Scribd
Upload
40 views

Fallacies

The document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies that can undermine arguments. It discusses 12 types of fallacies including strawman, red herring, hasty generalization, slippery slope, and false analogy. It also outlines how to identify fallacies and provides additional examples to illustrate each type of fallacious reasoning.

Uploaded by

Kris Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views

Fallacies

The document defines and provides examples of common logical fallacies that can undermine arguments. It discusses 12 types of fallacies including strawman, red herring, hasty generalization, slippery slope, and false analogy. It also outlines how to identify fallacies and provides additional examples to illustrate each type of fallacious reasoning.

Uploaded by

Kris Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Fallacies

Strawman

Red Herring

Ad Populum

Ad Hominem

False Analogy

Either/or

Slanting

Hasty Generalization

Slippery Slope

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning or arguments that can be misleading or deceptive.

1. Strawman: Misrepresenting someone's argument in order to make it easier to attack or


refute.
2. Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant or unrelated information to divert attention from the
main issue.
3. Ad Populum: Appealing to popular opinion or the majority as a way to validate an
argument.
4. Ad Hominem (Appeal to attack a person): Attacking the person making the argument
instead of addressing the argument itself.
5. False Analogy: Drawing comparisons between two things that are not actually similar in
relevant ways.
6. Either/or: Presenting only two extreme options when more possibilities or nuance exist.
7. Slanting: Presenting information in a biased or one-sided manner to influence opinion.
8. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on insufficient or limited
evidence.
9. Slippery Slope: Assuming that a small action will inevitably lead to a series of negative
consequences.
10. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Assuming that because one event happened after another, the
first event caused the second event, without considering other possible factors.
11. Appeal To Pity: appealing to the feelings of the judge. Makes use of “substantial justice”.
(Substantial Justice needs reasoning by analogy and usually happens when something is
so new)
12. Appeal to Authority: relying on the opinion or expertise of a perceived authority figure,
rather than providing evidence or logical reasoning. (Obiter dictum vs ratio desidendi)

***Appeal - present something or put forward something. It could end up fallacious. Example
appeal to pity, authority, attack character or to attack a person.

How to spot a logical fallacy: 3 I’s

1. Irrelevant - Not related to the topic at hand.


2. Immaterial - the item or evidence or statement has to be material (important) to the case.
****Putting forward something that isn’t relevant IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION
3. Incompetent - the person answering the question is not competent enough to answer the
question

Circular Argument - How to identify if you dont know yet if its true

• A is true then B is also true


• Example: Drunk Driving is punishable by law thus gets serious penalties. Any act
punishable law by law gets serious penalties.
• Ex: Plagiarism is deceitful because it is dishonest
o All you did was define not explain
o Did not actually explain why he is deceitful
• Ex: Accused is a plagiarist because he copied the words of the doctor without proper
credit.
o Didn’t actually explain why he is a plagiarist.
o DEFINED plagiarist not explained why
o VS: Accused may be considered a plagiarist since he copied the words of the
doctor without proper credit
o ^^ may or may not be true compared to the first one where you state that he
already is a plagiarist
• Ex: Women are likely to become victims of abuse because abusers like vulnerable
people. Women are vulnerable.
o Looks correct but is not
o A is true because B is true because A is true (circular)
o A circular argument is a type of logical fallacy in which the conclusion is
included in the premise of the argument, making the argument invalid as it does
not provide any new information or prove anything beyond what was already
assumed.

Hasty Generalization

• Small Sample → General Conclusion or Statement


• Ex: My roommate said philosophy was hard. I say philosophy is hard. Therefore,
Philosophy is hard.
Slippery Slope

• If A happens therefore B → Z happens


• Went downhill without logic
• Ex: If John does not get coffee in the morning, he gets a bad day turning to bad grades
then to bad family then to bad life
• Ex: A went to the house and entered without permission therefore he could have stolen
something and broken some stuff. Thus, the crime should be robbery, tressing, and ,
malicious
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc/ False Cause
o (because of this therefore this)
o Cause is not equal to result → cause is equal to result

False Analogy/ Weak Analogy

• “Dogs are trained by discipline. People are like dogs who can be trained by discipline”
o Analogy is correct but the Analogy is weak of wrong (because of likening “dogs”
to “people“
• Guns and hammers are both hand held weapons. Both can kill people. But hammers are
not banned. Therefore, guns should not be banned.
o comparing the guns and hammers are a no no

“Either/or” or False Dichotomy or False Dilemma

• Arguee provides you two choice and you must choose between the two choices cause
these are “apparently” what is true.
• Ex: This building is already old. Therefore, it’s either we tear it down or risk the safety of
the people working in it.
o posing like these are the two choices when there are other choices

Strawman

• A kind of ad hominem
• someone misrepresents or exaggerates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack
or refute.
• Attacks argument. Ad hominem attacks person.
o Instead of addressing the actual argument, they create a distorted version of it,
resembling a "strawman" that is easier to knock down.
• Ex: Feminists want to ban pornography and put patrons of it to death. But such actions
and harsh punishments are wrong. Therefore, feminists are wrong In banning
pornography.

Equivocation

• Giving money to charity is right (correct) because charitable institutions has rights (legal
rights) to money
o using right and rights to confuse and make seem logical
• When a term in an argument is used with two different meanings, leading to a misleading
conclusion. This happens when the shift in meaning is not recognized or acknowledged,
resulting in a flawed or deceptive argument.
• Ex: Mr. A found himself hitting the victim because he thought he is being more offensive
(physically) . It was his lawyer’s advise to be more offensive than defensive (in the case)

Tu quoque / “You too“

• You did something wrong and you were appealed, i did something wrong so i should be
appealed

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy