8
Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument

Mark RuizSam Clark

Dora RodriguezClay

Page 2: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Fallacies of Emotional Argument (Pathos)

• Scare Tactics- Reducing complicated situations into simple threats or the exaggeration of a possible danger to get a desired outcome

• Slippery slope- Exaggeration of future consequence by suggesting that a small misstep will initiate a series of reactions, ending a bigger result(“logical fallacies”)

Direct TV- Roadside Ditch

Allstate Mayhem

Page 3: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Pathos continued

• Either or consequences-

Page 4: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Pathos Continued

Sentimental Appeals- Relying entirely on manipulatively heart-warming or heart-wrenching appeals to emotionto win support for what has not been otherwise rationally justified

Bandwagon- Example:Tebowing. Suggesting that because others are doing it, you should as well.

Page 5: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Fallacies of Authority (Ethos)• Dogmatism-

• There’s no way a man could ever love a man or a woman could ever love a woman as much as a man and a woman can love each other (“logical fallacies”).

• There’s no way that anyone can argue that abortion is anything other than murder (“logical Fallacies”).

• Ad Hominem– Theory: When you destroy the credibility of your opponents

you either destroy their ability to present reasonable appeals or distract from the successful arguments offered.

– Example:

Page 6: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Fallacies of Logical Argument (Logos)

• Hasty Generalizations– Qualify our claims appropriately as

generalizations are necessary to understand a large population.

• Faulty Causality• Begging the Question

Everybody Hates Chris- Stereotype: All black people are good at basketball.

Page 7: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Logos continued

• Equivocation- A half Truth• Non-sequitur-• The Straw Man- Becomes an argument

against a false opponent.• Faulty Analogy- An analogy is a

comparison of two circumstances to better grasp the obscurity of the subject. A faulty analogy is a failed attempt at this.

Page 8: Chapter 17: Fallacies of Argument Mark Ruiz Sam Clark Dora Rodriguez Clay

Works Cited“Direct tv - roadside ditch.mp4 - YouTube ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpwlh1yl054>.

" Allstate TV: Blind Spot Mayhem - YouTube ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndHOmYCMaXQ>.

Jones, Lindsay. "The story behind the "Tebowing" craze | First-and-Orange — Denver Broncos news, stats, analysis — The Denver Post." Denver Post Blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. <http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2011/10/27/the-story-behind-the-tebowing-crazy/10368/>.

" Everybody Hates Chris - White Coach - YouTube ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvO6FJoQPA4>.

“logical fallacies." University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. <http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html>.