English 1C Reading, Fallacies and premise support notes | Study notes English Literature

Ethos: Which sources are reliable (Strong ethos)? Not reliable (weak ethos)?

Credibility, trust. Cites credible sources.

Pathos: Which part of the article makes care? Strong pathos. Does any part of the

article seem biased or put off? (Weak pathos)

Cogent Premises: LOGOS Which premises seem logically to lead to the conclusion

(Cogent)? Which premises do not lead logically to the conclusion (lack of cogency)?

Supported Premises: Which premises are supported by statistics/research and/or

examples? Which are not? We call these speculations as opposed to support.

Omissions:(weakness) Is the argument missing any obvious ethos? Missing any obvious

information?

Anticipates opposing views and answers them (strengh)

Logical fallacies (weakness)

Analogies Are the analogies strong? Weak?

Strong premises are supported by logos.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Hasty Generalization: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases

based on the sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too

small). Stereotypes about people are common examples of the principle underlying

this fallacy. (Not enough evidence to support the premise)

Post Hoc: Assuming B comes after A, A caused B. (After this, therefore because of

this) (Possible other causes)

Slippery Slope: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending

with dire consequences, will take place, but there is not enough evidence for this

assumption.(No support for reasoning only assumptions)

Weak Analogy: Analog. Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more

objects, ideas, or situations. (Too many differences instead of similarities,

making a comparison to a similarity to outweigh the differences).

Appeal to Authority: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to

respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we

are discussing. If however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by

impressing the with famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really

isn’t much of an expert we commit a fallacy of appeal to authorit.

Ad Populum: The arguer takes advantage most people have to be linked and to fit in

with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his argument.

(All these people do this, therefore you should do it)

Ad hominem and tu quoque: A”gainst the person” and “you too”. In Ad hominem he

arguer attacks his opponent instead of the opponent’s argument. (Just because the

person is not perfect does not mean is not qualified)

Tu quoque: The arguer points out that the opponent has actually done a thing he is

arguing agains, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to.

Appeal to pity: takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a

conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. The ask of the arguer is too

great for the pity one is asked to feel for their situation. ( making pledges that

overpasses the limits)

Appeal to ignorance: The arguer basically says “look, there’s no conclusive

evidence on the issue on hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this

issue.” (You cannot prove it, but it does not mean that it does not exists)

Partial preview of the text

Download English 1C Reading, Fallacies and premise support notes and more Study notes English Literature in PDF only on Docsity!

Ethos: Which sources are reliable (Strong ethos)? Not reliable (weak ethos)? Credibility, trust. Cites credible sources. Pathos: Which part of the article makes care? Strong pathos. Does any part of the article seem biased or put off? (Weak pathos) Cogent Premises : LOGOS Which premises seem logically to lead to the conclusion (Cogent)? Which premises do not lead logically to the conclusion (lack of cogency)? Supported Premises : Which premises are supported by statistics/research and/or examples? Which are not? We call these speculations as opposed to support. Omissions: (weakness) Is the argument missing any obvious ethos? Missing any obvious information? Anticipates opposing views and answers them (strengh) Logical fallacies (weakness) Analogies Are the analogies strong? Weak? Strong premises are supported by logos.

Hasty Generalization: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on the sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people are common examples of the principle underlying this fallacy. (Not enough evidence to support the premise) Post Hoc: Assuming B comes after A, A caused B. (After this, therefore because of this) (Possible other causes) Slippery Slope: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending with dire consequences, will take place, but there is not enough evidence for this assumption. (No support for reasoning only assumptions) Weak Analogy : Analog. Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. (Too many differences instead of similarities, making a comparison to a similarity to outweigh the differences). Appeal to Authority: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we are discussing. If however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing the with famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert we commit a fallacy of appeal to authorit. Ad Populum: The arguer takes advantage most people have to be linked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his argument. (All these people do this, therefore you should do it) Ad hominem and tu quoque: A”gainst the person” and “you too”. In Ad hominem he arguer attacks his opponent instead of the opponent’s argument. (Just because the person is not perfect does not mean is not qualified) Tu quoque: The arguer points out that the opponent has actually done a thing he is arguing agains, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Appeal to pity: takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. The ask of the arguer is too great for the pity one is asked to feel for their situation. ( making pledges that overpasses the limits) Appeal to ignorance: The arguer basically says “look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue on hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.” (You cannot prove it, but it does not mean that it does not exists)

Straw man: the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. (It does not address the real argument. In purpose misrepresents the other side) Red herring: Distracts from the original topic. Premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. The speaker never address the initial concerns. (to divert someone so the other can do/say other things) False dichotomy: The arguer sets up the situation so it looks there are only two choices. Begging the question: Asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; argument either relies in a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you migh hear referred as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”) or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. (Basically saying x+x=x and making it seem as argument) Equivocation : Change, equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument. (A word with more than one meaning) Fallacy of composition: arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part) (1. Atoms are not visible to the naked eye. 2. Humanans are made up of atoms. 3. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye) Fallacy of division: Occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. (1. A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean. 2. A Boeing 747 has jet engines

3. Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean) Accident: Deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on generalization) when an exception to the generalization is ignored. (1. cutting people with a knife is a crime. 2. Surgeons cut people with knives. 3. Surgeons are criminals) Complex question : is committed when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked and a single answer is applied to both questions. This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge. (Ex: Have you stopped cheating on the exams? Where did you hide the cookies you stole? When did you begging a drug problem?) Biased Statistic Fallacy: Occurs when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sampla that us biased or prejudiced in some manner. Ad Baculum or Appeal to force : Is an argument wher force, coercion, or the threat of force is given as justification. It generally appears as follows: If X accepts P is true, then Q. Q is a punishment on X. Therefore P is not true) (ex: Employee: I do not think the company should invest its money into this project. Employer: If you say that in our meeting, I will fire you) The Texas sharpshooter : This fallacy involves cherrypicking data/evidence that supports your argument and deny/ignore/hide evidence that changes it. The Middle ground fallacy : involves imagining that many problems can be solved by playing the opposite/extremes against some middle person.

Argument : Premise(s) and conclusion. At least one premise and conclusion.

English 1C Reading, Fallacies and premise support notes, Study notes of English Literature

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download English 1C Reading, Fallacies and premise support notes and more Study notes English Literature in PDF only on Docsity!