This document discusses reasoning and fallacies. It begins by stating that the purpose of the class is to make students better at reasoning by learning to recognize fallacies. It then provides examples of different types of fallacies, such as hasty generalization, generalization from exceptional cases, slippery slopes, false causes, appeals to authority and popularity, and irrelevant conclusions. It also discusses factors that can influence credibility, such as expertise, bias, prior knowledge, plausibility, interested vs disinterested parties, and media sources. Throughout, it gives examples to illustrate each fallacy and concept.

1. Why are we doing this again?1) Generally speaking, humans are
not very good at reasoning.2) The purpose of this class is to
make you better at reasoning.3) Fallacies are specific examples
of bad reasoning, and they are all around us.Thus, learning to
recognize fallacies is likely to make you commit them less
often, and consequently become a better reasoner.
Hasty generalizationHasty generalization: inappropriately
generalizing from too few examples.Anecdotal evidence
Freewrite: Hasty Generalization
Is there reasoning behind prejudice? What is the motivating
force of prejudice or racism (as a subcategory of prejudice)?
Does a person’s limited experiences with another group lead
them to unjustified conclusions about an entire race (in which
case it’s a hasty generalization)? Or is it some deep-seated
prejudice that goes beyond reason?
Generalization from an exceptional caseGeneralization from an
exceptional case: Inappropriately generalizing from cases that

2. are unique, or unusual.Biased sampleSelf-selection fallacy
AccidentAccident: Assuming a general claim applies to a
specific case that could be unusual.Example: “In America we
have the right to bear arms. So if I want to point a gun at a
police officer, I should be able to do so.”
Weak AnalogyWeak analogy: a weak argument based on
unimportant or irrelevant similarities between the things being
compared.Example: “Going to SWC is like being in prison.
After all, both the campus and the prison are buildings
constructed by humans.”Example: “Corporations are like
people. If people can be tried in a court of law, then so can
corporations.”
Untestable ExplanationUntestable explanation: when someone
provides an explanation that cannot even be tested in
principle.Example: “Charlene is really good at helping people
because she gives off such good vibes.”
Slippery SlopeSlippery Slope: the suggestion that something
will progress by degrees to an exaggerated or undesirable
outcome.
False cause/correlation is not causationFalse cause: assuming
that because one event happened after (or around the same time

3. as) another that it was caused by the other.In assuming that one
event causes another, the person committing this fallacy can
overlook:CoincidenceA common causeRandom
variationRegression to the mean
False cause (random variation)“In our tests, we randomly
selected men to drive a golf ball as far as they could. We then
had them wear our magnetic bracelet and try again. On the
second occasion the men hit the ball an average of ten feet
further. Our bracelet can lengthen your drive as well.”
False cause (regression to the mean)“The girls were well below
their average on Monday, so I made them do 50 sets of pushups.
Guess what? Their average was much better on Tuesday.
Pushups did the trick.”
Appeal to AuthorityAppeal to authority: giving the opinion of a
non-authoritative source to support a claim.Example: “My smart
friend says that Obamacare is bad for the country. So he must
be right.”Example: “The pope said that evolution is true. So
evolution must be true.”
Appeal to PopularityAppeal to Popularity: accepting a claim
because lots of people believe it.Example: “A majority of
Americans believe in God and they can’t all be
wrong.”Example: “Don’t object, Timmy, men in our family have
always joined the military.” (Common practice)

4. Aristotle’s Model of the Universe: Widely Accepted until the
16th Century
The student will provide a 2-3 page review of a scholarly article
on group leadership in
either a cross functional or a cross organizational team.
Reviews should include a
synopsis and your opinion of the article. The submission is to
be double space using a
12 point font and will be graded based on depth and clarity
Requirements and Instructions:
The submission is to be double-spaced, using a 12 point font
and will be graded on depth
and clarity
Prepare a 2-3 page essay to respond to the question.
The essays will be in APA format, with references, and in-text
citations. The Individual
Assignments are due on Sunday night each week at midnight.
Late submissions will not be accepted unless approved in
advance by the instructor.
Individual assignments must include a minimum:
- Introduction
- Complete and thorough response to the question, supported by

5. scholarly sources
- Personal analysis
- Conclusion
- APA format to include references and in-text citations
- Original work not plagiarized and grammatically correct
– Please use Turnitin or Grammarly (www.grammarly.com) as a
free service to screen your
papers for grammar and writing errors prior to submitting.
These services are really good
and will go a long way to helping you improve writing and
making your papers free of
grammar mistakes. Turnitin can also screen your papers for
plagiarism. These are great
resources and you are hurting yourself if you don’t use them.
Major IdeasClaims and SourcesInterested vs. Disinterested
PartiesMemory and Personal Observations/ExperiencePrior
Knowledge and Initial PlausibilityCredibility (Bias vs.
Expertise)

6. Freewrite: SourcesWhere do you get your information? If you
want to know something, where do you go? Who, or what, do
you turn to?
Freewrite: Sources Part 2Did the points Pariser makes in the
video change your mind, even slightly, about your initial
responses to the above questions? If so, how? If you were
already aware of Pariser's points, do you think they are
significant and relevant to this discussion? Why or why not? If
you disagree with Pariser, why?
Claims and Sources
Claims: statements, sometimes called propositions, that can in
principle be true or false.
Sources: literally where the claim comes from, like a person,
group, organization, blog, YouTube video, book, academic
journal, and many, many more.There are varying degrees of
credibility in both claims and sources.
Interested vs. Disinterested Parties
Interested Parties: people who stand to gain from your belief in
a claim.
Disinterested Parties: people with no stake in your belief in a
claim.
Interested vs. Disinterested Parties
Interested Parties: people who stand to gain from your belief in
a claim.

7. Disinterested Parties: people with no stake in your belief in a
claim.But isn’t everyone an interested party? Friedrich
Nietzsche said that all life is driven by the will to power: a deep
desire to dominate others and/or the environment.
Personal Observations/Experience
Personal observations/experience includes our immediate
thoughts, observations, and general sensations. Two important
points about personal experience: It’s the most immediate
source of info we have.It’s extremely flawed, biased.
Factors that Bias Our Personal Experience
Cognitive Biases
Emotions
Physical Factors
Deeper Psychology
Inaccurate Memories
We are pattern-seeking creatures
The Virgin Mary?
Memory
Who started the fight?Subjects in a study were asked this
question after observing a staged fight.Most subjects
remembered the fight inaccurately.
This suggests that memory is less reliable than we often think.

8. Prior Knowledge
Prior knowledge: the body of justified beliefs consisting of
facts from our personal observations/experience and facts from
others.
Some facts about prior knowledge:Generally, having more prior
knowledge is good.Sometimes if one’s prior knowledge is false,
it can inhibit learning.
Is the claim initially plausible?
A claim lacks credibility if it conflicts with: Personal
Experience Prior Knowledge
Initial Plausibility: low or high? How likely is the claim to be
true?
Best strategy: be skeptical while keeping an open mind, like
Socrates.
Credibility =
Expertise plus Bias
Expertise: experience and education most important, then
accomplishments, reputation, and position.
Bias: is he/she an interested party? (Or at least, less interested?)

9. Credibility =
Expertise plus Bias
Expertise: experience and education most important, then
accomplishments, reputation, and position.
Bias: is he/she an interested party? (Or at least, less
interested?)Factors that are not relevant to credibility: gender,
age, personal traits (like nervousness), and so forth.
News MediaGenerally, media owners are conservative and
media anchors are liberal.Since the mid 20th century, ownership
has been consolidated from thousands of companies to about 5
companies.
The InternetGoogle is a search engine, not a source.Wikipedia:
a good starting point.The credibility of blogs and podcasts
depends on the creators/participants.
Some Recommended SourcesPBS NewshourThe BBCScientific
AmericanConsumer ReportsVery Bad Wizards (Podcast)
Recommended search engines: Google Scholar and Startpage.

10. List of Relevance FallaciesAd hominemStraw manFalse
dilemmaMisplaced burden of proofBegging the questionAppeal
to emotionIrrelevant conclusion
Fallacies
Fallacy: a mistake in reasoning in which the premise is not
relevant to, or inadequate to support, the conclusion.The
presence of a fallacy does not always discredit a
source.Cognitive biases are examples of fast thinking, whereas
fallacies are failed arguments.Fallacies can be turned into
arguments by changing the premise(s) or conclusion.
Ad Hominem
José
José’s Car
José’s Claims
Straw ManStraw man: misrepresenting someone’s argument
then attacking that false representationA straw man is easier to
knock down than a real man…
FreewriteIs it possible that The Straw Man is a result of not
listening to other people? The Straw Man occurs when we give
a weak interpretation of what someone else is saying. How often

11. do we really listen to other people so we can understand them?
If we listened more and tried to understand others’positions,
would we commit less Straw Men?
False DilemmaFalse dilemma: saying that a choice involves
only two alternatives in an attempt to get the listener to choose
one over the other.
Misplaced Burden of ProofMisplaced burden of proof: when the
burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an issue.
Person 1: “There’s a leprechaun in the forest.”Person 2: “How
do you know?”Person 1: “Can you prove there isn’t?
Begging the questionBegging the Question: reasoning in a
circle, assuming what you’re trying to prove.
Appeal to EmotionScare tacticsOutrageWishful
thinkingPityApple polishingGuilt tripPeer pressure
Irrelevant ConclusionAny other fallacious reasoning in which
the premises are not relevant to the conclusion, but that does
not fit the other categories.
2nd Paper Outline: Argument Paper
Begin by choosing two articles from either the topic of freewill
versus determinism, or the existence of God. There is no need to

12. write a standard introduction, but please include a short one that
says which two articles you'll be discussing and the main
arguments you’ll be focusing on from those articles.
Part 1: Paraphrase the arguments (or an argument) from each
article. Paraphrasing does not mean restating every point; it
means putting the main points into your own words. You can
choose to paraphrase one or two central arguments, rather than
the entire article, due to space constraints.
You may have to make choices about which premises to a given
argument you should include. Some premises may be more
important than others depending on the overall direction of your
paper. You may also want to occasionally quote from the article
to make particular points explicit, but don't over-quote! (See
rules for quoting below.)
Part 2: Consider disagreements, and how one of the authors
might respond to the other author's points. You should begin
this part by discussing one or two central points of
disagreement between the two authors you’ve chosen. For
example, do they define terms differently? Do they draw
different conclusions overall?
Next, discuss any counterarguments one of the authors might
give to the other. For example, regarding God, Swinburne
argues that natural evils like hurricanes are allowed by God to
give humans a greater range of choice. Given what you know
about his view, how might Nagel respond back to Swinburne?
Consider this sort of back and forth in relation to whichever two
articles you've chosen.
Citations: There should be no need to quote any sources outside
of the readings. If you really want to do so, please clear it with
me first. Otherwise, please simply indicate the author and put
the page number from the article in parentheses. For example,
Harris claims that "his case against free will does not depend on
philosophical materialism" (11). Make sure you are clear about
the author and page number.
What should the final product look like?: You should turn in a
3-5 page, 12-point font, double-spaced paper that addresses

13. parts 1 and 2 above.
How will you grade my paper?: I will grade you on the
following criteria.
Organization (25%): The paper is clear, consistent, and easy to
follow. Each sentence logically contributes to the next and
paragraphs are divided appropriately by content.
Analysis (50%): The paper accurately and appropriately
paraphrases the arguments of the articles and anticipates
counterarguments.
Format (25%): The paper is free of spelling and grammatical
errors. Sources are cited clearly and properly according to the
simple criteria laid out above.