Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docx

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 appealing to a definition of what counts
as a human being. Once you are done the argument might look
as follows:
Premise 1: By definition, a human being is a living organism of
the human species.
Premise 2: A human fetus is a living organism from conception.
Premise 3: A human fetus is of the human species.
Conclusion: Therefore a human fetus is a human being from
conception.

Providing a supporting argument is a way to support a premise
rather than merely asserting it. This particular argument may or
may not be persuasive to the other party (the central question
may not be simply the entity’s species but the stage at which it
begins to have rights), but at least it is a sincere effort to
demonstrate the reasoning for one’s side in a way that attempts
to start on neutral ground, without simply assuming one answer
to the question.
Learning not to beg the question can be a lifelong battle, but
one which, by attempting, you will find yourself to be not only
more intelligent, but also more fair minded.
The Straw Man Fallacy
One of the most challenging things to do when confronting
positions that are strongly contrary to one’s own is to learn to
represent the other side’s position fairly. This means actually
learning their side and then representing it well. We often find
it so much easier simply to make fun of the other side’s position
by making it sound ridiculous; however, to do so is to commit
the straw man fallacy.Intentional or Unintentional? It’s bad
either way
As the video mentions, people commit the straw man fallacy
either intentionally or unintentionally. Either case is bad. If
someone commits it unintentionally, it is generally because they
don’t fully understand the other side’s position. It is not
possible to come to a good conclusion about an issue if you
don’t properly understand the other position. Committing the
straw man in this way might fool people who also don’t
understand the other side, but to those on the other side, it just
reveals one’s ignorance.
The case is worse if someone commits the straw man
intentionally. This would mean that one perhaps knows that
one’s argument cannot stand up to the real opposing arguments,
so one is trying to fool one’s audience by putting one’s
argument against a weakened or absurd version of that side’s
views. This approach demonstrates a kind of dishonesty in

reasoning and is not part of how a mature critical thinker would
advocate for a position.
Furthermore, people with the other view often find it
unintelligent or even offensive to hear someone misrepresent
their views. Have you ever heard your views misrepresented? It
can be rather irking, and it does not lead to high respect for the
person who does so. This can be particularly troubling in
controversial arenas like religion, politics, and personal
relationships.
Here are some more examples of possible straw man fallacies
that might occur in daily life:
1. You never want to have any fun (in response to the lack of
interest in going to one party)
2. You think I should spend my whole life studying (in response
to parents asking him to finish his homework before going out)
3. Republicans don’t care about poor people
4. Democrats want the government to control everything
5. Israel just wants to wipe Palestine off the map
6. Palestine just wants to wipe Israel off the map
7. Vegetarians want us all to live on salad
8. Meat eaters don’t care how animals are treated
9. You hate my family (in response to expressing stress about a
visit)How to Avoid the Straw Man Fallacy
One of the great challenges of a sophisticated thinker is to
appreciate views that are contrary to one’s own. It may actually
be impossible to get there without learning to appreciate that
their views are not so dumb after all. The reason that otherwise
reasonable and decent people subscribe to a certain view is
usually not because they are all stupid or evil, but because they
have good reasons for those views. However, those reasons are
often complex and deeply rooted in their upbringing, their
religion, their sub-culture, their friends, their feelings, and their
personal experiences. Therefore, it is not easy to present views
in a convincing manner unless one can appreciate the depth and
breadth of the person’s point of view.
Gay marriage could be an example. Here are two straw man

versions of people’s views:
1. People oppose gay marriage just because they are
homophobic.
2. People who support gay marriage want to ruin the family.
Neither of those seems like a very fair representation of
people’s actual views and feelings. To understand those you
might have to do the following:
1. Actually listen to what people on the other side say. Read
high quality articles on both sides; listen to someone explain
their view without arguing back. Remember that they may not
yet have fully worked out their views themselves, so they may
require some thinking. Be patient and charitable.
2. Practice empathy; think about why someone might feel that
way and learn some of the experiences that led them to those
positions.
3. Repeat the process until it actually makes sense and until you
can explain their views to them without them objecting.
You can tell that you are on your way to overcoming this
fallacy when their views no longer seem offensive; you may
still not fully agree, but you can understand why a perfectly
intelligent person might come to such a view and you can
represent those views fairly to others.Exercise
See if you can fix the examples of the straw man above.
Actually write down what would be a more accurate
interpretation of what someone on that side of the issue
probably thinks. Writing them down will help you to develop
skills for writing more sophisticated interpretations in the
future.
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
It is important in life to focus on the issues at hand rather than
just the person arguing for the position. It is common, for
example, for people to pick sides of an issue based upon the
types of people that we like to hang around. We then dismiss
the views of others not because they are wrong but because we
object to the person him or herself. To do so would be to

commit the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is a
dismissal of a person’s views simply because of who said the
view, not because of the merits of the arguments.
Here would be two examples (one on each side):
· Environmentalism is wrong because they are just a bunch of
dirty hippy tree huggers.
· You should support the environment because people who don’t
are heartless and greedy.
If we are to address the question of whether to support a
particular piece of environmental legislation we should
carefully look at the merits of the arguments on each side of the
issue, not simply take a global stance because of the types of
people that advocate either side.
One version of the ad hominem dismisses someone’s view
because he or she does not fully live up to that view. This
would be a more specific type of fallacy called tu quoque,
which is Latin for “you too!” The fact that Al Gore has a large
house, for example, has been used to dismiss his climate
advocacy as insincere or hypocritical. How he personally lives
does not change the merits of his arguments.The Difference
Between Ad Hominem Fallacy and Questioning an Appeal to
Authority
Sometimes the person giving an argument is relevant to the
strength of the argument. This is the case if the argument is an
appeal to authority. It is fully legitimate in such arguments to
call into question a source’s credibility; to fail to do so might
lead us to commit a fallacious appeal to inadequate authority.
The difference between a legitimate questioning of an authority
and an ad hominem fallacy, then, is largely about whether we
are dismissing someone’s views (and reasoning) because of who
said them or whether we are simply challenging the
trustworthiness of a source. Here is an example of each:
Legitimate: I do not trust the claims in that ad since it was
produced by the company that stands to make money from it.
Fallacious: We shouldn’t listen to his reasoning about this issue
because he has been to jail twice.

It is sometimes tricky to tell the difference, for example, if we
object to a speaker not having a degree in the subject matter.
Some subjects require vast amounts of knowledge (and perhaps
a degree), but often people can have good arguments even
without having majored in the field. Often the best way to tell
the difference is based on whether we are seeking to dismiss or
ignore their reasoning. To do so is generally fallacious. To
avoid this fallacy we should actually be more careful about
assessing the quality of their reasoning itself rather than just the
person giving that reasoning.Exercise
See if you can identify whether each of the following is
fallacious, and see if you can fix each one that is:
1. You have no right to tell me how to parent my kids, just look
at how yours turned out?
2. You say that climate change is real, but then, why do you do
drive a car?
3. Why should I trust your arguments about wearing seat belts;
you smoke!
4. I heard that politician’s speech, and he was loud and
obnoxious. I would not vote for him.
5. I wouldn’t listen to that study. The people who wrote it are
employees of the industry being studied.
6. I would not listen to chiropractors; they just make claims in
order to get your money.
The Appeal to Popular Opinion
The appeal to popular opinion (covered in the book) is more
common that one might think. Whether we realize it or not,
most of our views are formed by the culture in which we live.
Therefore, much of what we take to be true we have received
from the popular views of our society. It can even be very
difficult to think truly independently. The great philosopher
Immanuel Kant defined “enlightenment” as the ability to think
for one’s self; it can be a rare and even dangerous skill.
Here are some examples of appeals to popular opinion based on
things that are commonly taken to be true:

· “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in
possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
(Austin, n.d.)
· One would have to be crazy to give all of one’s money to
famine relief; that is just too extreme.
· You should obviously take the job that will bring you the most
wealth and prestige. To drop out and live as a poor person is
very irresponsible.
The list could go on and on. Closely related to the appeal to
popular opinion is the appeal to tradition in which one reasons
that something is right because that is what people have
believed or done for generations. Though tradition is good in
many cases for building unity within a people, there are plenty
of cases in which there are good reasons to break from a
tradition or to modify it.Exercise
See if you can tell which of the following are fallacious appeals
to popular opinion and which are legitimate appeals to
authority:
1. I won’t buy a Ford; everyone says that they are unreliable.
2. Everyone eats meat, so it must be right.
3. 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real
(NASA, n.d.), so it is.
4. All physicists believe that Einstein was wrong about
Quantum Mechanics, so he was.
5. Hershey’s is by far the most popular candy bar, so it must be
the best.
6. Rotten Tomatoes (a movie reviewing site) has that movie at
95% approval, so I am going to see it.
The Appeal to Emotion
We all have emotions, and we are all deeply influenced by them
all of the time. It is not wrong or fallacious to care about one’s
emotions and to act in ways that are meant to make us happy.
The fallacy of appeal to emotion is to use emotion instead of or
in contradiction to careful reasoning.
If one buys a car partly because it will be fun to drive

(providing one can afford it), this is not necessarily fallacious.
However, if one buys a car because it will be fun even though it
is financially unwise, one has committed the fallacy.
It is not always easy, however, to know where our emotions end
and our reasoning begins. In the issue of capital punishment, for
example, we often feel that the person deserves to be killed for
certain heinous crimes. Is this feeling merely an emotion or is it
based in reason? These are sometimes difficult questions for
philosophers and ethicists.
Closely related is the appeal to pity, in which one argues that a
decision should be made out of the emotion of pity rather than
in reason.
There is a famous commercial for the ASPCA in which a song
by Sarah McClachan tears at one’s heartstrings while images of
dejected puppies in cages, etc. are shown. This is seen by many
as a blatant appeal to pity. It may, however, be a borderline
case. To the extent that the commercial informs viewers of
actual realities that happen to be very sad, it may not be
fallacious. Emotion in response to viewed suffering may not be
an instance of a fallacy but of compassion. However, if the
money given may not do much actually to relieve the suffering
of animals, but the commercial tugs on people’s emotions to
make them feel that they should give, then it would be.
Determining officially whether the commercial is fallacious,
therefore, may require doing actual research into the specifics
of ASPCA’s charitable practices.
Here are two more commercials to consider:
The appeal to fear is in the same category, but the emotion is
fear instead. Whether the appeal is fallacious is generally based
on whether the fear is rationally justified or not.Exercise
Try to make a reasoned determination about whether each of the
following constitutes an appeal to emotion or appeal to pity
fallacy:
1. Judge, you should let this guy have a short sentence, because
he has had a hard life.
2. You shouldn’t break up with me because I need you.

3. You should give money to famine relief because children are
starving (pictures shown).
4. You should not fly in a plane because it could crash, and you
would die.
5. You should marry her because you love her, and you will be
happier.
6. Without this war, our country could be taken over by
terrorists.
7. He should get the death penalty because he is a monster.
Other Fallacies
There are many other fallacies that can be learned within
chapter 7 of the book, including the appeal to force, appeal to
ignorance, appeal to ridicule, biased sample, cherry picking,
equivocation, fallacy of accident, fallacy of composition,
fallacy of division, false cause, false dilemma, hasty
generalization, non sequitur, poisoning the well, red herring,
shifting the burden of proof, and the slippery slope.
Rather than focus on these fallacies in more detail, we instead
will take some time to go over the very common phenomenon of
cognitive biases. Here is a set of exercises to test your skills at
identifying fallacies:Exercise
Match the fallacy to the example (be aware that many examples
can be examples of more than one fallacy, however, one fallacy
is supposed to be dominant in each one):ExampleFallacy
1. “What you are doing is wrong because it isn’t right.”
a. Ad hominem
2. “I wore the red shirt and won; it must be lucky.”
b. Appeal to popular opinion
3. “You should catch your refrigerator because it’s running!”
c. Appeal to emotion/pity
4. “Both of my friends didn’t like the movie, so no one does.”
d. Appeal to fear
5. “You either agree with me or you are a bad person.”
e. Appeal to force
6. “Don’t listen to him; he’s a Cowboys fan.”

f. Appeal to ignorance/Shifting the burden of proof
7. “Speeding is bad, so don’t speed on the way to the emergency
room.”
g. Begging the question/Circular reasoning
8. “If we legalize marijuana, then soon we will have to legalize
heroin too.”
h. Biased sample/Hasty generalization
9. “John is going to talk to you; don’t believe a word he says.”
i. Equivocation
10. “Don’t buy that kind of soda or you will lose all of your
teeth.”
j. Fallacy of accident
11. “Don’t bet on that horse; everyone knows he will lose.”
k. Fallacy of composition/division
12. “I you don’t agree with me, you are fired!”
l. False cause
13. “Don’t buy that car because, well, hey, didn’t you like that
movie yesterday?”
m. False dilemma
14. “You should agree with me unless you can prove I am
wrong.”
n. Non sequitur/Red herring
15. “Each fish is light, so a net full of them should be light.”
o. Poisoning the well
16. “You should give me an A; my dog just died.”
p. Slippery slope
Cognitive Biases
We are not as rational as we might think. It turns out that all of
us are subject to certain tendencies to think of things in ways
that are not truly objective; we see things in ways that favor
maintaining certain beliefs and activities, for example, those
that are approved of by our social groups. A general term for
such biases that lead us away from pure objectivity is called
cognitive bias.
There are many specific types of cognitive bias. One of the

most famous and common is known as confirmation bias the
tendency to accept only that information that confirms what we
already believe. We tend only to notice, remember, and accept
only things that confirm our opinions. Studies have even shown
that when faced with contrary evidence to our cherish beliefs
we not only do not change our views we actually dig in and
become even more persuaded than before; this is known as the
backfire effect (Silverman, 2011).
The bandwagon effect is very similar to the appeal to popular
opinion except that it is not as much an inference as a tendency
to believe what other people do. Such views are socially
reinforced as we have all kinds of social incentives to agree
with our friends, family, and other associates. Examples
throughout history have shown that people are usually even
willing to go as far as to dismiss the rights of entire categories
of human beings if almost all others in their society do.
We also tend to be more aware of information that stands out to
us. Information that is emotionally charged or in someother way
noticeable is the type that we remember and focus on. This is
the phoneonenon of availability heuristic in which we take
much greater account of information that is more available to
our minds. This combined with the negativity bias in which
people have greater recall of negative memories than positive
ones may help explain so-called Murphy’s Law. Even if we tend
to hit normal amounts of red lights and long shopping lanes we
tend to remember the times in which everything goes wrong; we
therefore think of ourselves as victims of Murphy’s law when
we are really just susceptible to the availability
heuristic.Paradigms and Bias
Combine these things and what we get is a real resistance to
entertain views that are not our own and that are not shared by
our social groups. Politics would be a good example of this
phenomenon. We tend to listen to people whose views agree
with our own and we have whole paradigms (loosely defined as
the interwoven set of things that we believe) that are constantly
being reinforced against opposition.

What happens next is that when we encounter a contrasting view
especially about an emotionally charged topic we then have a
hard time fitting it into our own paradigms. As a result we can
see the view as ridiculous or unsupported. That is because we
don’t share the surrounding beliefs that help to explain why
they believe it.The Interconnected Webs of Belief
This diagram shows how difficult it can be to fully understand
what other people think. We can’t just understand just one
thing; we have to understand all of the other beliefs that
surround and support it, and all the beliefs that surround and
support those, etc. We have to understand a whole paradigm!
Expanding one’s points of view, can therefore be a lifelong
exercise in open minded exploration.Bias and the Media
People like to have their views confirmed and they especially
do not like to have them shot down. This is one of the reasons
that people tend to listen to media sources that support their
own points of view (McRaney, 2010). This can lead to deeper
levels of entrenchment when it comes to things like politics and
religion. Unfortunately these levels of entrenchment are part of
the source of deep political divides and can even harm close
relationships. Is there a solution to this problem?
Logic may be part of the solution by challenging us to see the
reasons for our differences of interpretation. Logic demands
that we do not misrepresent other views or dismiss them easily
by merely assuming that they are wrong because they don’t
agree with our own views.
One of the ways that the media can influence us is to tell us
how to interpret the information that is out there. The same
piece of information can be taken in totally different ways and
in ways that support opposite conclusions depending upon who
is telling us the information. This is a bias called the framing
effect. Our media source frames the information for us telling
us what it means and how to interpret it. Sometimes most of the
work in drawing conclusions from a piece of information is in
the interpretation. The same event for example in the Middle

East can be seen as verifying either democratic or republican
foreign policies depending upon who is explaining the event to
us. This supplies yet another reason to hear from multiple points
of view when it comes to any question. A common way to react
to views being presented to us that we do not like is to reject
their source as being biased. This is known as the hostile media
effect in which we consider a source to be biased because what
it presents is so contrary to our own views.
One way to try to avoid these types of biases is to seek out
media sources of high quality whose views are contrary to one’s
own. One can also open one’s mind to principles and
interpretations of facts from multiple perspectives. These types
of activities can lead one to become more fair minded as will be
discussed in the final week of this course.
Argumentative Devices
In addition to giving arguments there are many other techniques
that can really help to strengthen one’s presentation of an
argument. However, each can be misused as well. The book
explains a few examples of argumentative devices and how they
can be misused:
Evaluative language describes something in a positive or
negative way. For example we can call a smart person a genius
(positive) or a nerd (negative). Slanting is the trick of overusing
evaluative language or the use of evaluative language as a
substitute for actual arguments.
Assuring Terms use phrases like “I know,” “studies show,” and
“definitely” to indicate to our audience a high degree of
certainty that our claim is true. These tools are not necessarily
fallacious as there often are good reasons in support of our
claims even if we are not in a good position to give those
details at the moment. However this tool also can be abused as
when we use this tool as a substitute for good reasoning or
when there may not be an actual source as strong as our claim
that there is. There is even such a thing as an abusive assurance
when one gives an assurance that is designed to make people

feel stupid if they disagree. Examples of abusive assurances
include “obviously,” “everyone knows,” and “there is no
question.” Proof Surrogates occur when someone claims
authoritative support when that support may not exist. We
should be wary of falling for an assurance that implies that we
should not challenge the support for a claim.
Qualifiers (or guarding/hedging terms) weaken a claim so that it
is more likely to be true. Words like “most” (rather than “all”)
“some” (rather than “most”) “usually” (rather than “always”)
are used to make a claim much more plausible. The good news
is that sentences with guarding terms are much more likely to be
true than the stronger version. The bad news is that the claim is
not as strong. This can be a problem especially when the
sentence is being used as a premise but the guarding terms
makes it no longer strong enough to support the conclusion
adequately.
The mistake of overguarding a premise so that it no longer
adequately supports the conclusion is known as the disappearing
hedge (because guarding terms are called hedging terms and the
hedge in these cases seems to have disappeared by the time we
get to the conclusion. Qualifying a claim so much that it means
very little at all makes it a weasel word, as discussed in the
book.
Other rhetorical devices used in the book include Weasel words,
euphemisms and dysphemisms, proof surrogates, hyperbole, and
innuendo and paralipsis. Make sure to read chapter 8 to
understand these terms.An Example of Logical/Rhetorical
Analysis
While this may be hard to read, here is what an example of what
it can look like to circle and label the terms discussed in this
section in a newspaper article, and to notice the rhetorical
moves and logical tricks committed by things that we see every
day:
This helps demonstrate the ways in which these types of
analyses can be relevant to daily life. We can tear apart nearly

everything noticing the logical and rhetorical maneuvers, both
legitimate and otherwise! This kind of ability can be highly
useful in daily life!
Things to Do This Week
1. Read the required materials for the week, including this
guidance and chapters 7 & 8 from the textbook.
2. Watch the weekly intro video and all of the videos under the
“Lectures” tab for this week of the course and view all other
required materials.
3. Post a timely (initial post by day 3) and thorough response to
the first discussion forum as well as substantive replies to
peers. This discussion topic is up to your instructor. The
specific prompt will be posted by your instructor as the first
response in the discussion forum. Make sure to follow carefully
all elements of the discussion prompt.
4. Respond to the second discussion prompt as well (initial post
by day 3) as well as responses to peers. This discussion topic is
also up to your instructor.
5. Take the Quiz for the week (by day 7). It covers the central
concepts of the course as covered in the textbook, this guidance,
and the lecture videos for this week.
6. Post a response to the journal prompt as well. Make sure that
your response is at least one full page (double spaced) and that
you respond to all aspects of the instructions.
7. Start working on your final papers (due next week and 20%
of your grade). An early start will help you to succeed.
If you have any questions, make sure to let your instructor
know, either via email or in the Ask Your Instructor forum.
References
Austin, J. (n.d.). Pride and Prejudice. Retrieved from
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1342/1342-h/1342-
h.htm#link2HCH0001 George Argento (2013). Love is a fallacy
[Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_81fz6kUJI

Hardy, J. (2013).Arguments vs. explanations [HT1] [PDF file].
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Ashford University, San
Diego, CA.
Konnikova, M. (2014, May 16). I don't want to be right. The
New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-
want-to-be-right
McRaney (2010). Confirmation bias. Retrieved from
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/
Mobil (1992, August 27). Currents of change. The New York
Times.
NASA (n.d.). Consensus 97% of climate scientists agree.
Retrieved from http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
PBS Idea Chanel (2014). The ad hominem fallacy | Idea Channel
| PBS Digital Studios [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
PBS Idea Channel (2014). The strawman fallacy | idea channel |
PBS digital [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0
Philosophy Tube (2014). Begging the question – the gentleman
thinker [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAXKc-rvMa8
Silverman (2011). The backfire effect: More on the press’s
inability to debunk bad information. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_backfire_effect.ph
p?page=all
Woolbob96’s channel (2013). Commercial appeal to
emotion.wmv [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwhzbzZSAYg
Just for fun, if you've got a little time (warning: this video uses
some of the old Latin fallacy names):
Fallacies and Biases #2
Discussion Title

Prior to posting in this discussion, completeThe Parking Garage
interactive scenario. As you work through the scenario, stop to
consider the reasons why you make the choices you do and the
degree to which those reasons provide a good basis for your
choice. Note any biases and assumptions that may occur to you,
and keep this in mind as you complete this discussion.
Your instructor will choose the discussion question and post it
as the first post in the discussion forum. The requirements for
the discussion this week are a minimum of four posts on four
separate days, including responses to at least two classmates..
The total combined word count for all of your posts for this
discussion, counted together, should be at least 600 words.
Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources
that are required to complete the discussion properly.
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week,
complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other
posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the
discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of
the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to
take the conversation further by examining their claims or
arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they
make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things
in as much detail as you can.

Media & Bias
Instructor Paik
2/16/2017 4:32:33 PM
Modified:2/19/2017 1:57 PM
Media & Bias
The media we consume affects us, but we also affect it. Most
people think that they perceive truth objectively, as it is.
However, we all see things from a point of view. Furthermore,
people tend to seek media that supports their points of view.
This can serve to further entrench us in a more narrow way of
looking at things while at the same time making us feel more
certain that our point of view is objective and neutral. We also
learned in Chapter 8 that people have biases (such as the
confirmation bias) that make it hard for them to embrace ideas

that contradict with their own points of view. This week’s
discussion seeks to explore how we can free ourselves from
these tendencies.
Prepare: Before addressing this discussion, take a look at the
following video about the relationship between media and
ideology:
Next, Make sure to read Chapter 8, for example on “Media and
Mediated Images” (including all sub-headings).
Reflect: Think about the ways in which people consume media
that supports their own points of view. Consider what we might
do to learn to think more objectively and see things from
multiple points of view.
Write: Answer the following questions: In what ways are people
manipulated by the media that they consume? Make sure to give
specific examples. What types of consequences can follow from
people having more choices of what media they can consume?
Do we control our media or does it control us? What can people
do to break free from media hypnosis and have broader, more
objective points of view? In what ways might we strive to
overcome confirmation bias? Address anything else that you
find relevant and interesting in the chapter and video.
Guided Response: Respond substantively to at least three of
your classmates’ posts in a way that furthers the conversation.
For example, you might discuss other similar areas in which you
have noticed the media creating or responding to bias. You
might comment on to what degree we control our media and to
what degree it controls us. You might comment on the example
they have chosen and contribute to the points they are making.
You might comment further on the value of consuming a wide
variety of high quality of media sources.
Example
There will be no example for this discussion: please make sure
to do some self reflection and respond to all aspects of the

prompt, including:
· Answer in what ways are people manipulated by the media
that they consume
· Give specific examples of that manipulation
· Explain the types of consequences that can follow from people
having more choices of what media they can consume
· Answer whether we control our media or or whether it controls
us
· Answer what people can do to break free from “media
hypnosis” and have broader, more objective points of view.
· In what ways might we strive to overcome confirmation bias?
· Address anything else that you find relevant and interesting in
the chapter and video.
Fallacies and Biases #1
Discussion Title
Prior to answering this week’s discussion prompt, complete
theBuying a Car interactive scenario. In the car buying scenario,
just like in real life, you were presented with an argument for
making a different purchase than you had originally intended.
Notice any similarities between the arguments offered by the
car salesman and the kinds of arguments you have read about in
the assigned readings. Consider how you can apply what you
have learned in the class so far to the kinds of arguments given
by the salesman. Keep these sorts of considerations in mind as
you complete this discussion.
Your instructor will choose the discussion question and post it
as the first post in the discussion forum. The requirements for
the discussion this week are a minimum of four posts on four
separate days including responses to at least two classmates..
The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted
together, should be at least 600 words. Answer all the questions
in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to

complete the discussion properly.
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week,
complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other
posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the
discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of
the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Take the
conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in
more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you.
Keep the discussion on target, and analyze examples in as much
detail as you can.
For further instruction about how to address discussion prompts
in the new format, view the key terms and Discussion Videos
visible in the Week One Standard Form Arguments discussion.
Your Most Common Fallacy
Instructor Paik
2/16/2017 4:26:01 PM
Modified:2/19/2017 1:56 PM
Your Most Common Fallacy
We have all committed fallacies at one point or another in our
lives, so for this discussion we ask you to reflect on the fallacy
that you find that you commit the most frequently.
Prepare: Read Chapter 7 of the textbook, and take notes. Make a
selection from the fallacies that are explained in that chapter

(Make sure to choose a fallacy from the textbook for this course
and not from any other source. Also, do not stop at the first
fallacy that you recognize since your knowledge of all fallacies
will not only enhance your overall knowledge, it will also come
in handy for the second discussion).
Reflect: Reflect on the fallacies that you have read and find the
one that you commit the most. Think about how frequently you
have committed the fallacy and what kinds of things tend to
lead to you committing it.
Write: Present an example of an argument (or arguments) that
you have made that commits that particular fallacy. Present the
reasoning in standard form. Evaluate your argument (or
arguments) by indicating the name of the fallacy that you
committed and explaining why this argument is fallacious. What
might you do to avoid committing that type of fallacy in the
future? How might learning to avoid this fallacy benefit your
life?
Guided Response: Respond to at least two (2) other intros in
this forum by the end of day seven of this first week. Your goal
should be to see if the classmate has exemplified the fallacy
correctly and/or presented the description of the fallacy
correctly as well. You might also mention if the fallacy in
question is also an example of any other type of fallacy that we
have studied. You may also examine the correctness of the
standard form. Is it presented in the vertical fashion with
premises on top and the conclusion at the end? Are the premises
clearly presented? Any corrections or examples that you may
offer your classmates will not only help your classmate learn
the material, it will give you the practice that you need in order
to learn the material yourself.
Example
There will be no example for this discussion: please make sure
to do some self-reflection and respond to all aspects of the
prompt, including:
· Articulate your fallacious reasoning in standard form
· Name the fallacy

· Explain why your argument is fallacious
· Explain how you might avoid this fallacy in the fiture, and the
benefits of doing so.

Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docx

Similar to Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docx (12)

More from cockekeshia

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docx