The document defines and provides examples of logical fallacies and cognitive biases that can undermine critical thinking. It discusses fallacies such as argument from ignorance, irrelevant comparisons, false analogies, slippery slope, and emotional appeals. It also examines cognitive biases like confirmation bias, selective thinking, personal biases and prejudices, false memories, and how physical and emotional hindrances can influence reasoning. The overall document aims to help identify and avoid logical inconsistencies and biased patterns of thought that hinder objective evaluation of arguments and evidence.
The document discusses developing ideas for a psychological thriller opening sequence and film. Previously, the ideas involved a girl experiencing hallucinations after taking LSD. The concepts were revised to focus on a girl with schizophrenia. Research was conducted on schizophrenia and its subtypes. The opening sequence draft was improved by changing the cause of hallucinations from drugs to childhood trauma relating to schizophrenia. The whole film idea was also revised to center around the character's life from early childhood and descent into schizophrenia.
The document discusses the three processes of spectatorship - recognition, alignment, and allegiance - and how to apply them to analyzing the film "Full Metal Jacket". It provides details on each process: recognition involves identifying with characters, alignment involves taking on their point of view, and allegiance pertains to the moral evaluation of characters. It notes that allegiance can raise questions about what appeals a character has and what memories they trigger for the spectator. Students are instructed to analyze how characters are constructed in "Full Metal Jacket" and which characters they feel allegiance toward and why.
This document defines and provides examples of 20 common logical fallacies: strawman, false cause, appeal to emotion, the fallacy fallacy, slippery slope, ad hominem, tu quoque, personal incredulity, special pleading, loaded question, burden of proof, ambiguity, the gambler's fallacy, bandwagon, appeal to authority, composition/division, no true Scotsman, genetic, black-or-white, and begging the question. For each fallacy, it explains what it is and provides an example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works.
The document discusses various types of logical fallacies that can weaken arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as a defect that weakens an argument. It then provides tips to help avoid common fallacies like hasty generalization, missing the point, post hoc reasoning, slippery slope, weak analogy, appeal to authority, ad populum, ad hominem, tu quoque, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, straw man, red herring, false dichotomy, begging the question, and equivocation. The overall goal is to help readers critically examine their own arguments and strengthen them by identifying and avoiding logical fallacies.
This document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples of common fallacies. It defines 14 different types of fallacies including hasty generalization, begging the question, slippery slope, appeal to authority, and straw man. For each fallacy it provides a definition and example to illustrate how the fallacy works. It also includes examples of arguments and asks the reader to identify which fallacy is being committed.
Common Fallacies In Advertising Powerpointmairacute
This document defines common fallacies in advertising and provides examples of each. It discusses 9 different types of fallacies: ad hominem, appeal to emotions, false dilemma, appeal to the people, scare tactic, false cause, hasty generalization, red herring, and traditional wisdom. For each fallacy type, it explains what the fallacy is and provides a brief example. The document concludes by stating that readers will work in groups to identify which fallacies are used in different advertisements.
This document defines logical fallacies and common types of fallacious arguments. It explains that an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and fallacies occur when arguments fail in certain ways. Sixteen specific fallacies are described, including hasty generalization, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, and equivocation. The document concludes with tips for preventing fallacious reasoning such as arguing against oneself and fairly characterizing opposing arguments.
The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed reasoning, in arguments. It describes formal/logical fallacies that violate rules of logic, such as fallacies of definition, division, and categorical syllogism. It also discusses informal/material fallacies arising from ambiguous language or faulty assumptions, including fallacies of equivocation, composition, and presumption. In total, it provides classifications and examples for over 20 different fallacies that can undermine the validity of an argument.
The document discusses developing ideas for a psychological thriller opening sequence and film. Previously, the ideas involved a girl experiencing hallucinations after taking LSD. The concepts were revised to focus on a girl with schizophrenia. Research was conducted on schizophrenia and its subtypes. The opening sequence draft was improved by changing the cause of hallucinations from drugs to childhood trauma relating to schizophrenia. The whole film idea was also revised to center around the character's life from early childhood and descent into schizophrenia.
The document discusses the three processes of spectatorship - recognition, alignment, and allegiance - and how to apply them to analyzing the film "Full Metal Jacket". It provides details on each process: recognition involves identifying with characters, alignment involves taking on their point of view, and allegiance pertains to the moral evaluation of characters. It notes that allegiance can raise questions about what appeals a character has and what memories they trigger for the spectator. Students are instructed to analyze how characters are constructed in "Full Metal Jacket" and which characters they feel allegiance toward and why.
This document defines and provides examples of 20 common logical fallacies: strawman, false cause, appeal to emotion, the fallacy fallacy, slippery slope, ad hominem, tu quoque, personal incredulity, special pleading, loaded question, burden of proof, ambiguity, the gambler's fallacy, bandwagon, appeal to authority, composition/division, no true Scotsman, genetic, black-or-white, and begging the question. For each fallacy, it explains what it is and provides an example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works.
The document discusses various types of logical fallacies that can weaken arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as a defect that weakens an argument. It then provides tips to help avoid common fallacies like hasty generalization, missing the point, post hoc reasoning, slippery slope, weak analogy, appeal to authority, ad populum, ad hominem, tu quoque, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, straw man, red herring, false dichotomy, begging the question, and equivocation. The overall goal is to help readers critically examine their own arguments and strengthen them by identifying and avoiding logical fallacies.
This document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples of common fallacies. It defines 14 different types of fallacies including hasty generalization, begging the question, slippery slope, appeal to authority, and straw man. For each fallacy it provides a definition and example to illustrate how the fallacy works. It also includes examples of arguments and asks the reader to identify which fallacy is being committed.
Common Fallacies In Advertising Powerpointmairacute
This document defines common fallacies in advertising and provides examples of each. It discusses 9 different types of fallacies: ad hominem, appeal to emotions, false dilemma, appeal to the people, scare tactic, false cause, hasty generalization, red herring, and traditional wisdom. For each fallacy type, it explains what the fallacy is and provides a brief example. The document concludes by stating that readers will work in groups to identify which fallacies are used in different advertisements.
This document defines logical fallacies and common types of fallacious arguments. It explains that an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and fallacies occur when arguments fail in certain ways. Sixteen specific fallacies are described, including hasty generalization, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, and equivocation. The document concludes with tips for preventing fallacious reasoning such as arguing against oneself and fairly characterizing opposing arguments.
The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed reasoning, in arguments. It describes formal/logical fallacies that violate rules of logic, such as fallacies of definition, division, and categorical syllogism. It also discusses informal/material fallacies arising from ambiguous language or faulty assumptions, including fallacies of equivocation, composition, and presumption. In total, it provides classifications and examples for over 20 different fallacies that can undermine the validity of an argument.
The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that uses poor reasoning, whether or not the conclusion is true. Fallacies can be formal, stemming from logical flaws, or informal. The document then examines different types of formal and informal fallacies identified by Aristotle, Richard Whately, and others. It provides examples of intentional and unintentional fallacies, as well as deductive fallacies. Specific fallacies like appeal to pity, scare tactics, and two wrongs making a right are explored in more depth.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies used to invalidate arguments. It discusses fallacies such as ad hominem where one attacks the person instead of the issue, begging the question by assuming the conclusion as fact, false cause where an unrelated cause is cited to explain an event, and slippery slope implying one small step leads to catastrophe. Other fallacies presented include false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, two wrongs make a right, hasty generalization, and straw man.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses fallacies such as slippery slope, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, begging the claim, ad hominem, straw man, and others. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works. The overall document serves to help readers identify and avoid using logical fallacies in arguments and debates.
The document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples. It defines logical fallacies as poor logic involving overgeneralizations and assumptions. Several common fallacies are defined, including non sequitur, bandwagon, equivocation, and faulty generalization. The document then provides exercises that ask the reader to identify fallacies in short passages. It explains the answers and identifies fallacies such as begging the question, ad hominem, and complex question. The document concludes with information on seeking additional help on logical fallacies from the writing center.
The document discusses 5 common logical fallacies: name-calling, either/or, hasty generalization, cause and effect, and loaded language. It provides examples of each fallacy and how they appear in news stories and political rhetoric. The purpose is to help identify and avoid using flawed reasoning techniques in arguments and conclusions.
Skepticism at work - Logical Fallacies. ASQ BuffaloASQ Buffalo NY
http://asqbuffalo.org
We should only believe things for which there is adequate evidence. But what evidence is adequate? We decide based on our experiences, beliefs, judgments, and reasoning. However, we often commit logical fallacies (errors in reasoning). When this happens either sound evidence is rejected or questionable evidence is accepted while leaving us feeling that we have made the right decision. Recognizing these errors can help us avoid making wrong decisions and promote data based decision making.
This document discusses six common causal fallacies: post hoc reasoning, ignoring a common cause, confusing cause and effect, oversimplified cause, the genetic fallacy, and slippery slope. It provides examples and explanations of each fallacy to illustrate errors in reasoning about the relationships between causes and effects. The goal is to avoid these fallacies and make logical conclusions about causes and effects that are supported by evidence.
This document presents concepts and scenarios related to different philosophies of justice, including utilitarianism, deontological ethics, libertarianism, liberalism, and conservatism. It discusses views on topics like torture, redistribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and individual versus collective interests. Test cases at the end pose ethical dilemmas about taxation, education policy, medical procedures, patriotism, and crime to examine how each philosophy might approach them.
This document outlines an English class agenda that includes peer reviewing rough drafts of research essays, discussing logical fallacies, and having a literature circle discussion. It then provides a detailed explanation of 12 common logical fallacies: ad hominem, begging the question, false cause, post hoc ergo propter hoc, either-or fallacy, evasion, false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, slippery slope, and two wrongs make a right. Examples are given for each fallacy and students are instructed to analyze arguments for logical fallacies.
This document outlines common logical fallacies used to deceive others in arguments. It provides examples of fallacies such as straw man arguments, false dilemmas, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, slippery slopes, hasty generalizations, bandwagon appeals, circular reasoning, post hoc fallacies, faulty analogies, and appeals to false authorities. The document aims to help people identify and reject deceptive reasoning techniques.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 12 different types of fallacies: overgeneralization, false cause, weak analogy, circular reasoning, false dilemma, appeal to authority, appeal to pity, begging the question, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, non sequitur, and defines each as using defective or invalid reasoning in arguments. Examples are provided for most of the fallacies to illustrate how each invalid argument form manifests.
This document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples of common fallacy types. It defines a fallacy as a flawed argument that appears sound but violates logic. Advertisements often use fallacies to persuade. Some fallacy types discussed include ad hominem, bandwagon, false dilemma, slippery slope, and appealing to fear. The document analyzes examples of fallacious arguments and advertising to help identify different fallacy types.
The document discusses common logical fallacies used in arguments including strawman, post hoc, slippery slope, anecdotal, either/or, and ad hominem fallacies. It notes that strawman, post hoc, anecdotal, and either/or fallacies make flawed assumptions while slippery slope and ad hominem fallacies attack the opponent rather than addressing the actual argument. The document questions whether using such fallacies is deceptive, effective, or right.
This document introduces logical fallacies and their types. It defines a logical fallacy as a flawed argument that can damage credibility. Fallacies are divided into categories including relevance, components, ambiguity, and omission. Examples are given such as bandwagon appeals, slippery slopes, stacking the deck, and division. The document encourages students to develop skills in identifying fallacies in writing and arguments. Class activities are suggested to find examples of fallacies in media and presentations.
Got Logic? Critical Thinking, Logical Structures and Logical Fallacies Spencer Field
After 3 years as a debater Spencer Field was able to give this first lecture on Logic as it relates to the bible, policy debate and life. In this presentation Spencer covers the biblical reason for logic, Logical structures including the Toulmin model and syllogisms and logical Fallacies.
- Major premise: All humans are mortal.
- Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
- Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
- Conditional Statements
- True + Valid = Sound
- Disjunctive Syllogism
This document lists 15 examples of logical fallacies and asks the reader to identify each fallacy. The examples cover common fallacies such as red herring, hasty generalization, slippery slope, straw man, false dichotomy, appeal to pity, and appeal to false authority.
The document discusses several logical fallacies of insufficient evidence including:
1) Inappropriate appeal to authority, which occurs when an unreliable authority is cited.
2) Appeal to ignorance, which claims something is true just because it hasn't been proven false.
3) False alternatives, which insists there are fewer options than actually exist.
4) Loaded questions, which contain hidden assumptions that make it difficult to answer without appearing to endorse those assumptions.
Martin Luther King employs a framing device to depict his actions in Birmingham as unifying rather than divisive. He must rebut claims that the demonstrations are acts of outsiders interfering locally. King quotes "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," comparing society to a network and garment where one's fate affects all. He aims to broaden the debate to establish his role in advancing civil rights nationwide.
❼❷⓿❺❻❷❽❷❼❽ Dpboss Matka Result Satta Matka Guessing Satta Fix jodi Kalyan Final ank Satta Matka Dpbos Final ank Satta Matta Matka 143 Kalyan Matka Guessing Final Matka Final ank Today Matka 420 Satta Batta Satta 143 Kalyan Chart Main Bazar Chart vip Matka Guessing Dpboss 143 Guessing Kalyan night
The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that uses poor reasoning, whether or not the conclusion is true. Fallacies can be formal, stemming from logical flaws, or informal. The document then examines different types of formal and informal fallacies identified by Aristotle, Richard Whately, and others. It provides examples of intentional and unintentional fallacies, as well as deductive fallacies. Specific fallacies like appeal to pity, scare tactics, and two wrongs making a right are explored in more depth.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies used to invalidate arguments. It discusses fallacies such as ad hominem where one attacks the person instead of the issue, begging the question by assuming the conclusion as fact, false cause where an unrelated cause is cited to explain an event, and slippery slope implying one small step leads to catastrophe. Other fallacies presented include false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, two wrongs make a right, hasty generalization, and straw man.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses fallacies such as slippery slope, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, begging the claim, ad hominem, straw man, and others. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works. The overall document serves to help readers identify and avoid using logical fallacies in arguments and debates.
The document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples. It defines logical fallacies as poor logic involving overgeneralizations and assumptions. Several common fallacies are defined, including non sequitur, bandwagon, equivocation, and faulty generalization. The document then provides exercises that ask the reader to identify fallacies in short passages. It explains the answers and identifies fallacies such as begging the question, ad hominem, and complex question. The document concludes with information on seeking additional help on logical fallacies from the writing center.
The document discusses 5 common logical fallacies: name-calling, either/or, hasty generalization, cause and effect, and loaded language. It provides examples of each fallacy and how they appear in news stories and political rhetoric. The purpose is to help identify and avoid using flawed reasoning techniques in arguments and conclusions.
Skepticism at work - Logical Fallacies. ASQ BuffaloASQ Buffalo NY
http://asqbuffalo.org
We should only believe things for which there is adequate evidence. But what evidence is adequate? We decide based on our experiences, beliefs, judgments, and reasoning. However, we often commit logical fallacies (errors in reasoning). When this happens either sound evidence is rejected or questionable evidence is accepted while leaving us feeling that we have made the right decision. Recognizing these errors can help us avoid making wrong decisions and promote data based decision making.
This document discusses six common causal fallacies: post hoc reasoning, ignoring a common cause, confusing cause and effect, oversimplified cause, the genetic fallacy, and slippery slope. It provides examples and explanations of each fallacy to illustrate errors in reasoning about the relationships between causes and effects. The goal is to avoid these fallacies and make logical conclusions about causes and effects that are supported by evidence.
This document presents concepts and scenarios related to different philosophies of justice, including utilitarianism, deontological ethics, libertarianism, liberalism, and conservatism. It discusses views on topics like torture, redistribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and individual versus collective interests. Test cases at the end pose ethical dilemmas about taxation, education policy, medical procedures, patriotism, and crime to examine how each philosophy might approach them.
This document outlines an English class agenda that includes peer reviewing rough drafts of research essays, discussing logical fallacies, and having a literature circle discussion. It then provides a detailed explanation of 12 common logical fallacies: ad hominem, begging the question, false cause, post hoc ergo propter hoc, either-or fallacy, evasion, false analogy, oversimplification, rationalization, red herring, slippery slope, and two wrongs make a right. Examples are given for each fallacy and students are instructed to analyze arguments for logical fallacies.
This document outlines common logical fallacies used to deceive others in arguments. It provides examples of fallacies such as straw man arguments, false dilemmas, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, slippery slopes, hasty generalizations, bandwagon appeals, circular reasoning, post hoc fallacies, faulty analogies, and appeals to false authorities. The document aims to help people identify and reject deceptive reasoning techniques.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 12 different types of fallacies: overgeneralization, false cause, weak analogy, circular reasoning, false dilemma, appeal to authority, appeal to pity, begging the question, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, non sequitur, and defines each as using defective or invalid reasoning in arguments. Examples are provided for most of the fallacies to illustrate how each invalid argument form manifests.
This document discusses logical fallacies and provides examples of common fallacy types. It defines a fallacy as a flawed argument that appears sound but violates logic. Advertisements often use fallacies to persuade. Some fallacy types discussed include ad hominem, bandwagon, false dilemma, slippery slope, and appealing to fear. The document analyzes examples of fallacious arguments and advertising to help identify different fallacy types.
The document discusses common logical fallacies used in arguments including strawman, post hoc, slippery slope, anecdotal, either/or, and ad hominem fallacies. It notes that strawman, post hoc, anecdotal, and either/or fallacies make flawed assumptions while slippery slope and ad hominem fallacies attack the opponent rather than addressing the actual argument. The document questions whether using such fallacies is deceptive, effective, or right.
This document introduces logical fallacies and their types. It defines a logical fallacy as a flawed argument that can damage credibility. Fallacies are divided into categories including relevance, components, ambiguity, and omission. Examples are given such as bandwagon appeals, slippery slopes, stacking the deck, and division. The document encourages students to develop skills in identifying fallacies in writing and arguments. Class activities are suggested to find examples of fallacies in media and presentations.
Got Logic? Critical Thinking, Logical Structures and Logical Fallacies Spencer Field
After 3 years as a debater Spencer Field was able to give this first lecture on Logic as it relates to the bible, policy debate and life. In this presentation Spencer covers the biblical reason for logic, Logical structures including the Toulmin model and syllogisms and logical Fallacies.
- Major premise: All humans are mortal.
- Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
- Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
- Conditional Statements
- True + Valid = Sound
- Disjunctive Syllogism
This document lists 15 examples of logical fallacies and asks the reader to identify each fallacy. The examples cover common fallacies such as red herring, hasty generalization, slippery slope, straw man, false dichotomy, appeal to pity, and appeal to false authority.
The document discusses several logical fallacies of insufficient evidence including:
1) Inappropriate appeal to authority, which occurs when an unreliable authority is cited.
2) Appeal to ignorance, which claims something is true just because it hasn't been proven false.
3) False alternatives, which insists there are fewer options than actually exist.
4) Loaded questions, which contain hidden assumptions that make it difficult to answer without appearing to endorse those assumptions.
Martin Luther King employs a framing device to depict his actions in Birmingham as unifying rather than divisive. He must rebut claims that the demonstrations are acts of outsiders interfering locally. King quotes "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," comparing society to a network and garment where one's fate affects all. He aims to broaden the debate to establish his role in advancing civil rights nationwide.
❼❷⓿❺❻❷❽❷❼❽ Dpboss Matka Result Satta Matka Guessing Satta Fix jodi Kalyan Final ank Satta Matka Dpbos Final ank Satta Matta Matka 143 Kalyan Matka Guessing Final Matka Final ank Today Matka 420 Satta Batta Satta 143 Kalyan Chart Main Bazar Chart vip Matka Guessing Dpboss 143 Guessing Kalyan night
Best practices for project execution and deliveryCLIVE MINCHIN
A select set of project management best practices to keep your project on-track, on-cost and aligned to scope. Many firms have don't have the necessary skills, diligence, methods and oversight of their projects; this leads to slippage, higher costs and longer timeframes. Often firms have a history of projects that simply failed to move the needle. These best practices will help your firm avoid these pitfalls but they require fortitude to apply.
Top 10 Free Accounting and Bookkeeping Apps for Small BusinessesYourLegal Accounting
Maintaining a proper record of your money is important for any business whether it is small or large. It helps you stay one step ahead in the financial race and be aware of your earnings and any tax obligations.
However, managing finances without an entire accounting staff can be challenging for small businesses.
Accounting apps can help with that! They resemble your private money manager.
They organize all of your transactions automatically as soon as you link them to your corporate bank account. Additionally, they are compatible with your phone, allowing you to monitor your finances from anywhere. Cool, right?
Thus, we’ll be looking at several fantastic accounting apps in this blog that will help you develop your business and save time.
3 Simple Steps To Buy Verified Payoneer Account In 2024SEOSMMEARTH
Buy Verified Payoneer Account: Quick and Secure Way to Receive Payments
Buy Verified Payoneer Account With 100% secure documents, [ USA, UK, CA ]. Are you looking for a reliable and safe way to receive payments online? Then you need buy verified Payoneer account ! Payoneer is a global payment platform that allows businesses and individuals to send and receive money in over 200 countries.
If You Want To More Information just Contact Now:
Skype: SEOSMMEARTH
Telegram: @seosmmearth
Gmail: seosmmearth@gmail.com
IMPACT Silver is a pure silver zinc producer with over $260 million in revenue since 2008 and a large 100% owned 210km Mexico land package - 2024 catalysts includes new 14% grade zinc Plomosas mine and 20,000m of fully funded exploration drilling.
[To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
This presentation is a curated compilation of PowerPoint diagrams and templates designed to illustrate 20 different digital transformation frameworks and models. These frameworks are based on recent industry trends and best practices, ensuring that the content remains relevant and up-to-date.
Key highlights include Microsoft's Digital Transformation Framework, which focuses on driving innovation and efficiency, and McKinsey's Ten Guiding Principles, which provide strategic insights for successful digital transformation. Additionally, Forrester's framework emphasizes enhancing customer experiences and modernizing IT infrastructure, while IDC's MaturityScape helps assess and develop organizational digital maturity. MIT's framework explores cutting-edge strategies for achieving digital success.
These materials are perfect for enhancing your business or classroom presentations, offering visual aids to supplement your insights. Please note that while comprehensive, these slides are intended as supplementary resources and may not be complete for standalone instructional purposes.
Frameworks/Models included:
Microsoft’s Digital Transformation Framework
McKinsey’s Ten Guiding Principles of Digital Transformation
Forrester’s Digital Transformation Framework
IDC’s Digital Transformation MaturityScape
MIT’s Digital Transformation Framework
Gartner’s Digital Transformation Framework
Accenture’s Digital Strategy & Enterprise Frameworks
Deloitte’s Digital Industrial Transformation Framework
Capgemini’s Digital Transformation Framework
PwC’s Digital Transformation Framework
Cisco’s Digital Transformation Framework
Cognizant’s Digital Transformation Framework
DXC Technology’s Digital Transformation Framework
The BCG Strategy Palette
McKinsey’s Digital Transformation Framework
Digital Transformation Compass
Four Levels of Digital Maturity
Design Thinking Framework
Business Model Canvas
Customer Journey Map
Anny Serafina Love - Letter of Recommendation by Kellen Harkins, MS.AnnySerafinaLove
This letter, written by Kellen Harkins, Course Director at Full Sail University, commends Anny Love's exemplary performance in the Video Sharing Platforms class. It highlights her dedication, willingness to challenge herself, and exceptional skills in production, editing, and marketing across various video platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.
Brian Fitzsimmons on the Business Strategy and Content Flywheel of Barstool S...Neil Horowitz
On episode 272 of the Digital and Social Media Sports Podcast, Neil chatted with Brian Fitzsimmons, Director of Licensing and Business Development for Barstool Sports.
What follows is a collection of snippets from the podcast. To hear the full interview and more, check out the podcast on all podcast platforms and at www.dsmsports.net
Taurus Zodiac Sign: Unveiling the Traits, Dates, and Horoscope Insights of th...my Pandit
Dive into the steadfast world of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the grounded, stable, and logical nature of Taurus individuals, and explore their key personality traits, important dates, and horoscope insights. Learn how the determination and patience of the Taurus sign make them the rock-steady achievers and anchors of the zodiac.
Best Competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai - ☎ 9928909666Stone Art Hub
Stone Art Hub offers the best competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai, ensuring affordability without compromising quality. With a wide range of exquisite marble options to choose from, you can enhance your spaces with elegance and sophistication. For inquiries or orders, contact us at ☎ 9928909666. Experience luxury at unbeatable prices.
The APCO Geopolitical Radar - Q3 2024 The Global Operating Environment for Bu...APCO
The Radar reflects input from APCO’s teams located around the world. It distils a host of interconnected events and trends into insights to inform operational and strategic decisions. Issues covered in this edition include:
The Steadfast and Reliable Bull: Taurus Zodiac Signmy Pandit
Explore the steadfast and reliable nature of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the personality traits, key dates, and horoscope insights that define the determined and practical Taurus, and learn how their grounded nature makes them the anchor of the zodiac.
Digital Marketing with a Focus on Sustainabilitysssourabhsharma
Digital Marketing best practices including influencer marketing, content creators, and omnichannel marketing for Sustainable Brands at the Sustainable Cosmetics Summit 2024 in New York
2. Argument from Ignorance
Pragmatic Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Apophenia & Superstition
Irrelevant Comparisons
False Analogies
Physical & Emotional Defined: Erroneous perception of
Hindrances
Confirmation Bias &
the connections between
Selective Thinking unrelated events
Testimonial Evidence
Personal Biases &
Prejudices
False Memories &
Confabulation
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Irrationally believing
Assuring Expressions
that how one wears
False Implications their hat while watching
Emotive Content a sporting event can
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
influence the score.
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
3. Argument from Ignorance
Pragmatic Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Irrelevant Comparisons
False Analogies
Physical & Emotional
Hindrances
Confirmation Bias &
Selective Thinking
Testimonial Evidence
Personal Biases &
Prejudices
Defined: A logical fallacy
False Memories &
claiming something is true
Confabulation because it has not been
Doublespeak Jargon proven false.
Meaningless Comparisons Believing that there
Assuring Expressions
False Implications
must be life on
Emotive Content
Mars because no
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
Poisoning the Well
one has proven
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
that there is not life
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon
on Mars.
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
4. Pragmatic Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Irrelevant Comparisons
False Analogies
Physical & Emotional
Hindrances
Defined: Making a
Confirmation Bias & comparison that is
Selective Thinking
Testimonial Evidence
irrelevant or inappropriate.
Personal Biases &
Prejudices
False Memories &
Confabulation
Doublespeak Jargon Making a claim that
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
Printer A is better than
False Implications Printer B because printer
Emotive Content
Evading the Issue, Red
A makes better copies
Herring than Printer B, while
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy ignoring the important
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy fact that only Printer B
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy can also fax, copy, and
Emotional Appeals
scan.
Ambiguity
5. Pragmatic Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
False Analogies
Physical & Emotional Defined: An argument
Hindrances
Confirmation Bias &
that assumes an
Selective Thinking adverse chain of events
Testimonial Evidence
Personal Biases & will occur, but offers no
Prejudices proof.
False Memories &
Confabulation
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
Because regulators
False Implications have controlled
Emotive Content
Evading the Issue, Red
smoking in public
Herring
places, their ultimate
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy goal is to control
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy everything else in our
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy lives.
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
6. Pragmatic Fallacy
False Analogies
Physical & Emotional Defined: Making
Hindrances
Confirmation Bias & illogical analogies
Selective Thinking
Testimonial Evidence
to support the
Personal Biases & validity of a
Prejudices
False Memories &
particular claim.
Confabulation
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
False Implications Arguing that two children
Emotive Content
sharing the same
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring bedroom is wrong
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy
because double-celling
Fallacy of False Dilemma, of criminals in a
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon penitentiary can lead to
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
bad behavior.
Ambiguity
7. Pragmatic Fallacy
Physical & Emotional
Hindrances
Define: Arguing something is
Confirmation Bias &
Selective Thinking true because “it works,” even
Testimonial Evidence though the causality between
Personal Biases &
Prejudices this something and the
False Memories & outcome is not demonstrated.
Confabulation
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
False Implications After using a magnetic
Emotive Content belt for awhile, a woman
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring notices her back pain is
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy
less, even though there
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
may be a dozen other
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
reasons for the reduced
Emotional Appeals back pain.
Ambiguity
8. Physical & Emotional Defined: The process
Hindrances
Confirmation Bias & whereby one tends to notice
Selective Thinking and look for what confirms
Testimonial Evidence
Personal Biases &
one’s beliefs, and to ignore,
Prejudices not look for, or undervalue the
False Memories & relevance of what contradicts
Confabulation
Doublespeak Jargon
one’s beliefs.
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
False Implications If one believes that more
Emotive Content murders occur during a full
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
moon, then one will tend to
Poisoning the Well take notice of murders that
Ad hominem Fallacy occur during a full moon and
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy tend not to take notice of
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
murders that occur at other
Emotional Appeals times.
Ambiguity
9. Physical & Emotional Defined: Being unaware that
Hindrances
our memories are often
“manufactured” to fill in the
Testimonial Evidence
gaps in our recollection, or
Personal Biases &
Prejudices that some memories of facts,
False Memories & over time, can be
Confabulation
unconsciously replaced with
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Police officers should not
fantasy.
Assuring Expressions show a photo of a
False Implications
Emotive Content
possible assailant to a
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
witness prior to a police
Poisoning the Well lineup, or the actual
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
memory of the witness
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
may be unconsciously
Emotional Appeals replaced.
Ambiguity
10. Physical & Emotional Defined: We each have
Hindrances
personal biases and
prejudices, resulting from
Testimonial Evidence
our own unique life
Personal Biases &
Prejudices experiences and worldview,
which make it difficult to
remain objective and think
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
critically.
Assuring Expressions
False Implications
Some people are
Emotive Content biased against claims
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring made by scientists
Poisoning the Well
because their
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma, worldview appears too
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon cold and impersonal.
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
11. Physical & Emotional Defined: Stress, fatigue,
Hindrances
drugs, and related
hindrances can severely
Testimonial Evidence
affect our ability to think
clearly and critically.
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
False Implications
Emotive Content
Evading the Issue, Red
Air traffic controllers
Herring
Poisoning the Well
often have difficulty
Ad hominem Fallacy making good judgments
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy after long hours on
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy duty.
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
12. Defined: Relying on the
testimonies and vivid anecdotes
of others to substantiate one’s
Testimonial Evidence
own beliefs, even though
testimonies are inherently
subjective, inaccurate, unreliable,
biased, and occasionally
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons fraudulent.
Assuring Expressions
False Implications
Emotive Content
Dramatic stories of
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
Bigfoot sightings do
Poisoning the Well not prove the
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
existence of
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
Bigfoot.
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
13. Defined: A word or
expression that can be
understood in more
than one way.
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
False Implications From the statement
Emotive Content “Lying expert testified at
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring trial”, is the expert a liar
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy
or is the person an
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
expert on telling when
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
someone is lying?
Emotional Appeals
Ambiguity
14. Defined: Using
expressions that disarm
you from questioning
the validity of an
argument.
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
Assuring Expressions
False Implications
Expressions such as “As
Emotive Content everyone knows…”, and
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring “Common sense tells us
Poisoning the Well
that…”
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
15. Defined: Intentionally
using words to arouse
feelings about a subject to
bias others positively or
negatively, in order to gain
influence or power.
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons Naming detergents “Joy”
and “Cheer” (positive), not
False Implications
Emotive Content
“Dreary” and “Tedious”
Evading the Issue, Red (negative). The military
Herring using the phrase
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy
“neutralizing the opposition”
Fallacy of False Dilemma, (less negative) rather than
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon “killing” (negative).
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
16. Defined: Language that
implies that something
is superior but retreats
from that view.
Doublespeak Jargon
Meaningless Comparisons
An ad that claims a
False Implications
battery lasts “up to”
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
30% longer, but does
Poisoning the Well not say it will last 30%
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
longer, and if it did,
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon
longer than what?
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
17. Defined: The use of technical
language to make the simple seem
complex, the trivial seem profound, or
the insignificant seem important, all
done intentionally to impress others.
Doublespeak Jargon
Referring to a family as
False Implications “a bounded plurality of
Evading the Issue, Red
role-playing individuals”
Herring
or a homeless person as
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy a “non-goal oriented
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy member of society.”
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
18. Defined: Language that is
clear and accurate but
misleading because it
suggests something false.
The dairy industry
cleverly expresses fat
content as a
percentage of weight,
False Implications
not of calories. Thus
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring
2% “low” fat milk really
Poisoning the Well has 31% fat when fat
Ad hominem Fallacy
Fallacy of False Dilemma, is measured as a
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon percentage of calories.
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals
19. Defined: Criticizing the
person making an
argument, not the argument
itself.
“You should not
believe a word my
Evading the Issue, Red
opponent says. He
Herring
is just bitter
Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem Fallacy because I am
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy ahead in the
Ad populum, Bandwagon
Fallacy polls.”
Emotional Appeals
20. Defined: An appeal to
the popularity of the
claim as a reason for
accepting the claim.
Thousands of years
ago the average
Evading the Issue, Red
person believed that
Herring
Poisoning the Well
the world was flat
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
simply because
Either/Or Fallacy
Ad populum, Bandwagon most other people
Fallacy
Emotional Appeals believed so.
21. Defined: Making irrelevant
emotional appeals to accept a
claim, since emotion often
influences people more effectively
than logical reasoning.
Advertisements that
appeal to one’s vanity,
Evading the Issue, Red pity, guilt, fear, or desire
Herring
Poisoning the Well
for pleasure, while
providing no logical
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy reasons to support their
product being better than
Emotional Appeals a competitor.
22. Defined: If one has been accused of
wrongdoing, diverting attention to an
issue irrelevant to the one at hand.
Making jokes about
one’s own character in
Evading the Issue, Red
Herring order to disarm critics
Poisoning the Well
& evade having to
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
defend policy.
23. Defined: Intentionally restricting the
number of alternatives, thereby omitting
relevant alternatives from consideration.
“You are either
Poisoning the Well
with us, or with
the terrorists!”
Fallacy of False Dilemma,
Either/Or Fallacy
24. Defined: Creating a prejudicial
atmosphere against the opposition,
making it difficult for the opponent to be
received fairly.
“Anyone who supports
Poisoning the Well removing troops from
Afghanistan is a traitor!”