DOCSLIB.ORG

Thinking Critically * Supporting Conclusionswith Reasons- That We Will Focus on in This Chapt€Rand Ih€ Next

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thinking Critically * Supporting Conclusionswith Reasons- That We Will Focus on in This Chapt€Rand Ih€ Next ThinkingCritically A ConciseGuide John Chaffee,Ph.D. Dirc<1o4Cent€. fot Ctltical Thinkingand LanguageLeahing, Lacuadia Co[ege City Univetsryof ,tew Yo* ITOUGHTON MIFFIIN COMPANY AOSTON NEW YORK cr{atrTE*t cdns.nLti,tAls,rdts 191 Constructing Arguments Considercarefully the lollolving dialo$e about lvhethermarijrana shorild be letalized: Denrisj Did you hear aboui the person who was sentencedto fifteen yearsin prison for possessingmarijuana? I think this ls one of the most outrageously r-njustpunishments I've ever head ofl In most states,people \ .ho arecon- victed of armed robbery,rape, or even murder don't receivefifteen-year seniences.And rnlike the possessionof marijuana,these crimes violate the rights of other people- Becognizing Consvucting Canlir€: I agreethat this is one casein lvhich ihe punishmentdoesn'i seemto fit the crime.But )rouhave to realizethat dru8s posea seriousthreat to the young people of our countrt: Look at all ihe people who are addict€d to drugs, \^'ho have their lites ruined, and who oiten die at an early a8e of overdoses.A]1d thinl< of a11ihe c mes committedby peopleto support their drughabits.As aiesult, sometimessociety has to make an exarnpleof some- one- like the person you meniione.l- to convincepeople of the serious- nessof ihe siluation. DerrrisrThat's ridiculous. In ihe first place,it's not right to punish someone unfairly iust to provide an example.At leastnot in a societyihatbelieves in justice.And in the secondplace, smoking marljuanais nothing like using drugs such as heroin or even cocaine.lt Iollows that smoking marijriana A io.m olth nkinq n wlr ch .ertain reasoneare o{fered should not be aSainstthe lar'. Cdtoline:I dan't agree.Although marijuana might not be as dangerousas some other dmgs, smokjng it sr.e1y isn'i good for vou. And I don't thlnk Constructing that anyihing ihat is a ihreat to your health should be legal. Drnnisi What about cigarettesand alcohol?lve lnorr that they are dangerous. Medical fesearchhas linked smokinScigarettes to lun8 cancer,emphysema, and heart disease,and alcohol dama8esthe liver No one has proved that marijuanais a ihreat to our health.And evenifit doestum out to be some- Evaluating what ujrhealtht it's certainlynot as dangerousas cigarettesand aLcohol. Cdloltri That'sa good point. Bri io tel you ihe trlrth, I'm not so sure ihat cit' Understanding jn DedudiveArg uments arettesand alcoholshould be legal.And any case,the,v are alread,\r legal. Appl.aton ol a genefaru e Justbecause cigarettes and alcohol are bad for your health is no reasonto Iegalizeanoiher drug that can causehealth probl€ms. Dcrrlsj Look- life is full of risks. lve take chancesevery time we crossthe streeior climb inio our car.In fact,rvith all of theseloonies on ihe road,d v- ing is a lot more hazardo s to o1lfhealth ihan any of the drugs around.,And manl' of the foods we eat can ki1l. Ior example,rcd meat contributesto hearidisease,and artilicial sweetenerscirn cause cancer. The poini is, iipeo ple want to iak€ chnnceswith their hellih, thafs up to them. And many 190 Lo2 ch.pr€rsr\ rlr 5r co,sfnr.$,S/rrylr0rr 193 Crrolr?eiMafijuana may not be physically addictive like heroirl, but I ihink 'jl l-i{l ,\L T l,t, 116I( l1,ld that it can bc pslchologicnllv addictive,because people tend to use more and more ofit over time. I knoiv a number ofpeopLewho spenda lot oI th€ir iime geiting high. 41ataboui Carl?All he doesis lie around and get high- 'Ihis shows thai smoking it over a period of time definiiely affects ),our mind. Think about the people you know $'ho smoke a lot don't ihey seem to be floating in a dream lvorld? How are they ever going to make an)'thing of their lives?As far as I'm concemed,a potheadis like a zombie living but dead. De risr Since,vouhave had so little experiencewith marijuana,l don'i think thai you can offer an informed opinion on the subject.And anywat if you do too much of anythint it canhurtyou. Even somethingas healthy as €xer cisecan causcproblems if )'ou do too mrch of it. But I sure don't se€any ihing wrong wiih toking up with some ftiends at a pariy or even getting into arelaxedstate by yourself.In faci,l find that I caneven concentrate bet- ter on my schoolworkafter takirg a litiie smoke. Carcli"€i lf you believe that then marijuana really ras damagedyour brain. lbu're just trying to rationalize your drug habit. Smoking marijuana doesn't help you concentrate it takes ]rou a$-ay from realiiy. And I don't think that people can control it. Either you smokeand surrendercontrol of "Let H€rbsGrow Free!" vorr life, or ),ou clon't smok€ becausevou rvant to retain conirol. Therc's t l\'ould ]ou bein.iirNl lo loin a "l egalizeNhrijuana" prolesl like thisone? lvhy do nothing in behveen. nlne peoplcbeLic\t lhai marijuanishould be legilizedl i\ hv do oilrersbeljeYe it Dcflrisr Let me point out something to vou: Becausemarijuana is illegal, ortanized crime controlsits distribution and makesall ihe money tuomit. ff marijuanawere legalized,the governmentcorild tax the saleof it -like cig- peoplein our socieiy like b mellorv out $,ith marijuana.I read somelvhete arettes and alcohol and th€n use the money for some lvorthwhile pur- that o\cr 70 percentof lhc Lr(r,Pl('inth€ United Statesthink ihat marijuana pose.For erample,many stateshave legalized gamblin8 and usethe money shouldbe legalized. io sLrpporteducation. Il1 fact, the major tobaccocompanies hav€ already Crro/l,1ejThere's a big (tifferencebet ,€enletfing peopledri\.e cars.nd lctinr€l copyrightednames for diflerent marijuanabrands - like "AcapldcoGoId." them use dangerous,:lrugs.So.ietl' has i fesponsibilii),to proteci people Obviousl},',theybelieve that marijuanawiU soonbecome 1egal. from thcnrsehes. Peq)le oftel do thnrgsthat arc iooiishil the) areencour- Cntuline:Just becausethe gLx'emmentcan make mon€y out of someding aged or givcrl the opportunitv to. I rgaliziig somethrnSlike mdrijuam doesn'tmean that fiey shor d legalizeit. We could alsolegalize prostitution ercouragespe(rple to Lrseit, espc.iall,vloung Peopic.tt foLlowsthai many or muggings and then tax the proceeds.Also, simply becausethe cigarette morc peoplc !!ould use mnriILln,r ii it lver€ leg.lliz€d.lt's like societysay- companiesare preparedb sell marijuanadoesn't m€an that it makessens€ i,rg, "This is ail fight - go ah€artand usc it. ' to. Afier all, ihey're the oneswho areselling us cigarettes. Dl]/rrlis:I stjll rn.rinlain thai mafiju.rna jsn't dangerous.Ii's not ddLlictive like heron is and th$c is no e\'fien.e that ii hnrms !(rt. Consequenilli, Continue this dialo8ue,incorporatin8 other viefl s on the sribjectof legalizing .lnytlLDg th.it ;s h.,Ilnlessshoulcl b!' l('gil. fi Recognizing Arguments Usht olll definition, we can .teture ihe mnin ideas th.lt make up .rn argun€ni. The preceding discussion is an illustration of two people engaging in di,alogr.e, which we have defined (in Chapter 2) as the systematic exchange of ideas. Par- icatons stat€mentJ that suppott anothet ttatement (known as a cond6ion), ticipatint in this sort of dialogue with others is one of the keys to thinkjng crit- iustify it, or make it more probable icallv because it sfimulates )'ou to der.elop your mind by carefully examining the way vou make sense of the world. Discussing issues with othe$ encour- ages you to be mentallv active, to ask qDestiont to view issues froB different con(rusronA etatemertthat explains,atsefts, ot predldson the bajis ofrtate- PersPectives,anci io develop reasonsto sripportconclusions. Ii is this last qual ments(known as reasons)that arc oflercd asevidence for it ity of thinking critically * supporting conclusionswith reasons- that we will focus on in this chapt€rand ih€ next. \4tr€n we offcr reasonsto suppori a conclusion,r{e areconsidered tobepre- The type oi thinking that uses argument- reasonsin support of conclu- senting an r,g nerl, sions- is knoR'nas /crsonnrg,and ii is a iype of thinking you havebeen doing ihroughout this book, as rvell as in mr"rchof your life. nr€ are continualtytry- in8 to explain,jNtiftr and predict things throuth ihe processof reasoning. atgument A lorm of thinking in which ertain statements are keatont) Ofcourse,ourrcasoning an.l the reasoningofoihers is not alwayscor- offercd in tupport of anothet statement (a condusion) rect.For example,the reasonssomeone offers Inav not really support the con- clusion thev are $uppos€d to. Or the conclusion may not realv folloB, fuom the reasons statcd. These difficulties are illustratod in a nluiber of th€ arguments At tlte beginninS of the dialogue, Dennis Fesents the following argument against imposing a fifteen-yea. sentence for poasessionof marijuana (argunent 1): contained in the discussion on ma juana. Ncuertheless, $.henever *e accept a condusbn as likelv or true based on certain reasonsor whenel.er $c offer rea Reasor; PossessinSmarijuana is not a serious olfense becaus€ it huns no one. sons to support a conclusio& we arc using arguments to engage in reasoning Rrasotr. There are manv other more seriousoffenses in which victims' basic -evcn if our reasoningis t\'eakor faulty and needsto be improved. In this rights are violaied - sl1chas armed robbefy,rape, and murder - for R'hich chapterand the nex! we wiLLbe expleringboth the wav lve constructeffeciive the oflendersdon't receivesuch stiff sentences. nrgumcnt5dno thF\\.) $(,\.riLrflte.rrtumenrsrc dc\clop.rnd:rrrppr our Co clrsiofi; Thcrefore,a fifteen year senienceis an unjust punishmentfor pos- reasoningability. sessingmarijuana. l,et us return to the discussionabout marijuana.After Dennis presentsthe argurnentwith the conclusionthat the fifteen-ycarprison sentenceis an rlust Can you identify an additionai reasonthai supportsthis conclusjon? ptmishmcnt, Caroline considefsthat ar€iumont.AlthouSh sh€ acknowledges that in ihis case"the punishmentdocsn'i s{(m to fit thp crime,',she goes on to offcr anotherargument (argumeit 2), giving reasonsihat lead to a conclusion The definition ofnrgunrnf given hereis somewhatdifferent from the mean- thai conflictsh.ith the one D€'nnisdrewl ing of the concept in our ordinary language.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)
    A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES PJAEE, 17(12) (2020) A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy1, Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi2 1,2University of Karbala - College of Education. Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy , Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi , A Pragmatic Study Of Fallacy In George W. Bush's Political Speeches , Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4). ISSN 1567-214x. Keywords: Political speeches, Pragmatics, Fallacy, Argument. Abstract: A fallacy can be described as the act of issuing a faulty argument to support and reinforce a previously published argument for purposes of persuasion. However, a fallacy is a broad subject that has been addressed from several viewpoints. A few experiments have tried to counter the fallacy pragmatically. However, the attempts above have suffered from shortcomings, which made them incomplete accounts in this regard. Hence, this study has set itself to provide pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, forms, methods, and applications are concerned. These models use many models produced by several academics and the researchers themselves' observations. The validity of the established models was tested by reviewing seven speeches by George W. Bush taken before and after the war in Iraq (2002-2008). The analyses demonstrated the efficacy of the models created. Mostly because they have yielded varied results, it is clear that fallacy is a process of stages, with each round distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies. 1. Introduction: The fallacy has been regarded as a critical issue by numerous studies investigating the definition from different lenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies: a Beginner’S Guide Which Logical Fallacy Would Be Your Favorite Pick from the List Below?
    Logical Fallacies: A Beginner’s Guide Which logical fallacy would be your favorite pick from the list below? Ad Hominem Attack: This is the best logical Appeal To Novelty: The Appeal to fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your you’re an idiot. crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best. Appeal To Emotion: See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad Appeal To Numbers: Millions think that this leaving and refusing to support us, and me fallacy is the best, so clearly it is. with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to Appeal to Pity: If you don't agree that get proper schooling. So really, if you look Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my how it will hurt the feelings of me and the fallacy here is the best. others who like it! Appeal To False Authority: Your logical Appeal To Tradition: We've used Appeal to fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this wrong? one is better. Argumentum Ad Nauseam: Argumentum Appeal to Fear: If you don't accept Appeal ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy. to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-Fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences
    Bio -fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences By Gaymon Lamont Bennett Jr. A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Paul Rabinow, Chair Professor Stefania Pandolfo Professor Ignacio Chapela Spring 2011 Abstract Bio-fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences by Gaymon Lamont Bennett Jr. Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Professor Paul Rabinow, Chair Bio-fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences provides an account of an experiment I undertook in ethics and anthropology as part of the International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology, the BIOFAB. It offers an analysis of the facility‘s programmatic attempt to actualize a core claim of the new field of synthetic biology: that living beings can be conceived as collections of interoperable genetic components, constructed through rational design, standardized, and fabricated at scale. It provides a diagnosis of the scientific, vocational, and ethical limits of this endeavor. And demonstrates why, in the end, loyalty to truth and seriousness required an exit from the both the mode and stakes of my undertaking. My experiment with the BIOFAB constituted a distinctive and final phase of a five-year project to design Human Practices, which began as part of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC).
    [Show full text]
  • So You Say: Demonstrated Facts V. Unsupported Assertions
    So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Prepared by: Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and W. Michael Gillette, Associate Justice (retired) Oregon Supreme Court Shareholder: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Prepared for: 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Copyright © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications Wilsonville, Oregon So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Page 1 So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) W. Michael Gillette, Association Justice, Oregon Supreme Court (retired) I. Burdens of Proof A. “Burden of Proof” Defined: 1. Duty placed upon a party to a civil or criminal action to prove or disprove a disputed fact. 2. “Burden of Proof” is also used as a synonym for “Burden of Persuasion” which is the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed fact. B. Preponderance of the Evidence Defined: 1. Evidence, as a whole, shows fact to be proved is more probable than not. 2. The existence of the fact at issue is more likely than not. 3. The greater weight of the credible evidence. 4. More evidence or more credible evidence than evidence offered in opposition to it. C. Clear and Convincing Evidence Defined: The existence of a particular fact is highly probable or reasonably certain. This standard may be used in some jurisdictions when the issue is whether a person was guilty of deceit or fraud—a matter that had to be proved at common law by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 a Great Big List of Fallacies
    Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense Appendix 1 A Great Big List of Fallacies To avoid falling for the "Intrinsic Value of Senseless Hard Work Fallacy" (see also "Reinventing the Wheel"), I began with Wikipedia's helpful divisions, list, and descriptions as a base (since Wikipedia articles aren't subject to copyright restrictions), but felt free to add new fallacies, and tweak a bit here and there if I felt further explanation was needed. If you don't understand a fallacy from the brief description below, consider Googling the name of the fallacy, or finding an article dedicated to the fallacy in Wikipedia. Consider the list representative rather than exhaustive. Informal fallacies These arguments are fallacious for reasons other than their structure or form (formal = the "form" of the argument). Thus, informal fallacies typically require an examination of the argument's content. • Argument from (personal) incredulity (aka - divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false. • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed so extensively that nobody cares to discuss it anymore. • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. • Argumentum verbosium – See proof by verbosity, below. • (Shifting the) burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with (or assumes) what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    THE ROLE OF REASONING IN CONSTRUCTING A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT RICHARD R. ORSINGER [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37TH ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c. Disputed Facts; Disputed Law.. 9 2. The Hypothetical Syllogism... 10 a. The Conditional Syllogism.. 10 b. The Conjunctive Syllogism... 10 c. The Disjunctive Syllogism.. 10 3. The Dilemma.. 10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 42 Fallacies for Free
    42 FALLACIES Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere For Free Forty Two Fallacies (For Free) By Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere, [email protected] Legal Information This book is copyright 2002‐2010 by Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere. It may be freely distributed for personal or educational use provided that it is not modified and no fee above the normal cost of distribution is charged for it. Fallacies and Arguments In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric Tool Chest by Steven Strang
    Rhetoric Tool Chest By Steven Strang “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”—Aristotle Key Terms 1. Rhetor = the speaker or writer or creator of an artifact, an artifact that is intended to persuade someone of something 2. Rhetorician = someone who studies or teaches the art of rhetoric [Crowley 436) 3. Rhetorical critic = someone who analyzes discourse/artifacts using rhetorical tools 4. Rhetorical Criticism/Rhetorical Analysis = the process of close reading artifacts, looking not only at the overt meaning, but also considering the assumptions (stated and unstated), the strategies and techniques used, the implied audience, the tensions between the stated and implied purpose, the “how it is said” + the “why it is said that way” as well as the “what it says,” etc. (SMS) 5. Artifact = anything created by a human in order to communicate with other humans. 6. Text can a synonym for artifact, but text often refers to a written or verbal artifact. 7. Unit of Analysis = is one significant rhetorical element or rhetorical strategy. Often in discussions (and in this course), “unit of analysis” is a blanket term that covers all the concepts in this handout. a. A unit that is incredibly significant for one text might be totally insignificant for another text. i. For instance, for a free verse poem, the unit “rhyme” would be useless since, by its very definition, a free verse poem does not rhyme. ii. For a text which displays little literary impulse or craft, using the unit “memorable phrasings” or “parallel structure” would not reveal much about the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Media and Information Literacy in Adult Education
    MEDIA AND INFORMATION LITERACY IN ADULT EDUCATION Project no 2018-1-FR01-KA204-048213 Table of contents INTERACTIVE CONTENT Click and go to the page WORKSHOP Introduction 3 29 Fake News WORKSHOP Media and Information Literacy 4 30 Assemblage Non-formal education system WORKSHOP 5 and benefits 32 Headline Basket WORKSHOP Presentation of the Toolkit Target Audience 6 and group dynamics 35 Deconstruction Instructions for Media Bingo 7 38 Newspaper Analysis CARD GAME EXEMPLAR 8 Tell your Story 41 Newspaper Analysis CARD GAME Instructions for Comparative 9 More Than One Story 42 Newspaper Analysis EXEMPLAR Puzzle 10 48 Comparative Analysis WORKSHOP Top 10 Logical Critical thinking, social representations 11 50 Fallacies in Politics and the portrayal of the reality WORKSHOP Printable Critical Thinking Cards 13 Media Literacy: Bias in Media 57 WORKSHOP WORKSHOP Terminology: global 16 Social media channels 65 and EU perspectives WORKSHOP WORKSHOP 24 Visuals on social media 68 ETA CARD GAME Activities and materials 25 Percipio 74 to address radicalisation issue WORKSHOP PROJECT PARTNERS 26 First Impression 81 NB It's a link icon. If you see it, click it. Introduction “Media and information literacy in adult education” is an Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships project for four partners from France, Croatia, Estonia and Spain. The coordinator of this project is Mitra France non-governmental organisation from France. The project is funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission. The general objective of this project was to exchange good practices and test innovative methods in media and information literacy that were collected in this Toolkit. The activities of this project increased the ability of participants to think critically about the content they receive through social media.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fallacies
    List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion.
    [Show full text]