(logos) assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion asks...

35
Logical Fallacies statements that may sound reasonable or true but are deceptive and dishonest

Transcript of (logos) assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion asks...

Page 1: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Logical Fallaciesstatements that may sound reasonable or true but are deceptive and dishonest

Page 2: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Begging the Question

(logos) assumes in the premise what the

arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion

asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident when they are not

Page 3: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

The unfair and shortsighted legislation that limits free trade is a threat to the American economy.

Page 4: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Circular Argument

(logos) restates the argument rather than

actually proving it similar to Begging the Question

Page 5: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

Jesse Jackson is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

Page 6: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

False Analogy

(also: Argument from Analogy) (logos) analogy - a form of comparison that explains an

unfamiliar element by comparing it to a more familiar one. › can explain unclear or abstract ideas› do not constitute proof because there are almost

always significant differences between things being compared

A false analogy frequently ignores important dissimilarities between the two things being compared.

Page 7: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

The overcrowded conditions in some parts of our city have forced people together like rats in a cage. Like rats, they will eventually turn on one another, fighting and killing until balance is restored. It is therefore necessary that we vote to appropriate funds to build low-cost housing.

Page 8: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Ad Homimem

(also: Personal Attack) (ethos) tries to divert attention from the facts

of an argument by attacking the motives or character of the person making the argument.

attacks the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself

Page 9: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

The public should not take seriously Dr. Mason’s plan for improving county health services. He is a former alcoholic whose wife recently divorced him.

Page 10: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Hasty Generalization

(also: Sweeping Generalization, Jumping to a Conclusion)

(logos) reaching a conclusion based on too

little evidence Stereotyping is an example

Page 11: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

Because our son really benefitted from nursery school, I am convinced that every child should go.

Page 12: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

False Dilemma

(also: Either/Or Fallacy) (logos) when a writer suggests that only two

alternatives exist even though there may be others

oversimplifies an issue and forces people to choose between extremes instead of exploring more moderate positions

Page 13: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

We must choose between life and death, between intervention and genocide. No one can take a neutral position on this issue.

Page 14: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Equivocation

(logos) when the meaning of a key term

changes at some point in an argument makes it seem as if a conclusion

follows from premises when it actually does not

Page 15: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

As a human endeavor, computers are a praiseworthy and even remarkable accomplishment. But how can we hope to be human if we rely on computers to make our decisions?

Page 16: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Red Herring

(pathos) when the focus of an argument is

shifted to divert the audience from the actual issue

Page 17: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

The mayor has proposed building a new baseball-only sports stadium. How can he even consider allocating millions of dollars to this scheme when so many professional baseball players are being paid such high salaries?

Page 18: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

You Also

(also: Tu Quoque) (ethos) asserts that an opponent’s argument

has no value because the opponent does not follow his or her own advice

Page 19: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

How can that judge favor stronger penalties for convicted drug dealers? During his confirmation hearings, he admitted smoking marijuana when he was a student.

Page 20: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Appeal to False Authority

(also: Ad Verecundiam) (ethos) citing an individual who, despite being

famous or even being experts on some things, has no expertise on the issue at hand

Page 21: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

According to Brian Williams, interest rates will remain low during the next fiscal year.

Page 22: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Misleading Statistics

(logos) misrepresentation or distortion of

factual evidence in an attempt to influence an audience

Page 23: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

Women will never be competent firefighters; after all, 50 percent of the women in the city’s training program failed the exam.

Page 24: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Post Hoc Reasoning

(also: False Cause) (logos) assumes that because two events

occur close together in time, the first must be the cause of the second

faulty cause/effect relationship

Page 25: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

Every time a Republican is elected president, recession follows. If we want to avoid another recession, we should elect a Democrat as our next president.

Page 26: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Non Sequitur

(meaning: it does not follow) (logos) when a statement does not follow

logically from a previous statement

Page 27: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

Disarmament weakened the United States after World War I. Disarmament also weakened the United States after the Vietnam War. For this reason, efforts to control guns will weaken the United States.

Page 28: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Bandwagon Appeal

(also: Ad Poplum) (ethos) implies because others are making a

choice, you should make the same choice

Page 29: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.

Page 30: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Slippery Slope

(logos) suggests that once we take a first step

in a direction we don’t like, we will have no choice but to continue in that direction

Page 31: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Examples

We have to stop the banning of this book. If we don’t, they’ll start banning others until there aren’t any left to read.

If we allow this book in our libraries, soon our libraries will be filled with all kinds of unseemly books.

Page 32: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Strawman

(ethos) greatly oversimplifies an opponent’s

argument to make it easier to refute

Page 33: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

Page 34: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Ad Misericordiam

(also: Appeal to Pity) (pathos) relies on appeals to pity to the

exclusion of other necessary arguments

Page 35: (logos)  assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion  asks readers to agree that certain points are self-evident.

Example

Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?