7.1) Logical Fallacies

22 unread replies.55 replies.

1. Read the following two links:Logical Fallacies.doc
   
   Actionsandhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/(Links to an external site.)
   


2. Use theEvidence/Interpretationformat to write a paragraph for at least 3 different points from the reading.


3. Find 3 examples of Logical Fallacies from the media (Television, Newspapers, Magazines)


4. Make sure you explain why they are, in fact, logical fallacies.


5. Write a paragraph in response to2 other people's entries for full credit.


6. Please note the following rubric:
   
   
   • A high quality response is properlyformatted inMLA(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
     
   
   
   • A high quality response contains clear and concise assertionsthat structures the response and is intellectually engaging.
   
   
   • A high quality response is clearly developed. It has a logical organization and has strong transitions that move the reader from point to point.
   
   
   • A high quality response accurately represents the views of the texts/writers.This response shows clear understanding of key terms, concepts, and relationships in the material.
   
   
   • A high quality responseeffectively marshals evidence from material covered in the course, and by adding fresh insights that come directly from you.
   
   
   • A high quality response engages its audience by developing genuinely interesting points, and by doing so in a way that is original and interesting.
   
   
   
   

[Last Name] 1 [Last Name] 4 Hamza Abdi Dexter Booth ENGL&101 Tuesday, May 17th (7.1) Logical Fallacies 1. Red Herring Fallacy: I read that the red herring Fallacy is an error in reasoning because the issue was never discussed was the original topic in the question. This type of fallacy is also called an irrelevant conclusion or drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence. In so instances, it can be used deliberately, but it more often occurs unintentionally. It might not seem important if you accidentally fall for a red herring, but these Fallacies are sometimes used deliberately to confuse people and make them suspicious of issues they should be concerned about. In general, if you find yourself constantly thinking about a story that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, that may be a sign of this fallacy being used. It does not matter how smart you are, if you do not stick to the issues at hand, you will lose. Ironically, this is a quite simple logical fallacy that can be easily avoided. Slippery Slope Fallacy: I also discovered that the "Slippery slope fallacy" is a type of casual fallacy that claims that a move or event might have large consequences due to the potential for multiple excessive reactions. Ad hominem Fallacy: I am a little confused on this Fallacy but as far as I understand the ad hominem fallacy is the fallacious assertion that an argument is incorrect because of something about the person who made it. I wonder if when someone says, “That is just an ad hominem argument,” they usually mean that the person who made the argument is either being Lazy, stupid, or dishonest or simply attacking someone personally instead of addressing their argument on its merits. 2. Appeal to authority attempts to sway an audience by appealing to the credibility of an authority on a given topic. This can range from celebrity endorsements to newspaper articles. Resort to authorities can also be used to attempt to validate unsubstantiated claims or unsubstantiated opinions. Circular reasoning falls into this category because they form logic traps. An argument uses a logical error that is circular in nature, such as calling to a conclusion or making an unsupported statement that happens to be the premise of the argument. Anchoring is a quotation used to support a claim without evidence. When a person makes an unsupported claim, they look for anything that will support it. This is an example of using the authority or popularity of someone or something to validate an argument while not giving any evidence in support. It leads someone to be biased, which is bad because it is easy to tell when people are biased. Cited works: Klempner, ~ Geoffrey. “Invalid Argument with True Premisses and True Conclusion.” Ask a Philosopher, 3 Apr. 2018, https://askaphilosopher.org/2012/02/08/invalid-argument-with-true-premisses-and-true-conclusion/.