![]() ![]() The most sus Doctor.Īn unreasonable prediction that one event will lead to a related but unlikely series of events that follows. “I don’t trust Moriarty’s opinion on urban planning because he wears bowties.” Truly, though, bowties are the most suspicious just look at Eleven. “To the person”-a personal attack on the arguer rather than a critique of their ideas. “People who oppose the destruction of Confederate monuments are all white supremacists.” ![]() But what about Bill Clinton? He eats McDonald’s every day, which is also unhealthy.”Īn oversimplification or cherry-picking of the opposition’s argument to make them easier to attack. “Sherlock Holmes smokes a pipe, which is unhealthy. Sherlock is great at solving crimes therefore, he’ll also make a great father. John Oliver calls one manifestation of this fallacy “whataboutism,” which he describes as a way to deflect attention from the subject at hand. “Does not follow”-a random digression that distracts from the train of logic (like a “red herring”) or draws an unrelated logical conclusion. This must mean that ice cream causes drowning. Statistics show that rates of ice cream consumption and deaths by drowning both increased in June. This error assumes that correlation equals causation, which is sometimes not the case. “After this, therefore because of this”-a confusion of cause and effect with coincidence, attributing a consequence to an unrelated event. Here are some of the most common logical fallacies: Table 6.1 A list of the most common logical fallacies with examples Fallacy It’s important to be able to recognize these so that you can critically interrogate others’ arguments and improve your own. Aristotle identified that fallacies happen on the “material” level (the content is fallacious-something about the ideas or premises is flawed) and the “verbal” level (the writing or speech is fallacious-something about the delivery or medium is flawed). You may have heard some terms about fallacies already (red herring, slippery slope, non sequitur).įallacies follow patterns of reasoning that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable to us, but within their basic structure, they make a mistake. Logical fallacies are part of our daily lives we have all encountered fallacies like stereotypes, generalizations, and misguided assumptions. When logic is faulty or misused to manipulate, that’s a logical fallacy. I like to introduce this kind of logic because students sometimes jump straight from the major premise to the conclusion if you skip the middle step, your logic will be less convincing. Pretty straightforward, right? We can see how a general rule (major premise) is applied to a specific situation (minor premise) to develop a logical conclusion. Let’s take as an example the logical syllogism, which might look something like this: Figure 6.1 There are entire branches of academia dedicated to understanding the many kinds of logical reasoning, but we might get a better idea by looking at a specific kind of logic. There are many other ways we draw logical conclusions. Your logic is only complete when you’ve drawn a logical conclusion from your facts, statistics, or other information. For my appeal to be logical, I also need to interpret the graph. That characteristic alone, though, doesn’t make a logical appeal. Yes, a graph might be “fact-based,” drawing on data to illustrate a phenomenon. For instance, when I show you a graph, I am not yet making a logical appeal. However, stating a fact or statistic does not alone constitute logos. For example, an argument about the wage gap might indicate that women, on average, earn only 80% of the salary that men in comparable positions earn this would imply a logical conclusion that our economy favors men. Logos will often employ statistics, data, or other quantitative facts to demonstrate the validity of an argument. ![]() Logos refers to an appeal to an audience’s logical reasoning. Unbalanced application of rhetorical appeals is likely to leave your audience suspicious, doubtful, or even bored. The best argumentation engages all three of these appeals, falling in the center where all three overlap. Aristotle identified three kinds of rhetorical appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos. Regardless of the style of argument you use, you will need to consider the ways you engage your audience. ![]() Kairos and the Sociohistorical Context of Argumentation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |