1. If you must argue, argue correctly.

2. A solid argument is based on three key appeals:  Ethos (appeals to the sense of right and wrong)  Pathos (emotional appeals)  Logos (appeals based on logic)

3.  Many arguments fail to persuade because they lack sound reasoning.  Rhetorical fallacies are to blame!

4. Definition: fal ⋅ la ⋅ cy [fal-uh-see]–noun 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: EX. That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. a misleading or unsound argument. 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; 4. In logic, any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

5. …come in three flavors:  Ethical Fallacies: unreasonably advance the writer’s own authority or character  Emotional Fallacies: unfairly appeal to the audience’s emotions  Logical Fallacies: depend on faulty logic

6.  One problem that many people have when they argue is that they slip fallacies into their arguments without knowing it.  Fallacies weaken arguments!  They sound great, and may seem to make sense on the surface, but do not serve to actually persuade the opposition.

7.  Know them.  Recognize them.  Do not use them!  The best part of all comes when one can point out a fallacy during the course of argument to the speaker. The argument usually stops very quickly thereafter.

8. Ethical Fallacies

9.  False authority : asks audiences to agree with the speaker’s assertion based on his/her character or the authority of another person or institution that isn’t qualified to offer that assertion.  EX. My third grade teacher said so, so it must be true.  Guilt by association: calls someone’s character into question by examining the character of that person’s associates.  EX. Sara’s friend Amy robbed a bank; Sara is a delinquent.  Dogmatisim: shuts down discussion by asserting that that the speaker’s beliefs are the only acceptable ones:  EX. I’m sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that’s that.

10.  Ad hominem (character attack)– arguments that attack a person’s character rather than their reasoning  EX. Why should think a candidate who recently divorced will keep his campaign promises?  Ad Hominem Tu Quoque - Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser.  EX. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start." Jill: “How can you even say that? You smoke 3 packs a day!"  Strawman – these arguments set up and dismantle easily refutable argument in order to misrepresent and opponents argument in order to defeat him or her  Speaker A: We need to regulate access to handguns.  Speaker B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom.

11. Emotional Fallacies

12.  Sentimental appeals : use emotion to distract the audience from the facts.  EX. The thousands of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source.  Scare tactics : these try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences.  EX. If you don’t support the party’s tax plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty.  Bandwagon appeals : encourage an audience to agree with the speaker because everyone else is doing it.  EX. Paris Hilton carries a small dog in her purse, so you should buy a hairless Chihuahua and put it in your Loius Vuitton.

13.  Slippery Slope : these arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous consequences.  EX. If you get a B in high school, you’ll never get into college, and therefore will never have a meaningful career.  Either/Or choices : reduces complicated issues to two possible courses of action  EX. The patent office can either approve my new engine design or say goodbye forever to a low emissions car.  False need : these arguments create false need  EX. You need this expensive car or people won’t think you’re cool.

14. Logical Fallacies

15.  Hasty generalization : draws conclusions from minimal evidence  EX. I wouldn’t eat at that restaurant – the only time I ate there. My entrée was undercooked.  Post hoc (false causality): these arguments confuse chronology with causation, one event can occur without being caused by it.  EX. A year after the release of the violent shoot-’em-up game Annihilator, incidents of violence tripled – surely not a coincidence.  Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow): is a statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An important logical step is missing!  EX. Johnson has missed his last five free throws. He’s normally an 80% shooter, so he’s got to make this one!

16.  Begging the question : occurs when the speaker simply restates the claim in a different way; such an argument is circular.  EX. His lies are evident from the untruthful nature of his statements.  Faulty analogy : is an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things.  EX. Letting prisoners out on early release is like absolving them of their crimes.