The document discusses different types of logical fallacies, which are faulty or invalid arguments. It provides examples of several categories of fallacies, including fallacies of generalization where conclusions are reached based on insufficient evidence or examples that are too broad. It also discusses causal fallacies where questionable or unclear causal relationships are assumed. Additionally, it covers fallacies of relevance where arguments are based on premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion. Specific fallacies discussed include hasty generalization, sweeping generalization, false dilemma, questionable cause, misidentification of cause, post hoc ergo propter hoc, slippery slope, appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, bandwagon, appeal to fear, appeal to ignorance, begging the question, and strawman. The
This document discusses various types of logical fallacies. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that seems convincing but is logically unsound. It then examines several specific fallacies in more detail, including ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, and appeal to novelty. Each fallacy is defined and an example is provided to illustrate how it works. The document aims to help the reader identify and understand common logical fallacies.
PowerPoint Textbook. Validity and Truth-2-1-1.pptxUsamaHassan88
This document discusses evaluating the validity of arguments. It explains that for an argument to be valid, the premises must logically support and prove the conclusion. If the premises are true, they should make the conclusion true as well. Invalid arguments have conclusions that are not logically supported by the premises. The document uses examples to illustrate valid and invalid arguments. It emphasizes that validity assesses an argument's structure and logical connection between premises and conclusion, not whether the premises are factually true.
First Discussion Guide for the course Introduction to Logic, which I teach at an international business school. All contents were quoted directly from Critical Thinking by Moore and Parker
PowerPoint Textbook. Parts of an argument recognizing arguments-1-1-1-1.pptxUsamaHassan88
This document provides an introduction to critical thinking and arguments. It defines critical thinking as carefully exploring ideas and arguments by questioning beliefs and seeking rational reasons. An argument is defined as a conclusion supported by one or more premises. The document outlines the parts of an argument, gives examples of identifying conclusions and premises, and distinguishes arguments from non-arguments. The goal is for readers to learn to recognize, analyze, and construct arguments in order to think critically.
Persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through logical arguments and evidence. It follows a standard format including an introduction with a hook and thesis, body paragraphs supporting the thesis with facts, consideration of alternative positions, and a conclusion summarizing the key points. Effective persuasive writing requires understanding the audience, picking a clear position, researching supporting facts, and addressing counterarguments to leave readers convinced of the writer's viewpoint.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that the goal of persuasive writing is to convince the reader of a position through arguments and evidence. It recommends choosing a clear thesis, researching to support at least three main arguments, addressing alternative viewpoints, and concluding by restating the thesis. The document also provides examples and tips for each section, such as using statistics, questions or stories to engage the reader in the introduction and calling readers to action in the conclusion.
Persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments and evidence. It follows a standard format including an introduction with a hook and thesis, body paragraphs supporting the position, addressing counterarguments, and a conclusion restating the thesis. Strong openings grab attention through facts, questions, or anecdotes. The thesis states the clear position. Supporting paragraphs each focus on an argument backed by research. An engaging conclusion calls readers to action.
This document discusses various types of logical fallacies. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that seems convincing but is logically unsound. It then examines several specific fallacies in more detail, including ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, and appeal to novelty. Each fallacy is defined and an example is provided to illustrate how it works. The document aims to help the reader identify and understand common logical fallacies.
PowerPoint Textbook. Validity and Truth-2-1-1.pptxUsamaHassan88
This document discusses evaluating the validity of arguments. It explains that for an argument to be valid, the premises must logically support and prove the conclusion. If the premises are true, they should make the conclusion true as well. Invalid arguments have conclusions that are not logically supported by the premises. The document uses examples to illustrate valid and invalid arguments. It emphasizes that validity assesses an argument's structure and logical connection between premises and conclusion, not whether the premises are factually true.
First Discussion Guide for the course Introduction to Logic, which I teach at an international business school. All contents were quoted directly from Critical Thinking by Moore and Parker
PowerPoint Textbook. Parts of an argument recognizing arguments-1-1-1-1.pptxUsamaHassan88
This document provides an introduction to critical thinking and arguments. It defines critical thinking as carefully exploring ideas and arguments by questioning beliefs and seeking rational reasons. An argument is defined as a conclusion supported by one or more premises. The document outlines the parts of an argument, gives examples of identifying conclusions and premises, and distinguishes arguments from non-arguments. The goal is for readers to learn to recognize, analyze, and construct arguments in order to think critically.
Persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through logical arguments and evidence. It follows a standard format including an introduction with a hook and thesis, body paragraphs supporting the thesis with facts, consideration of alternative positions, and a conclusion summarizing the key points. Effective persuasive writing requires understanding the audience, picking a clear position, researching supporting facts, and addressing counterarguments to leave readers convinced of the writer's viewpoint.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that the goal of persuasive writing is to convince the reader of a position through arguments and evidence. It recommends choosing a clear thesis, researching to support at least three main arguments, addressing alternative viewpoints, and concluding by restating the thesis. The document also provides examples and tips for each section, such as using statistics, questions or stories to engage the reader in the introduction and calling readers to action in the conclusion.
Persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments and evidence. It follows a standard format including an introduction with a hook and thesis, body paragraphs supporting the position, addressing counterarguments, and a conclusion restating the thesis. Strong openings grab attention through facts, questions, or anecdotes. The thesis states the clear position. Supporting paragraphs each focus on an argument backed by research. An engaging conclusion calls readers to action.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments supported by facts. It recommends choosing a clear stance, knowing the audience, having an introduction with a hook and thesis, three body paragraphs developing arguments, addressing alternative views, and concluding by restating the thesis. The document offers examples and tips for each section to help writers craft effective persuasive essays.
This document provides an introduction to argumentation and logical reasoning. It discusses how to justify beliefs by presenting evidence and explores different types of arguments. Some key points:
- Evidence such as facts, documentation, and expert testimony can be used to justify beliefs and claims. The person making a claim has the burden of proof.
- Arguments follow basic logical rules like identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. They involve presenting a claim, evidence for the claim, and accepting or rejecting the claim.
- Common logical fallacies that invalidate arguments are discussed, like appeals to probability, false equivalences, and slippery slopes. Different types of arguments like deductive and inductive are also introduced.
This document provides instructions for writing a persuasive essay. It explains that the goal of persuasive writing is to convince the reader of a position on a topic. A persuasive essay should include an introduction with a hook to grab the reader's attention and a clear thesis statement. The body should develop three main arguments to support the thesis through paragraphs. It also suggests addressing alternative viewpoints. The conclusion restates the thesis and calls the reader to action. The document outlines the structure and offers examples and strategies for an effective persuasive essay.
Persuasive Writing and its step by step processesAngelieBalangue1
This document provides instructions for writing a persuasive essay. It begins by defining persuasive writing as writing meant to convince readers of a position. It then outlines the typical parts of a persuasive essay, including an introduction with a hook and thesis, three body paragraphs supporting the thesis with facts and examples, addressing counterarguments, and a conclusion. The document provides examples and strategies for each part, such as starting the introduction with a question or fact to engage readers or ending with a call to action. Overall, the document serves as a guide for crafting an effective persuasive essay.
This document provides guidance on writing a persuasive essay, including defining persuasive writing, outlining its purpose and format, and providing tips for each section. It recommends beginning with an engaging introduction that grabs the reader's attention and includes a clear thesis statement. The body should develop the thesis with three paragraphs addressing supporting arguments. It also suggests addressing alternative viewpoints before concluding by restating the thesis and calling the reader to action.
This document provides guidance on writing a persuasive essay, including defining persuasive writing, outlining its purpose and format, and providing tips for each section. It recommends beginning with an engaging introduction that grabs the reader's attention and includes a clear thesis statement. The body should then expand on three main arguments through dedicated paragraphs. It also suggests addressing alternative viewpoints before concluding by restating the thesis and calling the reader to action.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments supported by facts and examples. It recommends choosing a clear stance, knowing the audience, developing a thesis with 3 main arguments, researching to support each argument, addressing alternative views, and concluding by restating the thesis and calling readers to action. The document also offers examples and strategies for each section to help writers craft effective persuasive essays.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments supported by facts and examples. It recommends choosing a clear stance, knowing the audience, having an introduction with a hook and thesis, three body paragraphs developing arguments, addressing alternative views, and concluding by restating the thesis. The document offers examples and strategies for each section to help writers craft effective persuasive essays.
This document provides instructions for writing a persuasive essay. It begins by defining persuasive writing as writing meant to convince readers of a position. It then outlines the major components of a persuasive essay, including an introduction with a hook and thesis statement, three body paragraphs supporting the thesis with facts and examples, addressing counterarguments, and a conclusion that restates the thesis and calls readers to action. The document provides examples and strategies for each section to help writers craft an effective persuasive argument.
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
This document defines and provides examples of logical fallacies and cognitive biases. It discusses 12 common fallacies - ad hominem, ad baculum, ad misericordiam, ad populum, ad antiquitatem, ad verecundiam, ad ignorantiam, composition, division, hasty generalization, begging the question, and post hoc. It also explains three biases - fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias, and conflict of interest bias. For each fallacy and bias, it provides a definition and multiple examples to illustrate how it occurs.
Topic 3. methods of philosophical reasoning session2dan_maribao
This document provides a summary of 10 common logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum - Appealing to force or threat of force.
2. Appeal to Vanity - Using flattery to gain acceptance of an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Hominem - Attacking the person making an argument.
4. Tu Quoque - Accusing the opponent of the same fault being discussed.
5. Ignoratio Elenchi - Appearing to refute an argument while actually refuting something else.
6. Red Herring - Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
3rd 1st Topic.pptargumentative essay third quarterMaricelQuiachon
This document provides guidance on writing a persuasive essay, including key components and strategies. It begins with an introduction that should grab the reader's attention through a hook and include a clear thesis statement. The body should then have three paragraphs, each supporting a different argument. It also recommends addressing any counterarguments. The conclusion should summarize the main points and call the reader to action. Overall, the document outlines an effective structure and approach for crafting a persuasive essay.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses fallacies such as hasty generalization, false cause, slippery slope, false analogy, begging the question, bandwagon, and ad hominem. For each fallacy, it gives a definition and example to illustrate how the fallacy undermines an argument. It encourages reflection on how understanding logical fallacies can help critically evaluate arguments, write argument essays, and be useful in future courses or beyond.
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoningdan_maribao
The document discusses 10 common logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum - appealing to force or threat of force.
2. Appeal to Vanity - using flattery to gain acceptance of an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Hominem - attacking the person making an argument.
4. Tu Quoque - accusing the opponent of the same faults discussed.
5. Ignoratio Elenchi - refuting a position not actually asserted.
6. Red Herring - introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention.
7. Argumentum ad Crumenam - assuming an argument is valid due to wealth.
8. Argumentum ad Verecundiam - citing an irrelevant
In this presentation, Lisa Farlow discusses types of evidence, what makes a good hypothesis, what counts as useful evidence and what makes for a good test.
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 pictures in the slideshow are copy-and-pasted from various webpages. Leave a comment below if you're concerned that I've used an image inappropriately.
This document discusses essential questions and how to write them. It defines essential questions as open-ended questions that require critical thinking to answer and have no single predetermined answer. It provides examples of different types of essential questions, including "how", "what if", "should", and "why" questions. The document also contrasts essential questions with traditional fact-based questions and provides guidance on writing effective essential questions for different subject areas.
This document discusses essential questions and how to write them. It defines essential questions as open-ended questions that require critical thinking to answer and have no single predetermined answer. It provides examples of different types of essential questions, including "how", "what if", "should", and "why" questions. The document also contrasts essential questions with traditional fact-based questions and provides guidance on writing effective essential questions for different subject areas.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments supported by facts. It recommends choosing a clear stance, knowing the audience, having an introduction with a hook and thesis, three body paragraphs developing arguments, addressing alternative views, and concluding by restating the thesis. The document offers examples and tips for each section to help writers craft effective persuasive essays.
This document provides an introduction to argumentation and logical reasoning. It discusses how to justify beliefs by presenting evidence and explores different types of arguments. Some key points:
- Evidence such as facts, documentation, and expert testimony can be used to justify beliefs and claims. The person making a claim has the burden of proof.
- Arguments follow basic logical rules like identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. They involve presenting a claim, evidence for the claim, and accepting or rejecting the claim.
- Common logical fallacies that invalidate arguments are discussed, like appeals to probability, false equivalences, and slippery slopes. Different types of arguments like deductive and inductive are also introduced.
This document provides instructions for writing a persuasive essay. It explains that the goal of persuasive writing is to convince the reader of a position on a topic. A persuasive essay should include an introduction with a hook to grab the reader's attention and a clear thesis statement. The body should develop three main arguments to support the thesis through paragraphs. It also suggests addressing alternative viewpoints. The conclusion restates the thesis and calls the reader to action. The document outlines the structure and offers examples and strategies for an effective persuasive essay.
Persuasive Writing and its step by step processesAngelieBalangue1
This document provides instructions for writing a persuasive essay. It begins by defining persuasive writing as writing meant to convince readers of a position. It then outlines the typical parts of a persuasive essay, including an introduction with a hook and thesis, three body paragraphs supporting the thesis with facts and examples, addressing counterarguments, and a conclusion. The document provides examples and strategies for each part, such as starting the introduction with a question or fact to engage readers or ending with a call to action. Overall, the document serves as a guide for crafting an effective persuasive essay.
This document provides guidance on writing a persuasive essay, including defining persuasive writing, outlining its purpose and format, and providing tips for each section. It recommends beginning with an engaging introduction that grabs the reader's attention and includes a clear thesis statement. The body should develop the thesis with three paragraphs addressing supporting arguments. It also suggests addressing alternative viewpoints before concluding by restating the thesis and calling the reader to action.
This document provides guidance on writing a persuasive essay, including defining persuasive writing, outlining its purpose and format, and providing tips for each section. It recommends beginning with an engaging introduction that grabs the reader's attention and includes a clear thesis statement. The body should then expand on three main arguments through dedicated paragraphs. It also suggests addressing alternative viewpoints before concluding by restating the thesis and calling the reader to action.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments supported by facts and examples. It recommends choosing a clear stance, knowing the audience, developing a thesis with 3 main arguments, researching to support each argument, addressing alternative views, and concluding by restating the thesis and calling readers to action. The document also offers examples and strategies for each section to help writers craft effective persuasive essays.
This document provides guidance on writing persuasive essays. It explains that persuasive writing aims to convince readers of a position through arguments supported by facts and examples. It recommends choosing a clear stance, knowing the audience, having an introduction with a hook and thesis, three body paragraphs developing arguments, addressing alternative views, and concluding by restating the thesis. The document offers examples and strategies for each section to help writers craft effective persuasive essays.
This document provides instructions for writing a persuasive essay. It begins by defining persuasive writing as writing meant to convince readers of a position. It then outlines the major components of a persuasive essay, including an introduction with a hook and thesis statement, three body paragraphs supporting the thesis with facts and examples, addressing counterarguments, and a conclusion that restates the thesis and calls readers to action. The document provides examples and strategies for each section to help writers craft an effective persuasive argument.
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
This document defines and provides examples of logical fallacies and cognitive biases. It discusses 12 common fallacies - ad hominem, ad baculum, ad misericordiam, ad populum, ad antiquitatem, ad verecundiam, ad ignorantiam, composition, division, hasty generalization, begging the question, and post hoc. It also explains three biases - fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias, and conflict of interest bias. For each fallacy and bias, it provides a definition and multiple examples to illustrate how it occurs.
Topic 3. methods of philosophical reasoning session2dan_maribao
This document provides a summary of 10 common logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum - Appealing to force or threat of force.
2. Appeal to Vanity - Using flattery to gain acceptance of an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Hominem - Attacking the person making an argument.
4. Tu Quoque - Accusing the opponent of the same fault being discussed.
5. Ignoratio Elenchi - Appearing to refute an argument while actually refuting something else.
6. Red Herring - Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
3rd 1st Topic.pptargumentative essay third quarterMaricelQuiachon
This document provides guidance on writing a persuasive essay, including key components and strategies. It begins with an introduction that should grab the reader's attention through a hook and include a clear thesis statement. The body should then have three paragraphs, each supporting a different argument. It also recommends addressing any counterarguments. The conclusion should summarize the main points and call the reader to action. Overall, the document outlines an effective structure and approach for crafting a persuasive essay.
This document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies. It discusses fallacies such as hasty generalization, false cause, slippery slope, false analogy, begging the question, bandwagon, and ad hominem. For each fallacy, it gives a definition and example to illustrate how the fallacy undermines an argument. It encourages reflection on how understanding logical fallacies can help critically evaluate arguments, write argument essays, and be useful in future courses or beyond.
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoningdan_maribao
The document discusses 10 common logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum - appealing to force or threat of force.
2. Appeal to Vanity - using flattery to gain acceptance of an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Hominem - attacking the person making an argument.
4. Tu Quoque - accusing the opponent of the same faults discussed.
5. Ignoratio Elenchi - refuting a position not actually asserted.
6. Red Herring - introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention.
7. Argumentum ad Crumenam - assuming an argument is valid due to wealth.
8. Argumentum ad Verecundiam - citing an irrelevant
In this presentation, Lisa Farlow discusses types of evidence, what makes a good hypothesis, what counts as useful evidence and what makes for a good test.
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 pictures in the slideshow are copy-and-pasted from various webpages. Leave a comment below if you're concerned that I've used an image inappropriately.
This document discusses essential questions and how to write them. It defines essential questions as open-ended questions that require critical thinking to answer and have no single predetermined answer. It provides examples of different types of essential questions, including "how", "what if", "should", and "why" questions. The document also contrasts essential questions with traditional fact-based questions and provides guidance on writing effective essential questions for different subject areas.
This document discusses essential questions and how to write them. It defines essential questions as open-ended questions that require critical thinking to answer and have no single predetermined answer. It provides examples of different types of essential questions, including "how", "what if", "should", and "why" questions. The document also contrasts essential questions with traditional fact-based questions and provides guidance on writing effective essential questions for different subject areas.
Similar to PowerPoint textbook. Fallacies-2-1-1.pptx (20)
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
Level 3 NCEA - NZ: A Nation In the Making 1872 - 1900 SML.pptHenry Hollis
The History of NZ 1870-1900.
Making of a Nation.
From the NZ Wars to Liberals,
Richard Seddon, George Grey,
Social Laboratory, New Zealand,
Confiscations, Kotahitanga, Kingitanga, Parliament, Suffrage, Repudiation, Economic Change, Agriculture, Gold Mining, Timber, Flax, Sheep, Dairying,
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
This presentation was provided by Rebecca Benner, Ph.D., of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, for the second session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session Two: 'Expanding Pathways to Publishing Careers,' was held June 13, 2024.
This presentation was provided by Racquel Jemison, Ph.D., Christina MacLaughlin, Ph.D., and Paulomi Majumder. Ph.D., all of the American Chemical Society, for the second session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session Two: 'Expanding Pathways to Publishing Careers,' was held June 13, 2024.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 InventoryCeline George
In this slide, we'll explore how to set up warehouses and locations in Odoo 17 Inventory. This will help us manage our stock effectively, track inventory levels, and streamline warehouse operations.
Gender and Mental Health - Counselling and Family Therapy Applications and In...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two HeartsSteve Thomason
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
2. WHAT ARE FALLACIES? AND WHY SHOULD WE
CARE?
• Like we’ve talked about, there are LOTS of people in our
lives that try to get us to believe what they say, and do
what they say.
• For example:
• Bosses
• Politicians
• Religious leaders
• Teachers
• But as critical thinkers, we have to question and challenge.
We have to say—wait—what are your arguments to get me
to believe what you want me to believe? What are your
arguments for getting me to do what you want me to do?
And are they SOUND or GOOD arguments?
• “Fallacies” are BAD arguments.
• They are TRICKY, because they SOUND like good
arguments. But they are FALSE and cannot be
believed
• Fallacies are used all the time. They are ways that
people—knowingly or not—try to get us to do
something or believe something, when there aren’t
good enough reasons to do so.
3. WHAT ARE FALLACIES? AND WHY SHOULD WE
CARE?
• So why should we learn fallacies?
• So—to quote the Who—we don’t get fooled again!
• And so that we avoid these mistakes OURSELVES!
4. WHAT IS A FALLACY?
• A VERY COMMON form of faulty argument
• Fallacies are “INVALID” arguments
• In other words, it DOESN’T MATTER if all the premises/supporting reasons are
true
• The premises JUST DON’T “ADD UP” TO THE CONCLUSION
• The conclusion JUST DOESN’T “FOLLOW” FROM THE PREMISES
Conclusion
Premises
Conclusion
Premises
5. HOW PEOPLE TRICK US WITH EMPIRICAL
GENERALIZATIONS: FALLACIES OF GENERALIZATION
• Hasty generalization (Chaffee, 2017, p. 466)
• This is when someone generalizes too quickly from limited experience.
• For example: “My last boyfriend was very needy. So I think all men are too needy!”
• Why’s this a fallacy?
• Because this person has made a generalization from too little information (one boyfriend).
Conclusion
Premises
Conclusion
Premises
6. HOW PEOPLE TRICK US WITH EMPIRICAL
GENERALIZATIONS: FALLACIES OF GENERALIZATION
• Sweeping generalization (Chaffee, 2017, p. 467)
• This is when someone uses good generalizations, but generalizes too far.
• For example: “Vigorous exercise contributes to overall good health. Therefore,
vigorous exercise should be practiced by recent heart attack victims, people who are
out of shape, and women who are about to give birth.”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Because this person is applying a generalization—exercise is
good—too broadly. Exercise IS good. But there are situations where it isn’t.
Conclusion
Premises
7. HOW PEOPLE TRICK US WITH EMPIRICAL
GENERALIZATIONS: FALLACIES OF GENERALIZATION
• False dilemma (Chaffee, 2017, p. 468)
• This is when people try to make us choose between ONLY two alternatives—although
there are many other alternatives!
• Example: “Either you love America, or you should leave it. And you obviously don’t
love America. So you should just leave!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Because there are many more options than just two.
Conclusion
Premises
8. THE NEXT CATEGORY OF FALLACY IS THE CAUSAL
FALLACIES
• Common mistakes in arguments about what causes what
• The “Questionable Cause.” That’s when you claim a causal connection between
things when there is none
• In other words, you say one thing caused another when that’s really questionable.
• Example: “If you break a mirror, you will have seven years of bad luck. So you better
not break a mirror!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Because there’s no reason to think that the mirror really is the
cause. Conclusion
Premises
9. THE NEXT CATEGORY OF FALLACY IS THE CAUSAL
FALLACIES
• Misidentification of the Cause. This is an argument that mixes up what causes
what.
• Example: “she’s an alcoholic, and she’s poor. So she must be an alcoholic as a result of
being poor!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? It’s not at all clear that one thing caused the other—or perhaps
both poverty and alcoholism were caused by some third thing!
Conclusion
Premises
10. HOW PEOPLE TRICK US WITH CAUSAL ARGUMENTS:
CAUSAL FALLACIES
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc:
• This is the fallacy that argues thing A caused thing B just because thing A came
BEFORE thing B.
• For example: “Before the shooting, the shooter played a lot of video games. So I bet
the video games caused him to do the shooting!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Just because this person played a lot of video games is NOT
enough to prove that video games CAUSED the shooting.
Conclusion
Premises
11. HOW PEOPLE TRICK US WITH CAUSAL ARGUMENTS:
CAUSAL FALLACIES
• Slippery Slope: This is when someone argues that unreasonably terrible effects
will follow from a cause
• For example: “If I don’t get an A in this class, my friends will hate me, I’ll lose my job,
my boyfriend will break up with me, and so on. So I better get an A!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? There’s no good reason to think that not getting an A will cause
that whole chain of events.
Conclusion
Premises
12. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE—ARGUMENTS BASED
ON IRRELEVANT PREMISES
• Fallacies of relevance are arguments based on irrelevant premises
• Appeal to authority:
• This is when someone argues on the basis of an authority—but the authority is irrelevant.
• For example: “Hi. You’ve probably seen me out on the football field. After a hard day’s work crushing
halfbacks and sacking quarterbacks, I like to settle down with a cold, smooth Maltz beer.”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Just because this person is an authority on football does NOT make them a reliable
authority on beer.
Conclusion
Premises
13. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE—ARGUMENTS BASED
ON IRRELEVANT PREMISES
• Appeal to tradition: “It’s the way it’s always been”
• This is when someone’s argument for something is based on past traditions.
• Example: “Real men should never cry. How do I know that? Because that’s the way it’s
always been.”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Just because things have been done a certain way in the past
does NOT mean they should continue to be done that way! The future can be
different—and sometimes it should be!
Conclusion
Premises
14. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE—ARGUMENTS BASED
ON IRRELEVANT PREMISES
• Bandwagon: “Everyone’s doing it!”
• This is when someone argues for something based on the fact that others are doing it
or believing it too.
• Example: “In the latest Gallup Poll, 86 percent of those polled believe that economic
recovery will happen in the next six months. So that must mean an economic recovery
is coming soon!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Just because many people do or believe something does NOT
make it true or right. Conclusion
Premises
15. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• Appeal to fear: “I’m right, or else!”
• This is when someone argues you should do or believe something based on a threat.
• Example: “I’m afraid I don’t think you deserve a raise. After all, many people would be
happy to have your job at the salary you are currently receiving. I would be glad to
inter- view some of these people if you really think that you are underpaid.”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Just because someone is threatening to hurt us does NOT make
what they say or do true or right.
Conclusion
Premises
16. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• Appeal to ignorance: “I’m right, because no one has ever proved me wrong!”
• This is when someone’s argument ASSUMES the conclusion is right because it hasn’t been DISproven.
• For example: “Greco tires are the best. No others have been proved better.”
• Why is this a fallacy? The fallacy gets arguments exactly backwards. Remember, there are two parts of
any argument: a conclusion, and premises—or evidence or reasons—proving the conclusion is true.
• We should only believe things that are PROVEN right, things that have evidence to support them.
• This fallacy is a fallacy because it misses the point. It says, “I’m right, NOT because I have evidence, but
because you can’t disprove me!”
• But you only have a good argument IF and ONLY IF you have good evidence to support your argument.
Conclusion
Premises
17. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• Appeal to ignorance: “I’m right, because no one has ever proved me wrong!”
• ANOTHER example
• “Bigfoot exists. That’s because no one has ever proven otherwise!”
• Why is this a fallacy? The fallacy gets arguments exactly backwards. Remember, there are
two parts of any argument: a conclusion, and premises—or evidence or reasons—proving
the conclusion is true.
• We should only believe things that are PROVEN right, things that have evidence to support them.
• This fallacy is a fallacy because it misses the point. It says, “I’m right due to a LACK of evidence.”
That’s crazy!”
• But you only have a good argument IF and ONLY IF you have good evidence to support your
argument. Conclusion
Premises
18. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• Begging the question: Circular reasoning:
• This is an argument where the premises, or supporting evidence or reasons, already
assume the conclusion is true. In other words, it’s a circular argument:
• Example: “I know God exists. Why? Because God wrote the bible, and the bible tells us
so!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Because my premises to prove God exists ALREADY ASSUME God
exists and wrote the bible! That’s circular reasoning.
Conclusion
Premises
19. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• Straw man: Misrepresenting another person’s argument, then attacking the misrepresentation
• This is an argument where I take someone else’s idea, dumb it down to be ridiculous, and THEN attack
it.
• For example, let’s say Bobbi and Toni are arguing. Bobbi things that the US military is receiving too
much funding, and a little more of the government money going to the military should go to education.
And this is how Toni responds: “So you want to completely defund the military, and eliminate the
military completely? That would just leave us open to terrorist attacks every day. Therefore, you’re
completely wrong—there should be no defunding of the military for education!”
• Why is this a fallacy? You can see, Toni completely misrepresented Bobbi’s point. Bobbi wans’t saying to
completely defund the military. But Toni misrepresented Bobbi’s point in order to attack it. That’s the
strawman fallacy.
Conclusion
Premises
20. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• Red herring: Leading someone off topic
• This is when someone’s argument goes off-topic. They use a premise or two that’s not
relevant to proving the conclusion.
• Example: “I’m definitely in favor of the death penalty. After all, overpopulation is a big
problem in our world today.”
• Why’s this a fallacy? Because overpopulation is a COMPLETELY separate issue from the
death penalty. The death penalty is about giving the ultimate punishment—death—to the
worst criminals. Overpopulation is about there being too many people on the planet.
Whether or not we should execute the worst criminals is different from the question of
overpopulation.” Conclusion
Premises
21. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, CONTINUED
• “Ad hominem”/Personal attack: “Your argument is wrong, because you’re a bad
person!”
• This is when someone argues AGAINST someone else’s argument by attacking that person
AS A PERSON—instead of examining whether or not their argument is good or bad.
• For example: “John thinks Peirce College should do more to help protect the environment.
But you can’t trust him. Don’t you know he’s a card-carrying communist? So let’s reject his
idea to do more for the environment!”
• Why’s this a fallacy? This person is attacking John’s character, saying he’s a communist. But
whether or not John is a communist has nothing to do with John’s argument about the
environment.
Conclusion
Premises
22. BE SURE TO GO OVER THE TEXTBOOK EXAMPLES
TO STUDY!
• Those examples are found on 478-491