1. Understanding Logical Fallacies NOTE: JUST BECAUSE THE WAY ONE ARRIVES AT A CONCLUSION IS FAULTY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CONCLUSION ITSELF IS FAULTY!

2. House#1#2#3#4#5 ColorYellowBlueRedGreenWhite NatlNorwegDaneBrit German Swede BevgWaterTeaMilkCoffeeBeer SmokesDunhillBlendsPallMPrinceBlueM PetCatHorseBirds Fish Dogs

3. Some general background information Argument: A conclusion together with the premises that support it. Premise: A reason offered as support for another claim. Conclusion: A claim that is supported by a premise. Valid: An argument whose premises genuinely support its conclusion. Unsound: An argument that has at least one false premise. Fallacy: An argument that relies upon faulty reasoning. ◦NOTE: A fallacy is an error in reasoning. It could be a mistake or misconception (e.g. "many people believe that cats can see in the dark, but this is fallacious") or a deliberate misdirection. In logic and {rhetoric} (argumentation), a fallacy is a logically flawed argument.

4. Main reasons why arguments FAIL When a PREMISE is FALSE When the CONCLUSION does not follow the premise When all parts follow correctly, but the reader/receiver is tricked into the acceptance of the argument (sometimes called a ‘booby-trap’)

5. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC  The fallacy of attributing causation to the chronology of events  Because Y follows X, it MUST have been caused by X

6. Now its your turn… Table 1 = “poisoning the well’ & Appeal to false authority Table 2 = Hypothesis contrary to fact & False analogy Table 3 = Slippery slope/appeal to extremes & Red Herring Table 4 = False dilemma & Undistributed Middle Table 5 = Confirmation bias (& cherry picking) & Begging the question Table 6 = Dicto simpliciter (sweeping generalization) & Appeal to Pity Table 7 = Fallacy of composition & Appeal to fear Table 8 = Appeal to popularity & Straw man

7. What to do…  Be able to define, explain, identify, and MOST IMPORTANTLY…Illustrate your assigned two fallacies.  You have TEN minutes to develop TWO skits, one for each of your two assigned Logical Fallacies.  We will then act out our fallacies and consider where the ‘faulty logic’ lies within each example…you will then be required to summarize/give a brief overview for our class notes.

9. Monty Python as a fallacy Breakdown of the Argument Presented: 1.All witches are things that can burn. 2.All things that can burn are made of wood. 3.Therefore, all witches are made of wood. (from 1 & 2) 4.All things that are made of wood are things that can float. 5.All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float. 6.So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. (from 4 & 5) 7.Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. (from 3 & 6) 8.This thing is a thing that weighs as much as a duck. 9.Therefore, this thing is a witch. (from 7 & 8)

10. Analysis of the First Argument All witches are things that can burn. All things that can burn are made of wood. Therefore, all witches are made of wood. ◦This is a valid argument. That is, (3) really does follow logically from (1) and (2). That’s not to say that it’s an especially convincing argument because premise (2) is rather obviously false. Still, if (2) were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. So this step is valid but unsound.

11. Analysis of the SECOND argument All things that are made of wood are things that can float. All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. This argument commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The structure of the argument is the old familiar All A is C. All B is C. Therefore, all A is B. And that, of course, isn’t a valid argument.

12. Analysis of the THIRD Argument Therefore, all witches are made of wood. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. ◦This argument has the same problem as the second argument. It’s also an undistributed middle.

13. The FOURTH is MUCH THE SAME Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. This thing is a thing that weighs as much as a duck. Therefore, this thing is a witch. Yes, once again, it’s an undistributed middle.

14. Some other common Logical Fallacies - Post hoc ergo propter hoc - - ‘Straw Man’ argument - Appeal to false authority - Hasty Generalization - Appeal to pity - Appeal to fear - False analogy - Red Herring

15. RED HERRING  The fallacy of irrelevance  throwing the receiver ‘off the scent’ of the argument by introducing irrelevant and distracting information.

16. ‘STRAW MAN’ ARGUMENT S  A misrepresentation of the arguments of the opposition  Uses analogy or falsehood to make the opposite argument seem ridiculous or implausible

17. APPEAL TO AUTHORIT Y  Use of an ‘authority figure’ or ‘expert’ to support or convince  May be faulty for a number of reasons  The topic of discussion does not warrant the need for an expert or authority  The authority in question is irrelevant in relation to the argument  The authority is not a clearly credentialed authority  The authority is an expert in general but not specific relevance  The authority presents distinctly biased information or has a predetermined understood opinion and investment in the subject matter

18. HASTY GENERALIZATI ON  A ‘statistical’ misrepresentation whereby the argument is presented through a section of a population that is a misrepresentation or simplification of the population as a whole.

19. APPEAL TO PITY  Exactly as it sounds, this is a direct appeal to the emotion of pity.  By evoking the emotion within the recipient; making them feel for the giver of the message or making them feel for the analogy provided, the recipient accepts the premise/conclusion/argument

20. APPEAL TO FEAR  Again, exactly like it says…appealing to one’s sense of fear to motivate or support an opinion.  Often, politicians are accused of this when campaigning…the appeal to fear vs safety has proven to be a strong political tool.

21. FALSE ANALOGY  The fallacy of constructing an analogy that is somewhat similar to the argument and then supporting or refuting the analogy in order to make a similar claim about the original  With the understanding that no two scenarios are ever exactly alike, it is important to not that there is a degree to which the analogy is helpful in simplifying and clarifying an argument.

22. What to do… 1) Create a simple ppt slide with a clear definition of your assigned fallacy  THEN… 2) create a list of at least 4 examples on a second slide and connect to specific AoK  OR… 3) make a brief and original video that clearly illustrates one example of the fallacy (for example, try to sell a fake product in a way that illustrates the fallacy clearly)  OR… 4) Find at least TWO ‘real world’ examples in advertisements, speeches, debates…etc

23. YOU WILL AIR DROP YOUR WORK TO ONE OF US BEFORE THE END OF CLASS!!! Sources: ◦Definitions from http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/ ◦Definitions and examples from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.htmlhttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html