The document discusses logical fallacies and different types of faulty reasoning. It begins by explaining deductive and inductive reasoning, and how faulty syllogisms and incorrect premises or conclusions can lead to logical fallacies. It then defines a logical fallacy as an error in reasoning, and explains that fallacious arguments may sound convincing but are flawed. The document proceeds to discuss 9 common logical fallacies - red herring, post hoc, circular reasoning, hasty generalization, appeal to tradition, false dilemma, appeal to fear, false analogy, and non sequitur. It emphasizes the importance of being able to identify logical fallacies in one's own and other's writing.
With a view to employing logic appropriately we should be aware of logical fallacies we might commit. Some are common and unintentional , others are deliberate .Some are tricks to win an argument, others are simply immoral and should be avoided.
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 defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 10 different fallacies - hasty generalization, post hoc, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, red herring, begging the question, and others. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and an example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works. The document aims to help readers identify and understand flawed arguments by learning to recognize these common logical fallacies.
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.
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 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.
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.
This document summarizes and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 12 different fallacies: hasty generalization, missing the point, post hoc, slippery slope, weak analogy, appeal to authority, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, straw man, red herring, and false dichotomy. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and hypothetical example to illustrate how the fallacy works in an argument. The document is intended to help readers identify and avoid using logically fallacious reasoning.
With a view to employing logic appropriately we should be aware of logical fallacies we might commit. Some are common and unintentional , others are deliberate .Some are tricks to win an argument, others are simply immoral and should be avoided.
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 defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 10 different fallacies - hasty generalization, post hoc, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, red herring, begging the question, and others. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and an example to illustrate how the fallacious reasoning works. The document aims to help readers identify and understand flawed arguments by learning to recognize these common logical fallacies.
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.
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 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.
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.
This document summarizes and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses 12 different fallacies: hasty generalization, missing the point, post hoc, slippery slope, weak analogy, appeal to authority, appeal to pity, appeal to ignorance, straw man, red herring, and false dichotomy. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and hypothetical example to illustrate how the fallacy works in an argument. The document is intended to help readers identify and avoid using logically fallacious reasoning.
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.
This document outlines the key elements of a written argument: claim, evidence, and explanation. A claim is the main point being argued and is not a statement of fact. Evidence supports the claim and comes from reliable sources, not personal opinions. Explanation provides the reasoning for how the evidence logically supports the claim. Examples are given for making claims about Dora the Explorer and supporting those claims with evidence and explanation.
This document discusses how to evaluate arguments. To evaluate an argument, you first analyze it by identifying the claim, or conclusion, the author is trying to persuade the reader of. You then identify the evidence or reasons the author provides to support the claim. Finally, you critically analyze the strength of the evidence and how well it actually supports the claim. A strong, valid argument will have evidence that is truthful and clearly supports its claim.
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.
There are several types of fallacies that can undermine arguments. Fallacies of relevance include appealing to emotion rather than facts, distracting from the issue by introducing irrelevant topics (red herring), misrepresenting the opponent's position (straw man), and making personal attacks. Fallacies of defective induction weaken arguments through lack of evidence, inappropriate authority, false connections, and hasty generalizations. Fallacies of presumption assume the conclusion, while fallacies of ambiguity confuse meanings or take things out of context. Identifying fallacies helps evaluate reasoning.
This document defines and discusses different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive and inductive arguments, and explaining how to identify them based on language used. Common types of deductive and inductive arguments are then outlined. The document also discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, and strength as they relate to arguments. Finally, it provides detailed descriptions and examples of many common logical fallacies, categorizing them as fallacies of relevance, weak induction, ambiguity, analogy, or formal fallacies.
This document discusses euphemisms, which are polite or indirect words used to discuss embarrassing or difficult topics. It provides examples of euphemisms used instead of more direct but potentially offensive terms, such as "put down" instead of "killed" for a sick pet, or "senior citizen" instead of "old person". Over time, euphemisms themselves can become offensive as attitudes change, so new indirect terms are often adopted. While euphemisms aim to soften language, some argue they can undermine recognition of serious issues.
This document provides information and guidance about writing an informative process essay. It discusses the key elements of a process essay, including that it explains the steps of a process in order to help the reader understand how something is done or accomplished. The document emphasizes that a process essay needs to not only list the steps, but also explain why each step is important, the order they must be completed in, and any potential problems or variations. It provides questions for writers to consider to help explain the process effectively. The document also gives tips for writing the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion to clearly outline the steps and purpose of the process being described.
Teaching argumentative writing can help develop students' critical thinking skills through inferences, arguments, facts and critical analysis. This powerpoint presentation provides: a definition for argumentative writing; examples of everyday arguments; elements of argumentative writing; ideas about how to organise an argumentative essay; practice prompts and much more!
This document provides guidance on writing an essay to convince others of an opinion. It recommends choosing a clear purpose and intended audience. The introduction should capture attention with a hook, then state the thesis. Main points should be presented in paragraphs with topic sentences and supporting examples. Transitions should link arguments. A conclusion should restate the thesis and leave the reader thinking with a memorable final sentence.
The document provides an introduction to common logical fallacies. It defines fallacies as arguments that seem correct but are not valid upon examination. It focuses on three main categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. Under fallacies of relevance, it discusses the argument from ignorance, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to popular opinion, complex question, begging the question, false dilemma, and ad hominem. It also covers fallacies of ambiguity like equivocation and accent. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using fallacious reasoning.
This document discusses various theories of truth and their application to media practice. It outlines four main theories of truth: coherence theory, pragmatist theory, correspondence theory, and discusses how each views what constitutes truth. It then examines how these different theories of truth can influence media practice. Specifically, it notes that media aims to communicate truth to its audiences but different views of truth - such as subjective vs. objective - lead to different approaches in newsgathering and reporting.
Understanding text structures is an important reading skill because it aids comprehension of informational texts. Get middle school students started the process of understanding and analyzing Text Structures and Organizations with this engaging PowerPoint presentation. Presentation addresses the five most common structures: : description, chronological, cause/effect, compare/contrast, and problem/solution. Examples and teacher instructions are included. Aligned to Common Core ELA-Literacy Standards: RI.6.1, 7.1, 8.1; 5.11C; 6.10C; 7.10C; 8.10C.
The document outlines 9 common logical fallacies:
1. Over-generalization - Drawing too broad a conclusion from limited facts
2. Arguing in circles - Repeating an argument without evidence instead of supporting it
3. Black and white thinking - Presenting issues as having only two alternatives when more exist
4. Red herring - Introducing irrelevant topics to divert attention from the original issue
5. Loaded questions - Questions that assume unproven facts or opinions
6. Statistical fallacies - Misusing statistics to misrepresent rather than describe
7. Faulty causal relationship - Assuming correlation implies causation
8. Misleading comparisons - Inappropriately comparing different people or situations
9
Analysis - Inductive and Deductive ArgumentsAlwyn Lau
The document discusses deductive and inductive arguments. It defines deductive arguments as trying to prove conclusions with inescapable logic, while inductive arguments claim conclusions are probable or likely given the premises. Common patterns of deductive reasoning include hypothetical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, elimination arguments, and arguments based on definitions. Common patterns of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, appeals to authority, causal reasoning, statistics, and analogy.
This document discusses different types of argumentative claims: claims of fact, claims of value, and claims of policy. It provides examples and definitions for each. The key differences are: claims of fact make assertions about objective truths and realities, claims of value make judgments about what is good or bad, and claims of policy propose actions that should or ought to be taken. Formulating strong arguments requires understanding these distinctions and using evidence and reasoning appropriate to the type of claim.
The document discusses different types of context clues that can help determine the meaning of unfamiliar words in a text. It provides examples of definition, synonym, restatement, contrast, explanation, and inference context clues. It also notes some limitations of relying solely on context clues to define a word and provides examples of applying different context clue types to define unfamiliar words.
This document provides instructions and guidance for writing a persuasive essay. It explains that the goal of persuasive writing is to convince the audience to agree with the writer's position. It recommends that persuasive essays include an introduction with a "hook" to engage the reader, three or more body paragraphs with evidence and addressing alternative views, and a conclusion that restates the main points and position. The document also provides direction for students to write a persuasive essay on whether 18-year-olds should be required to register and vote.
Here are my analyses of the sentences based on explicit and implicit information in the passage:
- The book is rare. (implicit - it is hard to find and not available in the stores visited)
- The author has had negative experiences at Librería Universal. (implicit - they didn't have the book as usual)
- There are bookstores downtown. (explicit - the passage states the author visited some other bookstores downtown)
- The book was not in the bookstores that the author visited. (explicit - the passage states the book was not found in any of the bookstores visited)
- The clerk at Librería Internacional was helpful. (explicit - the clerk provided an option to
The document discusses author's purpose, which is the goal or reason the author wrote a passage. There are three main purposes: to persuade, inform, or entertain. Persuasive passages try to convince the reader of a position, informative passages teach information objectively, and entertaining passages hold attention through description and sensory details. Examples of each purpose are provided such as advertisements to persuade, textbooks to inform, and novels to entertain.
1. The document discusses logical fallacies and different types of relevance fallacies. It defines a fallacy as an error in reasoning and explains that relevance fallacies involve premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
2. The document outlines several types of relevance fallacies, including red herrings, false dilemmas, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion like fear and pity, irrelevant conclusions, wishful thinking, and denial.
3. Examples are provided for each type of fallacy to illustrate how the reasoning is flawed. Readers are encouraged to learn about logical fallacies to strengthen their own arguments and identify poor reasoning in the arguments of others.
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 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.
This document outlines the key elements of a written argument: claim, evidence, and explanation. A claim is the main point being argued and is not a statement of fact. Evidence supports the claim and comes from reliable sources, not personal opinions. Explanation provides the reasoning for how the evidence logically supports the claim. Examples are given for making claims about Dora the Explorer and supporting those claims with evidence and explanation.
This document discusses how to evaluate arguments. To evaluate an argument, you first analyze it by identifying the claim, or conclusion, the author is trying to persuade the reader of. You then identify the evidence or reasons the author provides to support the claim. Finally, you critically analyze the strength of the evidence and how well it actually supports the claim. A strong, valid argument will have evidence that is truthful and clearly supports its claim.
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.
There are several types of fallacies that can undermine arguments. Fallacies of relevance include appealing to emotion rather than facts, distracting from the issue by introducing irrelevant topics (red herring), misrepresenting the opponent's position (straw man), and making personal attacks. Fallacies of defective induction weaken arguments through lack of evidence, inappropriate authority, false connections, and hasty generalizations. Fallacies of presumption assume the conclusion, while fallacies of ambiguity confuse meanings or take things out of context. Identifying fallacies helps evaluate reasoning.
This document defines and discusses different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive and inductive arguments, and explaining how to identify them based on language used. Common types of deductive and inductive arguments are then outlined. The document also discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, and strength as they relate to arguments. Finally, it provides detailed descriptions and examples of many common logical fallacies, categorizing them as fallacies of relevance, weak induction, ambiguity, analogy, or formal fallacies.
This document discusses euphemisms, which are polite or indirect words used to discuss embarrassing or difficult topics. It provides examples of euphemisms used instead of more direct but potentially offensive terms, such as "put down" instead of "killed" for a sick pet, or "senior citizen" instead of "old person". Over time, euphemisms themselves can become offensive as attitudes change, so new indirect terms are often adopted. While euphemisms aim to soften language, some argue they can undermine recognition of serious issues.
This document provides information and guidance about writing an informative process essay. It discusses the key elements of a process essay, including that it explains the steps of a process in order to help the reader understand how something is done or accomplished. The document emphasizes that a process essay needs to not only list the steps, but also explain why each step is important, the order they must be completed in, and any potential problems or variations. It provides questions for writers to consider to help explain the process effectively. The document also gives tips for writing the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion to clearly outline the steps and purpose of the process being described.
Teaching argumentative writing can help develop students' critical thinking skills through inferences, arguments, facts and critical analysis. This powerpoint presentation provides: a definition for argumentative writing; examples of everyday arguments; elements of argumentative writing; ideas about how to organise an argumentative essay; practice prompts and much more!
This document provides guidance on writing an essay to convince others of an opinion. It recommends choosing a clear purpose and intended audience. The introduction should capture attention with a hook, then state the thesis. Main points should be presented in paragraphs with topic sentences and supporting examples. Transitions should link arguments. A conclusion should restate the thesis and leave the reader thinking with a memorable final sentence.
The document provides an introduction to common logical fallacies. It defines fallacies as arguments that seem correct but are not valid upon examination. It focuses on three main categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. Under fallacies of relevance, it discusses the argument from ignorance, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to popular opinion, complex question, begging the question, false dilemma, and ad hominem. It also covers fallacies of ambiguity like equivocation and accent. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using fallacious reasoning.
This document discusses various theories of truth and their application to media practice. It outlines four main theories of truth: coherence theory, pragmatist theory, correspondence theory, and discusses how each views what constitutes truth. It then examines how these different theories of truth can influence media practice. Specifically, it notes that media aims to communicate truth to its audiences but different views of truth - such as subjective vs. objective - lead to different approaches in newsgathering and reporting.
Understanding text structures is an important reading skill because it aids comprehension of informational texts. Get middle school students started the process of understanding and analyzing Text Structures and Organizations with this engaging PowerPoint presentation. Presentation addresses the five most common structures: : description, chronological, cause/effect, compare/contrast, and problem/solution. Examples and teacher instructions are included. Aligned to Common Core ELA-Literacy Standards: RI.6.1, 7.1, 8.1; 5.11C; 6.10C; 7.10C; 8.10C.
The document outlines 9 common logical fallacies:
1. Over-generalization - Drawing too broad a conclusion from limited facts
2. Arguing in circles - Repeating an argument without evidence instead of supporting it
3. Black and white thinking - Presenting issues as having only two alternatives when more exist
4. Red herring - Introducing irrelevant topics to divert attention from the original issue
5. Loaded questions - Questions that assume unproven facts or opinions
6. Statistical fallacies - Misusing statistics to misrepresent rather than describe
7. Faulty causal relationship - Assuming correlation implies causation
8. Misleading comparisons - Inappropriately comparing different people or situations
9
Analysis - Inductive and Deductive ArgumentsAlwyn Lau
The document discusses deductive and inductive arguments. It defines deductive arguments as trying to prove conclusions with inescapable logic, while inductive arguments claim conclusions are probable or likely given the premises. Common patterns of deductive reasoning include hypothetical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, elimination arguments, and arguments based on definitions. Common patterns of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, appeals to authority, causal reasoning, statistics, and analogy.
This document discusses different types of argumentative claims: claims of fact, claims of value, and claims of policy. It provides examples and definitions for each. The key differences are: claims of fact make assertions about objective truths and realities, claims of value make judgments about what is good or bad, and claims of policy propose actions that should or ought to be taken. Formulating strong arguments requires understanding these distinctions and using evidence and reasoning appropriate to the type of claim.
The document discusses different types of context clues that can help determine the meaning of unfamiliar words in a text. It provides examples of definition, synonym, restatement, contrast, explanation, and inference context clues. It also notes some limitations of relying solely on context clues to define a word and provides examples of applying different context clue types to define unfamiliar words.
This document provides instructions and guidance for writing a persuasive essay. It explains that the goal of persuasive writing is to convince the audience to agree with the writer's position. It recommends that persuasive essays include an introduction with a "hook" to engage the reader, three or more body paragraphs with evidence and addressing alternative views, and a conclusion that restates the main points and position. The document also provides direction for students to write a persuasive essay on whether 18-year-olds should be required to register and vote.
Here are my analyses of the sentences based on explicit and implicit information in the passage:
- The book is rare. (implicit - it is hard to find and not available in the stores visited)
- The author has had negative experiences at Librería Universal. (implicit - they didn't have the book as usual)
- There are bookstores downtown. (explicit - the passage states the author visited some other bookstores downtown)
- The book was not in the bookstores that the author visited. (explicit - the passage states the book was not found in any of the bookstores visited)
- The clerk at Librería Internacional was helpful. (explicit - the clerk provided an option to
The document discusses author's purpose, which is the goal or reason the author wrote a passage. There are three main purposes: to persuade, inform, or entertain. Persuasive passages try to convince the reader of a position, informative passages teach information objectively, and entertaining passages hold attention through description and sensory details. Examples of each purpose are provided such as advertisements to persuade, textbooks to inform, and novels to entertain.
1. The document discusses logical fallacies and different types of relevance fallacies. It defines a fallacy as an error in reasoning and explains that relevance fallacies involve premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
2. The document outlines several types of relevance fallacies, including red herrings, false dilemmas, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion like fear and pity, irrelevant conclusions, wishful thinking, and denial.
3. Examples are provided for each type of fallacy to illustrate how the reasoning is flawed. Readers are encouraged to learn about logical fallacies to strengthen their own arguments and identify poor reasoning in the arguments of others.
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.
The document discusses various types of logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning that can undermine arguments. It defines fallacies as violations of logical laws or erroneous forms of reasoning. The document then explains 12 common informal fallacies, including appeals to emotion, authority, popularity and ignorance. It provides examples to illustrate each fallacy. The document concludes by presenting statements containing potential fallacies and asking the reader to identify them, along with answering any additional questions.
This document discusses the logical fallacy of overgeneralizing. It provides examples of statements that overgeneralize based on small, unrepresentative samples. Readers are encouraged to avoid making sweeping generalizations and to consider whether evidence is representative of the whole group when evaluating arguments. The document aims to help students identify overgeneralizing and improve their ability to detect logical fallacies in arguments.
Logical fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that undermine logical arguments. Some common fallacies include: over-generalization, arguing in circles, black and white thinking, red herrings, loaded questions, faulty use of statistics, misleading comparisons, and bandwagon appeals. It is important to avoid these fallacies by separating facts from opinions, examining causal relationships critically, and making decisions based on evidence rather than popularity.
Week 3 - Instructor Guidance
Week 3: Inductive Reasoning
This week’s guidance will cover the following topics:
1. The Nature of Inductive Reasoning
2. Appeals to Authority
3. Inductive Generalizations
4. Statistical Syllogisms
5. Arguments from Analogy
6. Inferences to the Best Explanation
7. Causal Reasoning
8. Things to Do This Week
The Nature of Inductive Reasoning
Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? Of course it will, but how do you know? The reasoning seems to go as follows:
Premise 1: The sun has risen every morning throughout known history
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow
Deductively, this argument is invalid, for it is logically possible that the earth could stop spinning tonight. Does that mean that the argument is no good? Of course not. In fact, its premise makes the conclusion is virtually certain. This is an example of a very good argument that is not intended to be deductively valid. That is because it is actually an inductive argument.
An argument is inductive if it does not attempt to be valid, but intends to give strong evidence for the truth of its conclusion.
Many might see inductive reasoning as inferior to deductive reasoning, but that is not generally the case. In fact, inductive arguments often provide much better arguments for the truths of their conclusions than deductive ones. The deductively valid version of our argument about the sun, for example, goes:
Premise 1: The sun will always rise in the morning
Conclusion: Therefore the sun will rise tomorrow morning
This second argument, while valid, actually gives less evidence for the conclusion because its second premise is false (the sun will eventually expand to engulf the earth and then collapse). Therefore the deductive argument is unsound and so offers little evidence for the conclusion, whereas the original inductive argument made the conclusion virtually certain. In other words, inductive reasoning in general can be even better than deductive reasoning in many cases; the trick is to determine which inductive arguments are good and which ones are not so good.Strength versus Weakness
Just as it is the goal of deductive reasoning to be valid, it is the goal of a inductive reasoning to be
strong
. An inductive argument is strong in case its premises, if true, would make the conclusion very likely to be true as well. The above argument about the sun rising is very strong. Most inductive arguments are less strong, all the way along a spectrum between strength and weakness. Here are three with varying degrees of inductive strength:
Weak:
Premise 1: John is tall and in college.
Conclusion: Therefore, he probably plays on the basketball team.
Moderate:
Premise 1: The Lions are a 14 point favorite.
Conclusion: So they will probably win.
Strong:
Premise 1: All of the TV meteorologists report a 99% chance of rain tomorrow.
Conclusion: So it will probably rain tomorrow.
Note that the degree of strength of an inductive argument is independent of whether the.
This document provides guidance on developing logical arguments supported by evidence. It begins by explaining the importance of justifying positions with logic rather than personal opinions alone. The objectives are then outlined as defending a position with reasonable arguments and cited evidence, identifying logical fallacies, and evaluating the authenticity of sources. Key terms are defined, including "stand", "claims", "evidence", and "fallacies". Common logical fallacies are explained such as false dilemma, appeal to ignorance, and slippery slope. Criteria for evaluating source authenticity and validity are presented, including relevance, authority of the author, date of publication, accuracy of information, and source location. The document advises avoiding logical fallacies and carefully evaluating sources used to
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.
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 provides definitions and examples of various logical fallacies. It begins by explaining that fallacies are flawed or dishonest arguments that can undermine the credibility of the writer. It emphasizes the importance of learning to identify fallacies in one's own arguments and those of others. The document then proceeds to define and provide examples of over 20 specific logical fallacies, including genetic fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition, appeal to authority, argument from consequences, and others. It concludes by noting there are also component fallacies related to inductive and deductive reasoning.
English 104Argument AnalysisThe AssignmentDue No l.docxSALU18
English 104
Argument Analysis
The Assignment:
Due: No later than October 10, 2016
Must be MLA format only!!
Select an online editorial article about a current issue. (i.e.: Presidential Candidates, Labor Union Influence on Government, The Affordable Health Care Act, Illegal Immigration, Entitlement programs, etc.) You may choose ANY issue; the list above is NOT exhaustive.
The article MUST be an op-ed (editorial) piece, as it must present an argument of some type. You may not use a straight news story.
Read the article and decide what perspective the writer is taking on a particular issue.
Submit a Minimum 3-page analysis of the writer’s argument. And works cited, make sure to follow the Don’t’s of writing and include Parenthetical refrencing.
Paper must include:
· A discussion of the author’s thesis
· Whether he/she employs faulty reasoning (see fallacy assignment below) in the discussion.
· What he/she could have done to present a more thorough argument (may include more consideration of the opposing viewpoint)
· A thorough discussion of the main points of the article and whether or not he/she has provided adequate support to prove his/her thesis.
· A conclusion that discusses the effectiveness of the chosen article in regards to the author’s intent.
Include a link to the article on the Works Cited page.
You may choose whomever you wish; he/she DOES NOT have to appear on the list below.
Some commentators to consider when looking for an article:
Larry Elder
Star Parker
Sean Hannity
Alan Colmes
Michelle Malkin
John Ziegler
Bill O’Reilly
Chris Matthews
Leslie Marshall
The following link provides a list of controversial commentators (some listed above) you may wish to choose from.
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/slideshows/top-10-most-hated-news-commentators
Fallacies:
Look over the fallacy discussion and familiarize yourself with some common every day fallacies (i.e.: Post Hoc, False Analogy, Hasty Generalization, Slippery Slope, Straw Man, Begging the Question, Red Herring, Poisoning the Well, Ad Hominem).
Logical Fallacies Handlist:
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 art of self-defense in a debate. In general, one useful way to organize fallacies is by category. Below are fallacies of relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of omission.
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy): Th ...
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important to .docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
This document provides information about persuasion and the techniques used for effective persuasion. It defines persuasion as bringing an audience to believe a certain viewpoint or influence them to take action. It discusses Aristotle's three appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos that should be used to persuade an audience. Logos involves the use of logic, facts, examples, and addressing opposition. Ethos relates to establishing credibility through competence, honesty, and energy. Pathos involves appealing to an audience's emotions. The document also discusses analyzing the audience, providing motivation, and using Maslow's hierarchy of needs to understand what motivates people.
This document provides examples and explanations of different types of logical fallacies, specifically appeal fallacies. It discusses 12 different appeal fallacies: appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to novelty, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to emotions, appeal to disgust, appeal to spite, appeal to authority, appeal to coherence, appeal to consensus, and appeal to common practice. For each fallacy, it provides a definition and an example to illustrate how that fallacy works. The document aims to help the reader identify and understand different types of appeal fallacies that exploit emotional reasoning rather than logical reasoning.
The Argumentative Paragraph. This is a summary about important topics to keep in mind when writing an argumentative paragraph. From establishing pros and cons to writing refutation. It includes examples as illustrations.
This linguistics lecture discusses logical fallacies of insufficient evidence, including inappropriate appeals to authority where the cited authority is unreliable, appeals to ignorance based on lack of evidence, false alternatives that pose false dichotomies
This linguistics lecture discusses logical fallacies of insufficient evidence, including inappropriate appeals to authority where the cited authority is unreliable, appeals to ignorance based on lack of evidence, false alternatives that pose false dichotomies
This document provides an overview and examples of logical fallacies of insufficient evidence, including inappropriate appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, false alternatives, loaded questions, questionable cause, hasty generalization, slippery slope, and weak analogy. It defines each fallacy and gives examples to illustrate situations that would constitute each fallacy. The document is intended to help the reader understand and identify these common fallacies of reasoning.
The document provides an overview of the structure and content covered on the ENG102 final exam. The exam will be 2 hours and cover 3 main topics: 1) Plagiarism, 2) APA citations, and 3) Reading and writing. For plagiarism, students will need to identify situations as plagiarism or not. For APA citations, there will be multiple choice questions testing how to correctly cite different source types. Finally, the reading and writing section will involve writing one paragraph with two citations on a given topic, and two paragraphs with two citations each on another topic, using three provided source texts.
This document provides an overview of presentation skills. It discusses understanding the purpose of a presentation, effective general skills like preparation and appearance, and visual presentation skills. Specific tips covered include speaking confidently, making eye contact, using body language effectively, and properly utilizing visual aids like PowerPoint. The document also addresses getting the audience's attention through questions, facts, stories, or jokes, as well as signposting the structure and concluding effectively while handling questions.
If people are not careful when dating online, it can lead to serious side effects. These include being deceived by an online lover who misrepresents themselves, wasting time and energy on online relationships that do not materialize into real partnerships, and not taking online dating partners seriously. According to research, there are over 49 million people in the US who have tried online dating. While online dating provides convenience and opportunities to meet people virtually, it also enables deception more easily compared to traditional in-person introductions. To avoid negative side effects, people should pay attention to how they present themselves and evaluate potential partners objectively online, and approach online dating with a serious attitude and positive mindset.
The document provides information on what constitutes an annotated bibliography including definitions, examples, and guidelines. An annotated bibliography is a list of citations and their sources accompanied by a brief descriptive paragraph (annotation) evaluating each source. The annotation summarizes the source, assesses its usefulness for the research topic, and establishes its credibility. Samples demonstrate the four required elements for each annotation: full citation, 2-sentence summary, 1-2 sentence evaluation of usefulness, and 2-sentence reliability explanation. The document advises on the differences between annotations and abstracts, with annotations including critical evaluation rather than just description.
This document discusses how to evaluate the reliability of sources. It explains that sources written by experts are generally more reliable than sources like Wikipedia where authors may lack thorough knowledge. Additionally, it notes that anyone can post information online so readers must think critically. The document provides examples of secondary sources that are often reliable if evaluated carefully, such as books, newspapers, and peer-reviewed research. It outlines criteria for assessing sources' usefulness, credibility, and potential for bias.
The document provides guidance on writing a causal analysis essay. It defines a causal analysis essay as examining why specific events, attitudes, or conditions occur and then analyzing the effects of specific consequences. The key aspects are identifying causes and effects to understand how they produce specific outcomes. The document outlines the purposes of a causal analysis essay, recommends focusing the thesis statement on either causes or effects, and provides sample essay structures and outlines. It emphasizes establishing links between causes and effects through analysis and evidence.
The document discusses different types of clauses and conjunctions. It explains that independent clauses can stand alone as complete sentences, while dependent clauses cannot. It provides examples of simple, compound, and complex sentences. It also defines and provides examples of coordinating conjunctions like "and", "but", and "or" that are used to join two independent clauses, as well as subordinating conjunctions like "because", "since", and "when" that introduce dependent clauses.
This document provides an outline for a lesson on research and information literacy. It describes the difference between primary and secondary research sources. It explains what a literature search entails and discusses approaches to online searching for information. It also covers concepts for evaluating evidence such as authenticity, validity, reliability, and triangulation. The document provides examples to illustrate these concepts.
This summary provides the key details from the document in 3 sentences:
Globalization has led to increased integration and interdependence in the global economy. It allows businesses to grow internationally but also impacts local economies and cultures both positively and negatively. The paragraph then presents the thesis that it will compare and contrast subject-centered and student-centered learning approaches in terms of teachers' focus, student performance and outcomes, and student-teacher relationships depending on class size.
This document provides guidance on outlining an expository essay. It defines key elements like the thesis statement, topic sentences, and body paragraphs. It explains how to structure an outline with the introduction, three body paragraphs supporting the thesis with evidence, and a conclusion. The body paragraphs should each have a topic sentence, followed by textual evidence and an explanation of how it supports the topic sentence. Transition words are recommended between paragraphs. The conclusion restates the thesis and summarizes the main points. Examples of outlines are provided for common expository essay types. Guidance is given on choosing appropriate evidence and editing the completed essay.
This document provides an outline for an expository essay lesson. It discusses the elements of a research question, types of focus, creating rough outlines, and writing effective thesis statements. An effective thesis statement states the topic and focus, gives an overview of supporting points, provides the correct amount of information, and uses proper grammar. It should not be written in first person and give enough details to inform the reader of the key points without providing too much information. Creating rough outlines and practicing identifying strong thesis statements are recommended for learning expository writing skills.
This document provides guidelines for citing sources and referencing material according to APA style. It defines plagiarism and the importance of referencing, and outlines how to properly cite sources in both the text and in a reference list, including for electronic sources. The document also discusses referencing principles, in-text citations, reference list formatting, and citing sources without full information.
This document provides strategies for effective reading, note-taking, and becoming a critical reader at the university level. It recommends skimming texts first to get an overview before reading selectively. When taking notes, use bullet points and abbreviations rather than full sentences. Be a critical reader by questioning claims and looking for biases or disagreeing viewpoints. Read introductions and conclusions first to understand the main argument and thesis. Take notes on topic sentences to grasp each paragraph's essential point.
On January 28th and 31st, students will give a 7-8 minute poster presentation to their class and teachers based on an essay. The poster presentation is worth 10% of their final grade, with 7% for the presentation and 3% for grading other students' work. Posters should include important readable information from 10 feet away, a title that draws interest, 150-300 words of clear text, and effective use of graphics, color, fonts, and a consistent layout. Students will be graded by their peers using a rubric and should not simply read their essay, read only notes, or present differently to students versus teachers.
On January 28th and 31st, students will give a 3-4 minute poster presentation to their class and teacher, worth 10% of their final grade. The poster should be based on an essay, summarize key points visually from 10 feet away using bullets, graphics and a consistent layout. Students will both present and grade each other using a rubric.
The document provides instructions for Assignment #2 for an ENG101 class. Students must write a 5 paragraph argumentative essay on a topic of their choice and submit it through Blackboard by February 1st at 11:59pm to receive feedback. If submitted late, essays will lose 10% per day and plagiarized essays will receive a grade of 0. Essays must be between 420-500 words. Students will also present their essays in class between January 28th and 31st and must be 3-4 minutes; those who miss their presentation date will receive 0. Example topic areas are provided.
The document provides instructions for Assignment #2 for an ENG101 class. It states that the assignment requires a 5 paragraph argumentative essay submitted through Blackboard by February 1st at 11:59pm, with a 10% late penalty per day. Plagiarized essays will receive a grade of 0. The essay must be between 420-500 words. Presentations on the essays will take place February 28th and 31st during class, with students receiving 0 if absent without a makeup presentation. It provides potential topic areas and example issues for the essay.
This document provides guidance on research and information literacy. It outlines strategies for conducting academic research, including how to differentiate between primary and secondary sources. It describes how to perform a literature search and online searches for information. The document discusses how to evaluate sources and provides examples of reliable academic databases like ERIC and JSTOR that contain peer-reviewed research. It also offers tips for developing search strategies, such as using keywords, synonyms, and Boolean operators to narrow or broaden searches effectively.
The document discusses reported speech and how it differs from quoted speech. It explains that in reported speech, someone's words are described using "said" without quotation marks, and some changes may be made depending on tense. Specifically, it notes that if the original statement is in the present, verbs change to the past and pronouns change person; if in the past, verbs often do not change; and if in the present perfect, verbs change to the past perfect. Examples are provided to illustrate each case.
This document discusses the key differences between paragraphs and essays. It explains that paragraphs contain a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence, while essays contain an introductory paragraph with a hook, background information, and thesis statement, multiple body paragraphs with topic and concluding sentences, and a concluding paragraph. The document also provides guidelines for writing an effective thesis statement, such as including one main idea, taking a stand rather than just stating facts, and having a scope that is not too broad or narrow.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
4. Remember these?
• Deductive Reasoning (Syllogisms)
• Argument: premise + premise => conclusion
• Faulty Syllogisms
• Unsound (or untrue) premise
• Invalid conclusion
• These faulty syllogisms are basic LOGICAL FALLACIES.
• Inductive reasoning
• Reasoning based on available evidence / clues
• If reasoning goes wrong: LOGICAL FALLACY
5. Logical fallacies
• A fallacy is an error of reasoning. These are flawed statements that often sound
true.
• Logical fallacies are often used to strengthen an argument, but if the reader
detects them the argument can backfire, and damage the writer’s credibility
• It is important to develop logical fallacy detection skills in your own
writing, as well as in that of others.
Able to spot poor reasoning & know why it is wrong
Able to correct other’s mistakes, or refute them convincingly
Supplements your knowledge on logic
Know when your reasoning in an essay is flawed or questionable
Prevent you from making generalized statements without backing it up with
sound evidence
6. Important to realize
• Fallaciousness is a matter of degree.
• An argument may be “somewhat” fallacious, “probably”
fallacious, “slightly” fallacious, “highly” fallacious, and so on.
• Just because an argument is fallacious to some degree
doesn’t exclude the argument from consideration.
7. 1. Red herring
•is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic
introduced in an argument to divert the attention
of listeners or readers from the original issue.
Why should we donate to Greenpeace when we still
have people living in poverty?
8. 2. Post Hoc Fallacy
• A happened
before B.
• (unstated) B was
caused by
something (that
happened
before B).
• Therefore, A cause
d B.
9. 3. Circular reasoning
• Circular reasoning (also known as
circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which
the reasoner begins with what they are
trying to end with.
• The components of a circular
argument are often logically valid
because if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
• Occurs when you try to prove the
statement by simply repeating it in
different words.
• A is true because B is true.
• B is true because A is true.
10. 4. Hasty generalization
• This fallacy occurs when an arguer draws a general
conclusion from a sample that is either biased or too small.
• Hasty generalizations can often lead to false
stereotypes.
• X is true for A.
• X is true for B.
• Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.
I’ve had three students from Country X in the past year.
All three were lazy. Obviously all students from Country
X are lazy.
11. 5. Appeal to tradition
• is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis
that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal
takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this
way."
X is old or traditional. Therefore X is correct or better.
Scolding a student who misbehaves is still the best way to
instill discipline because it has been done by teachers and
parents in the past.
• An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are
not necessarily true:
• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced
• The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.
12. 6. False dilemma
• is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only
limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least
one additional option.
If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.
America: Love it or leave it.
Politician: We have to decide if we are going to support school choice
or if we are going to support failing schools. Those are the only two
options.
13. 7. Appeal to fear
• An appeal to fear is a fallacy in which a person attempts to
create support for an idea by using deception and
propaganda in attempts to increase fear and prejudice
toward a competitor.
• Either or P or Q is true
• P = frightening
• Therefore, Q is true
My mom is this school's biggest donor, so you should really reconsider
that C you gave me on my latest paper.
A commercial for a political candidate that argues that his opponent's
support of amnesty for illegal immigrants will open our country to
terrorism.
14. 8. False analogy
• The assumption that because two things are alike in some
respects, they are alike in others.
• A and B are shown to be similar. Therefore, they both are
X.
• Students are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in
order to make them work, so must students.
15. 9. Non Sequitur (“It Does Not
Follow”)
Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Buddy Burger has the greatest food in
town. Buddy Burger was voted #1 by the local
paper. Therefore, Phil, the owner of Buddy
Burger, should run for president of the United
States.
16. Identify and
explain the
fallacies in the
following
arguments.
1. Why worry about the Pandas becoming extinct when we have a
large number of homeless in our own country?
2. Cellphone users have increased exponentially in the last 20 years.
Researchers discovered that the incidences of brain cancer have
also increased in that time. Therefore, cellphone usage must cause
brain cancer.
3. Mrs. Smith’s drama club attracts a large number of students
because many students come to the drama club.
4. My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m
in is hard, too. All Philosophy classes must be hard.
5. Books are still the best sources of information because they have
been used for thousands of years.
6. Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a
miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is
a miracle.
7. If you don’t study hard, you will fail. If you fail, your future is
doomed. Therefore, you need to study hard.
8. People who cannot go without their coffee every morning are no
better than alcoholics.
9. People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have
sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great
a. Post Hoc fallacy
b. False Dilemma
c. Hasty
generalization
d. Red Herring
e. False Analogy
f. Appeal to Tradition
g. Appeal to Fear
h. Circular Reasoning
i. Non Sequitur (“It
Does Not Follow”)
D
A
H
C
F
B
G
E
I
17. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
17
Identify & explain the logical
fallacy in the following
statements.
WARMING UP
18. 18
1. The women in my family love babies.
All women love babies
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
19. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
19
Faulty logic – unqualified
A generalization. This fallacy is
committed when a person draws
a conclusion about a population
based on a sample that is not
large enough
1. All women in my family love babies.
All women love babies.
Hasty generalization
20. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
20
2. You shouldn’t accept national
health care because it is a socialist idea.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
21. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
21
2. You shouldn’t accept national
health care because it is a socialist idea
Red herring
Switching to another issue to distract
from the main argument. This sort of
"reasoning" is fallacious because
merely changing the topic of
discussion hardly counts as an
argument against a claim.
22. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
22
3. In a democracy the people are free
because democracies are free countries.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
23. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
23
3. In a democracy the people are free
because democracies are free countries.
Circular argument
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because
simply assuming that the premise is true does
not constitute evidence for that conclusion.
Democracy = free country = free people.
Circular argument with no end.
24. 24
4. The gang members caught by the police last
night comprises immigrants from country X.
Most immigrants who work in this country
have trouble with the law and come from
country X where thievery are rampant.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
25. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
25
Hasty generalization
Faulty logic – unqualified
Generalization. Making a
judgment based on a small
Sample.
4. The gang members caught by the police last
night comprises immigrants from country X.
Most immigrants who work in this country
have trouble with the law and come from
country X where thievery are rampant.
26. 26
5. Bernie Sanders was the best candidate
for president, because he was totally
better than any of the others.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
27. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
27
Assumption -- Sanders is better than the other
candidates, conclusion -- Sanders is the best.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because
simply assuming that the conclusion is true
(directly or indirectly) in the premises does not
constitute evidence for that conclusion.
Begging the question/
Circular argument
5. Bernie Sanders was the best candidate
for president, because he was totally
better than any of the others.
28. 28
6. If you don't finish your homework you
won't get a good grade. Then you won't be
able to get into the college you want. You
will end up cleaning toilets for a living.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
29. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
29
Appeal to fear /scare tactics
It is an appeal to force or threat
instead of trying to convince
someone with facts or a logical
argument
6. If you don't finish your homework you
won't get a good grade. Then you won't be
able to get into the college you want. You
will end up cleaning toilets for a living.
30. 30
7. Women need to be either brilliant or
beautiful to survive in this world.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
31. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
31
False dilemma
Include either…or… . Just gives two
opposite extremes instead of allowing
for other possibilities. Not all women
who survive in this world are brilliant
or beautiful.
7. Women need to be either brilliant or
beautiful to survive in this world.
32. 32
8. The rooster crowed and the sun came
up. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to
come up.
1. Hasty generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear /scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
33. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
33
Post Hoc
The post hoc fallacy is committed
when it is assumed that because one
thing occurred after another, it must
have occurred as a result of it.
8. The rooster crowed and the sun came
up. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to
come up.
34. 34
1. Hasty
generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear
/scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
35. GXEX1406 Thinking and Communication Skills – Week 12
Logical Fallacies
35
Appeal to tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs
when it is assumed that something is better or
correct simply because it is older, traditional,
or "always has been done." This sort of
"reasoning" has the following form: X is old or
traditional. Therefore X is correct or better.
9. Marriage should be between a man and
a woman because it has been this way for
hundreds of years.
36. 36
1. Hasty
generalization
2. Circular reasoning
3. Red herring
4. Post hoc fallacy
5. Appeal to tradition
6. False dilemma
7. Appeal to fear
/scare Ad hominem
8. False analogy
37. 37
False analogy
when a comparison is
made between two
ideas or objects that
seemingly have similar
characteristics, but the
comparison does not
hold up. The
characteristics of the
two things actually
differ in the area that
is being compared.
38. JIGSAW ACTIVITY
Your team will receive a picture. Together decide what
fallacy/fallacies it illustrates. Why did you say this? Do
you think the fallacy used is effective or not?
1.Hasty generalization
2.Circular reasoning
3.Red herring
4.Post hoc fallacy
5.Appeal to tradition
6.False dilemma
7.Appeal to fear /scare
8.False analogy
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45. Evaluate your arguments in pairs.
Check if you have committed
fallacies.
1. The Olympic Games promote nationalism and this is not a
good thing.
2. Songkran 2017 caused nearly 300 people died due to 3,000
accidents injuring almost 3,100 people (Bangkokpost, 17 April
2017). These numbers prove that Thailand is not safe
anymore.
3. PokemonGo brings people together in the quest for a
common goal and it does so by promoting exercise: it
therefore is the best game ever!