marriage.
II) Use the traditional square of opposition along with conversion, obversion, and contraposition to determine the truth value of the second sentence is each pair. (6)
Example: All people who disagree with religion are saints. (T)
Some sinners agree with religion.
Answer: The terms don’t match up in two ways: they aren’t in the right spots (the subject and predicate terms are different in each sentence) and they are complements (i.e. sinners are non-saints.) So I need to get the right terms in the right spots and I can do that using contraposition on the first sentence. That gives me “All sinners are people who agree with religion.”
So now my two sentences are
All sinners are people who agree with religion. (T)
Some sinners agree with religion.
The top sentence is an A proposition and the bottom sentence is an I proposition. I know from the relationship of subalternation that if an A position is true and I proposition must also be true.
Final Answer: The second sentence must be true.
Some integers which are even numbers are not prime. (T)
All non-prime numbers are odd integers.
All inflammable substances are high in carbon isotopes. (T)
No incombustible substan ...
The document discusses different types of logic, including deductive and inductive reasoning. It notes that deductive reasoning is more certain but less informative than inductive reasoning. It also discusses what distinguishes good generalizations from bad ones, including considering number and variety of examples, exceptions, coherence, and subject area. The document describes how logic can help get closer to truth when premises are true and arguments are valid, but gives examples of when conclusions could be tentatively accepted. It also discusses common fallacies in reasoning such as post hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, and false dilemmas.
The document outlines the traditional format for debates. It describes the structure, including the order of speeches between the affirmative and negative sides. Each side has three speakers who give constructive speeches and responses. The debate is judged based on evidence, delivery, responses to questions, and rebuttals. Logical fallacies that should be avoided in arguments are also defined.
For this assignment, I want you to take any four of the Logical Fall.docxshanaeacklam
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 ...
This document discusses logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine arguments. It identifies four main categories of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance, defective induction, presumption, and ambiguity. Within these categories, 17 specific logical fallacies are covered. Examples of each fallacy type are provided to illustrate how the fallacies work. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using faulty reasoning in their own arguments.
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Dive...Steven Kolber
This document defines and provides examples of various logical fallacies related to rebutting arguments. It discusses fallacies of denying, ignoring, or trivializing counterevidence. It also examines ad hominem fallacies involving personal attacks or irrelevant personal characteristics of a speaker. Additionally, it outlines fallacies of diversion where the discussion is shifted to irrelevant side issues or misrepresentations to avoid the original topic.
Oxford – Oregon Debate (How to's and tips) Carmela Yasay
The document outlines the traditional format for debates, including the roles of the affirmative and negative sides in proving or disproving the debate proposition. It also details the structure of speeches and interpellations, as well as guidelines and best practices for participants. Key aspects include three speakers from each side, with constructive and rebuttal speeches of limited time periods, and interpellations between speeches where participants can ask questions.
Oxford – Oregon Debate (How to's and tips)Carmela Yasay
The document outlines the traditional format for debates, including the roles of the affirmative and negative sides in proving or disproving the debate proposition. It also details the structure of speeches and interpellations, as well as guidelines and best practices for participants. Key aspects include three speakers from each side, with constructive and rebuttal speeches of limited time periods, and interpellations allowing for questioning between speeches. The judges determine the winning team based on factors such as evidence, delivery, and rebuttals.
"Financial Odyssey: Navigating Past Performance Through Diverse Analytical Lens"sameer shah
Embark on a captivating financial journey with 'Financial Odyssey,' our hackathon project. Delve deep into the past performance of two companies as we employ an array of financial statement analysis techniques. From ratio analysis to trend analysis, uncover insights crucial for informed decision-making in the dynamic world of finance."
End-to-end pipeline agility - Berlin Buzzwords 2024Lars Albertsson
We describe how we achieve high change agility in data engineering by eliminating the fear of breaking downstream data pipelines through end-to-end pipeline testing, and by using schema metaprogramming to safely eliminate boilerplate involved in changes that affect whole pipelines.
A quick poll on agility in changing pipelines from end to end indicated a huge span in capabilities. For the question "How long time does it take for all downstream pipelines to be adapted to an upstream change," the median response was 6 months, but some respondents could do it in less than a day. When quantitative data engineering differences between the best and worst are measured, the span is often 100x-1000x, sometimes even more.
A long time ago, we suffered at Spotify from fear of changing pipelines due to not knowing what the impact might be downstream. We made plans for a technical solution to test pipelines end-to-end to mitigate that fear, but the effort failed for cultural reasons. We eventually solved this challenge, but in a different context. In this presentation we will describe how we test full pipelines effectively by manipulating workflow orchestration, which enables us to make changes in pipelines without fear of breaking downstream.
Making schema changes that affect many jobs also involves a lot of toil and boilerplate. Using schema-on-read mitigates some of it, but has drawbacks since it makes it more difficult to detect errors early. We will describe how we have rejected this tradeoff by applying schema metaprogramming, eliminating boilerplate but keeping the protection of static typing, thereby further improving agility to quickly modify data pipelines without fear.
4th Modern Marketing Reckoner by MMA Global India & Group M: 60+ experts on W...Social Samosa
The Modern Marketing Reckoner (MMR) is a comprehensive resource packed with POVs from 60+ industry leaders on how AI is transforming the 4 key pillars of marketing – product, place, price and promotions.
Codeless Generative AI Pipelines
(GenAI with Milvus)
https://ml.dssconf.pl/user.html#!/lecture/DSSML24-041a/rate
Discover the potential of real-time streaming in the context of GenAI as we delve into the intricacies of Apache NiFi and its capabilities. Learn how this tool can significantly simplify the data engineering workflow for GenAI applications, allowing you to focus on the creative aspects rather than the technical complexities. I will guide you through practical examples and use cases, showing the impact of automation on prompt building. From data ingestion to transformation and delivery, witness how Apache NiFi streamlines the entire pipeline, ensuring a smooth and hassle-free experience.
Timothy Spann
https://www.youtube.com/@FLaNK-Stack
https://medium.com/@tspann
https://www.datainmotion.dev/
milvus, unstructured data, vector database, zilliz, cloud, vectors, python, deep learning, generative ai, genai, nifi, kafka, flink, streaming, iot, edge
3. How many legs does this elephant have?
Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/elephantlegs.htm
4. Which officer is the tallest?
Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/giant_man.htm
5. Is this wave moving?
Source: http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/oblong_wave/
6. AirAsia +
Girls = Fun
Analyze
+
Evaluate
=
Your Opinion?
Target Audience?
7. Module 4: Fallacies
1. Fallacies
of Relevance
2. Fallacies of
Insufficient
Evidence
What
mistake!!!
8. 4.0 What is a Fallacy?
A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a
mistake in reasoning.
Fallacies can be divided into two general types:
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion.
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises, though
logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide
sufficient evidence for the conclusion.
9. “There is nothing so stupid as an educated man,
if you get him off the thing he was educated in”
- Will Rogers
10. 4.1 Fallacies of Relevance
A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it
provides at least some reason for thinking that the second
statement is true or false.
There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant
or irrelevant to another:
A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides
at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true.
A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it
provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement
is false.
A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides
no reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or
false.
11. 4.1 Fallacies of Relevance
Personal Attack Appeal to Pity
Attacking the Motive Bandwagon
Argument
Look Who’s Talking Straw Man
Begging the Question Red Herring
Scare Tactics Equivocation
Two Wrongs Make a Right
12. 4.1.1 Personal Attack
Example:
Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis on music in
our F2F classes to facilitate creativity. But Doogie is a
selfish bigheaded fool. I absolutely refuse to listen to him.
Personal Attack
When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim
by attacking the person’s character rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
1. X is a bad person.
2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.
Pattern
13. 4.1.2 Attacking the Motive
Example:
Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But Trump
is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll make a fortune if
his company is picked to build the new campus. Obviously, Trump’s
argument is a lot of self-serving nonsense.
Attacking the Motive
When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
1. X has biased or has questionable motives.
2. Therefore, X’s arguments or claim should be rejected.
Pattern
14. 4.1.3 Look Who’s Talking
Example:
Doctor: You should quite smoking.
Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr. Smokestack!
Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque)
When an arguer rejects another person’s argument
or claim because that person is a hypocrite.
1. X fails to follow his or her own advice.
2. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be rejected.
Pattern
15. 4.1.4 Two Wrongs Make a Right
Examples:
1. “I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz. Half the
class cheats on his quiz.”
2. “Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”
Two Wrongs Make a Right
When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act
by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.
1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts.
2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.
Pattern
16. 4.1.5 Scare Tactics
Example:
Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful
rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed
forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.
Scare Tactics
When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener
and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of
the arguer’s conclusion.
Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often
causes us to think and behave irrationally.
Remember
17. 4.1.6 Appeal to Pity
Example:
Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all my quizzes
and assignments. First my cat died. Then my girlfriend told me she has found
someone else. With all I went through this semester, I don’t think I really deserve
an F. Any chance you might cut me some slack and change my grade to a C or a
D?
Appeal to Pity
When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or
compassion, where such feelings, however understandable,
are not relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.
1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
2. Therefore claim C is true.
Pattern
18. 4.1.7 Bandwagon Argument
Example:
All the really cool UNITAR students smoke cigarettes.
Therefore, you should, too.
Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure)
When an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be popular,
accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant
reasons or evidence.
1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.
2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.
Pattern
19. 4.1.8 Straw Man
Example:
Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Suzie: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.“
Singh: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have
to clean them out everyday?"
Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You
just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
Straw Man
When an arguer misrepresents another person’s
position to make it easier to attack.
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Pattern
20. 4.1.9 Red Herring
Example:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the
graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are
in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."
Red Herring
When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising
an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original
issue has been effectively settled by the
irrelevant diversion.
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant
to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
Pattern
21. 4.1.10 Equivocation
Example:
In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed almost very
night. To be bombed is to be intoxicated. Therefore, in the
summer of 1940, Londoners were intoxicated almost every
night.
Equivocation
When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two
(or more) different senses.
Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot because
they often appear valid, but they aren’t.
Remember
22. 4.1.11 Begging the Question
Example:
I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right
to say whatever I please.
Begging the Question
When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason)
the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.
Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.
Reason
23. I'm trying hard to understand this guy who identifies himself as a
security supervisor and criticizes the police officers in this area. I
can only come up with two solutions. One, he is either a member of
the criminal element, or two, he is a frustrated security guard who
can never make it as a police officer and figures he can take cheap
shots at cops through the newspaper (adapted from a newspaper
call-in column).
Which fallacy?
A) Loaded Question
B) Personal Attack
C) Bandwagon Argument
D) Scare Tactics
4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 1
24. The Red Cross is worried about the treatment of the
suspected terrorists held by the U.S. at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. What do they want the U.S. to do with
them, put them on the beaches of Florida for a
vacation or take them skiing in the Rockies? Come
on, let's worry about the Americans. (adapted from a
newspaper call-in column)
Which fallacy?
A) Bandwagon Argument
B) Personal Attack
C) Straw Man
D) Scare Tactics
4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 2
25. “The foolish and the dead alone
never change their opinion.”
- James Russell Lowell
26. 4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the
premises, though logically
relevant to the conclusion, fail
to provide sufficient evidence to
support the conclusion.
27. 4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Inappropriate Appeal
to Authority
Questionable Cause
Appeal to Ignorance Slippery Slope
False Alternatives Weak Analogy
Loaded Question Inconsistency
Hasty Generalizations
28. 4.2.1 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
Example:
My dentist told me that aliens built the lost city of Atlantis. So,
it’s reasonable to believe that aliens did build the lost city of
Atlantis.
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.
Authority Assessment
1. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?
2. Is the source biased?
3. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?
4. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
5. Has the source been cited correctly?
6. Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion?
7. Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to expert opinion?
8. Is the claim highly improbable on its face?
Tips
29. 4.2.2 Appeal to Ignorance
Example:
Yoda must exist. No one has proved that he
doesn’t exist.
Appeal to Ignorance
Claiming that something is true because no one has
proven it false or vice versa.
“Not proven, therefore false”
If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almost
any conclusion.
Remember
Agree
I do!
30. 4.2.3 False Alternatives
Example:
The choice in this MPM election is clear: Either we elect
Zubaidah as our next president, or we watch our MPM unity
slide into anarchy and frustration. Clearly, we don’t want that
to happen. Therefore, we should elect Zubaidah as our next
president.
False Alternatives
Posing a false either/or choice.
Fallacy of false alternatives can involve more than
two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a
conditional (if-then) statement.
Remember
31. 4.2.4 Loaded Question
Example:
Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard?
Ali: Yes.
Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser.
Loaded Question
Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
presupposition.
To respond to a loaded question effectively, one must
distinguish the different questions being asked and respond
to each individually.
Tip
32. 4.2.5 Questionable Cause
Example:
Sarah gets a chain letter that threatens her with dire consequences if she
breaks the chain. She laughs at it and throws it in the garbage. On her
way to work she slips and breaks his arm. When she gets back from the
hospital she sends out 200 copies of the chain letter, hoping to avoid
further accidents.
Questionable Cause
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing
is the cause of something else.
1. A and B are associated on a regular basis.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
Pattern
33. 4.2.6 Hasty Generalization
Example:
Norwegians are lazy. I have two friends who are from there,
and both of them never prepare for class, or do their
homework.
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that
is biased or too small.
1. A biased sample is one that is not representative of the target population.
2. The target population is the group of people or things that the
generalization is about.
3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypes.
Pattern
34. 4.2.7 Slippery Slope
Examples:
“The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other countries. Once
the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to
die."
Slippery Slope
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly
harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous
outcome.
1. The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A,
is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D.
2. The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should
not be permitted.
3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually
lead to D.
Pattern
35. 4.2.8 Weak Analogy
Example:
Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for a test drive.
Why then shouldn’t two mature UNITAR students live
together before they decide whether to get married?
Weak Analogy
Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.
1. List all important similarities between the two cases.
2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases.
3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are
more important.
Tip
36. 4.2.9 Inconsistency
Example:
Note found in a Forest Service Suggestion box: Park visitors
need to know how important it is to keep this wilderness
area completely pristine and undisturbed. So why not put up
a few signs to remind people of this fact?
Inconsistency
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.
It is also a mistake to cling stubbornly to an old idea when new
information suggests that the idea is false.
Open-minded to new ideas = Learning
Remember
37. What's to say against [cigars]? They killed George
Burns at 100. If he hadn't smoked them, he'd have
died at 75. (Bert Sugar, quoted in New York Times,
September 20, 2002)
Which fallacy?
A) Questionable Cause
B) Hasty Generalization
C) Slippery Slope
D) Weak Analogy
4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 1
38. According to North Korea's official state-run news agency, "a
war between North Korea and the United States will end with
the delightful victory of North Korea, a newly emerging military
power, in 100 hours. . . . The U. S. [will] be enveloped in flames.
. . and the arrogant empire of the devil will breathe its last".
Given that this prediction comes from the official North Korean
news agency, it is probably true.
(Passage quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof, "Empire of the Devil," New
York Times, April 4, 2003)
Which fallacy?
A) Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
B) Appeal to Ignorance
C) False Alternatives
D) Loaded Question
4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 2
39. Jurors in tobacco lawsuits should award judgments so large
that they put tobacco companies out of business. Respecting
the right of tobacco companies to stay in business is akin to
saying there are "two sides" to slavery...
(Anti-tobacco lawyer, quoted in George F. Will, "Court Ruling
Expresses Anti-Smoking Hypocrisy," Wilkes-Barre Times
Leader, May 25, 2003)
Which fallacy?
A) Loaded Question
B) Hasty Generalization
C) Slippery Slope
D) Weak Analogy
4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 3
40. Group Activity
Break into groups of 4 - 6, and construct five (5) fallacious
arguments.
Each group can choose any of the 20 fallacies discussed, but
must construct at least two fallacious arguments of each
category: Fallacies of Relevance & Fallacies of Insufficient
Evidence).
The constructed fallacious arguments must discuss the
topics specified in the template provided (Business,
Education, Information Technology, Environment, and
Tourism).
20 min Construct 5 fallacious arguments.
5 min Document constructed arguments into the template provided.
15 min Group presentation & discussion.
The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the
lecturer before or during the next class.
41. Summary – 20 Common Fallacies
Fallacy
An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises, though
logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to
provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.
Personal Attack
Attacking the Motive
Look Who’s Talking
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Scare Tactics
Appeal to Pity
Bandwagon Argument
Straw Man
Red Herring
Equivocation
Begging the Question
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Ignorance
False Alternatives
Loaded Question
Questionable Cause
Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy
Inconsistency
44. References
Book
Chapter 5 (Logical Fallacies -1) & 6 (Logical Fallacies -
2): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical
Thinking: A Student's Introduction, McGraw-Hill International
Edition, 2007
Online Resources
Fallacies (The Nizkor Project):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Cool Optical Illusions:
http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/
45. Contact Details
Zaid Ali Alsagoff
UNIVERSITI TUN ABDUL RAZAK
16-5, Jalan SS 6/12
47301 Kelana Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Malaysia
E-mail: zaid.alsagoff@gmail.com
Tel: 603-7627 7238
Fax: 603-7627 7246