![]() ![]() This fallacy attempts to use credentials of one to support another claim even when those credentials are not valid for the argument at hand such as the following: “Because X says it’s true, it must be true!” For example, someone with a PhD in music theory might know a great deal about genetically modified foods based upon readings however, citing that person as an expert in the field would be a fallacy. Consider the old adage “Everybody’s doing it!” The problem with this type of fallacy is that it assumes the reader/listener will only follow the crowd and not exercise free thought. ![]() This is a fallacy that assumes one will follow the crowd, sort of by peer pressure. This “if we let this happen there will be some horrible end” is a misuse of cause/effect reasoning, often with some pathos (fear) sprinkled in. This is a fallacy that assumes that one thing is going to have a series of consequences or effects–often leading to a worst case scenario such as the following: “If we let this happen, then that will happen and then the worst possible thing will happen.” It is false reasoning because 1) it’s impossible to predict the future, 2) it is illogical to suggest that one action will always necessarily lead to the worst possible outcome, and 3) it assumes a very specific chain of future events. This is an argument that attempts to create a situation of absolutes with no options in between such as the following: “Either we intervene or we are basically no better than the Nazis.” This thinking is fallacious because it assumes that there are only two options, with nothing in between. Making an argument solely based upon the perceived shared beliefs of a group such as the following: “This is about freedom and righteousness, and if you believe in those things, then you should believe my argument.” This is an example of misused ethos – when the author is referencing the values that the audience cares about so that they think only about the values and not about the content of the argument (or, likely, the fact that there is little intellectual substance in what is being said). Making a personal attack rather than engaging with someone’s ideas such as the following: “You are an idiot! That’s why you’re wrong!” This type of logical fallacy occurs when an arguer attacks or insults the person making opposing arguments instead of attacking the ideas, the logic, or the evidence within the opposing argument itself. This can be a way to avoid having to address or answer the question at hand, and it harms the quality of an argument. This is an argument tactic in which one attempts to change the conversation, often by bringing up information that is not relevant to the claim or point being debated, in order to try to control the conversation. This is unfair and illogical because when one oversimplifies or inaccurately represents an argument and refutes that oversimplified version, one is not actually addressing the argument.Ĭhanging topics to avoid the point being discussed. If someone knowingly chooses certain (favorable) pieces of information and conveniently ignores less favorable information, then the argument is not supported by all of the available research.Īn oversimplification of an opposing perspective so that it becomes easy to attack. Picking and choosing only some of the available evidence in order to present only points most favorable to your point of view. When one piece of evidence or information is used to make a broad conclusion or statement. Logical Fallacies – A Partial ListĪ conclusion or judgement made from insufficient evidence. Table 3.6.1 contains a partial list of logical fallacies. But as students of rhetoric, part of our job is to spend time identifying these fallacies in both our own writing and in others’ as a way to avoid them. Thinking about fallacies can be confusing because we see them all the time: in advertising, in conversation, in political discourse. In academic discourse, logical fallacies are seen as failures – as things we want to avoid. Think of the concept of a logical fallacy as something that makes an argument problematic, open to attack, or weak. To refer to something as a fallacy means to say that it is false. Thus, to be a strong academic writer, one should seek to avoid logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning. We value carefully researched, methodically crafted work. We seek to produce our own rational discourse. We seek to create work that is rooted in rational discourse. In academia, especially, we care a lot about making our arguments logically sound we care about logos. Melanie Gagich Emilie Zickel and Terri PantusoĪs previously noted, using ethos, pathos, and logos in an argument does not mean that the argument made is necessarily a good one. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |