LESSON 5 :INFORMAL FALLACIES PT 1

Logic & Argument

Appeal to the PeopleArgumentum ad Populum

“I’m sure that most people have cheated on a quiz some time or another; so I shouldn’t feel too bad about doing it.” [used to defend an action]

“DishWatcher has more subscribers than all other satellite TV providers combined! Switch today!”[used to appeal]

Appeal to the PeopleArgumentum ad Populum

A fallacy in which the premise(s) of an argument are supposed to support the conclusion by stating or suggesting to the audience that most people believe or accept that conclusion; relies on the audience’s need/desire to be included among the majority

Other names/varieties: bandwagon, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus

Ad Populum to 2:11 Ad Populum role play to 1:50

Straw Man

“Dr. Ballard won’t even let us walk around with our shirts untucked. She doesn’t think it’s important for us to express ourselves in any way. She expects us to be robots, and that’s un-American! We should be able to untuck.”

Straw Man

Fallacy in which the arguer distorts the opponent’s position in order to more easily defeat it, then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been defeated.

Straw Man to 2:23

Against the Person: Abusivead Hominem

“William Buckley has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as cocaine and heroin. But Buckley is just another one of those upper-crust intellectuals who is out of touch with real America. No sensible person should listen to his pseudo-solutions.”

Against the Person: Abusivead Hominem

Fallacy in which someone responds to his opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent personally—verbally abusing him

Hitler vs. Mother Teresa to 2:45 President Obama (all 1:23)

Against the Person: Circumstantialad Hominem

“Mrs. Casey said the new unit is going to be full of fun and practical information. But she’s an English teacher, so of course she’s gonna say that. Therefore, we can ignore what she says.”

Against the Person: Circumstantialad Hominem

Fallacy in which the arguer attacks her opponent by bringing up circumstances that affect the opponent—with the suggestion that the opponent is predisposed or biased to argue what he does, so he shouldn’t be taken seriously