2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?

lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
Home

Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication

Weeks 7-8: EXPRESSING OPINION AND TAKING A STAND ON AN ISSUE

Critical Thinking and Fallacies

Topic: Expressing Opinion and Taking a Stand on an Issue: Critical Thinking, and Fallacies

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:
 

  1.
    Explain the importance of expressing one’s opinion;
  2.
    Describe the process on how to argue logically
  3.
    Define critical thinking, logic, and rhetoric; and
  4.
    Determine sample logical fallacies.

LEARNING CONTENT

Introduction:

Expressing Opinion and Taking a Stand on an Issue: Critical Thinking, and Fallacies
Let’s start this chapter by looking into this mystery case.

Three friends went out to the forest. They found a dead body under a tree and called the police. Two detectives arrived soon. They figured out that the man died a month ago. Detective 1 said,
“There was a major hurricane about a month ago. Perhaps, he was one of its victims.” Detective 2 on the other hand said, “I don’t think so. It was a murder!” Who do you think is right?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bboDwVP9cDs&t=46s

What is your opinion about the mystery case above? Is it really an accident or a murder?

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 1/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
Actually, all of us can have our own opinion depending on how we perceive the case. However, voicing out different opinions can lead to heated arguments. This usually happens especially when we
fail to understand the point of view of the other party. Expressing opinions and making a stand is not bad. We just need to listen, respect, and accept other people’s views.

Source: https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-a-partial-this-is-a-partial-but-correct-AgL5qB6w7

Engaging in a healthy discussion and exchange of views could actually help explore the different angles of an issue. This will lead us to formulate or come up with a wise decision or conclusion. For
example, you and your friend might take different stance on the mystery case given. You might argue that detective 1 is right while your friend might also assert that detective 2 is right and not
detective 1. When the two of you will listen to each other’s side, both of you will understand where each of you is coming from. With that, you can come up with a final conclusion after assessing both
of your views.

So who do you think is right? Is it detective 1 or detective 2? The answer is detective 2. It is a murder case. Figure it out yourself why is it a murder case (Study the picture).

Lesson Proper:

     When you make a stand and exchange views with other people, you are actually engaging yourself to argumentation. There are many ways in engaging into an argumentation such as debate
(more systematic or structured way). One can also use argumentation in the editorial section of a newspaper, in an argumentative essay, and position papers.

     Argumentation as a way of expressing one’s view entails responsibilities. In expressing our views, we must not fabricate information, promote discrimination and hatred, and violate one’s right to
privacy, as cited by Suarez (2018), (Burton, 1999).

        Now, how do we assert our argument? We assert our argument by formulating our thesis statement. Thesis statement, as defined by Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020), is a one-to-two
sentence statement that presents the main idea and makes an assertion about your issue. Remember that your thesis statement is very important in making your assertion. It identifies and organizes
the content and the direction of your key ideas. It also indicates your stand and the reason that supports it. It has two parts: the general subject (what you are talking about) and the specific focus
(what you want to say about it.) For example, you may claim that studying abroad is more difficult (general subject) because it entails adjusting to a new culture and educational system (specific
focus, controlling idea) (Suarez, 2018 ).

     How do you argue with other people? Do you argue like those two people in the picture below?

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 2/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
Source: https://thewordplayer.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/

Take note that arguing does not necessarily mean quarrelling and yelling with the other party. We can have a peaceful and logical way of arguing by following the steps provided below.

HOW TO ARGUE LOGICALLY

(Suarez, 2018)

  1.
     Examine an issue by doing relevant research on its different dimensions.
  2.
     Choose the side you would like to support.
  3.
     Formulate your argumentative thesis by identifying the general subject and the specific focus or controlling idea.
  4.
     Present your arguments and their corresponding evidence.
  5.
    Listen to your opponents arguments and weigh their evidence. Acknowledge their valid points and point out the weaknesses in weaknesses in their claims. Rebuild your arguments
based on the counter-claims.
  6.
    Make a summary of the key arguments. Conclude with a call to action.

     Doing a research about your topic or issue will help a lot in establishing your stance; by researching you can gather evidences that will help you prove your point. Remember that asserting your
point/ claim without evidence is useless. It is like erecting a building without a solid foundation.

     Now let’s go back to the mystery case given in the introduction part of this module. How will you prove that detective 2 is right - that indeed it was a murder? Of course as discussed above, you
have to gather evidences. In short, you have to investigate. You have to look into clues and evidences that will prove your point that detective 2 is indeed right. You have to build a solid foundation
that could back up your claim or argument. You cannot just claim that detective 2 is right just because you feel that he is right. Thus, a sound argument is evidenced-based and factual.

     Solving the mystery case is like combining the missing pieces of a picture. Now, what does it take for a detective to analyse a scenario and solve a crime? What do you usually use in analysing?

 Source: http://www.clipartpanda.com/clipart_images/human-outline-clipart-best-65940744

If your answer is critical thinking, then you are correct!

CRITICAL THINKING
(Suarez, 2018)

        The foundation of argumentation is critical thinking. As cited in the Critical Thinking Community (2015), Francis Bacon avowed in 1605 that “Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt,
fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture” (Suarez, 2018).  It simply means that critical thinking
involves being discerning, skeptical and meticulous.

How do you know that you are thinking critically? You are a critical thinker if you:

     Question ideas first before you accept them.

     See beyond the information that is given to you.
     Open your mind to different possibilities.

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 3/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
     Listen to what the others have to say.
     Examine and re-examine an issue’s various dimensions before making conclusions.
     Substantiate your conclusions with valid and reliable proofs.

When you think critically, you use your higher order thinking skills. You usually use the questions “How? Why? How come?” You ask for validations, either on other people’s claims or your own
claim.

Now, in the process of critical thinking, a significant thing that one must use in order to arrive with a sensible and sound argument is logic. Logic must come together with rhetoric in
argumentation. What does it mean?

LOGIC AND RHETORIC

(Suarez, 2018).

Logic refers to the science of thinking methodically while rhetoric refers to the art of communicating persuasively. Both are important in arguing a point effectively. For example, a speaker or
      
writer may sound convincing with his use of catchy statements and moving narratives, but his argument may not be valid or relevant (involves rhetoric only). On the other hand, another speaker or
writer may offer sound claims, but he lacks the skill to establish rapport with his audience, his arguments fall flat (involves use of logic only). What does this imply? It means that we need both logic
and rhetoric to make a sound argument that is effective to convince our audience and prove our point.  

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

(Suarez, 2018)

      Aside from logic and rhetoric, another significant process in critical thinking and argumentation is the skill of reasoning. Reasoning, according to Cavander and Kanahe (2010), is the essential
ingredient in problem solving. When you reason, you present a particular argument which has two parts: the conclusion that reflects the main idea, the claim, thesis, or the proposed idea (Rudinow
and Barry, 2008), and the premise that indicates the basis of the conclusion and shows the reason behind it and/or the evidence to prove it (Cavender and Kanahe, 2010).

Look at the examples below:

Sample A

Premises:

Air pollution is a big problem that should be reduced in Tuguegarao City.

Smoking cigarettes is a major cause of air pollution.

Conclusion/ Thesis/ Claims:

Therefore, smoking should be banned in Tuguegarao City.

Sample B

Premises:

Leading companies across the globe hire many USL graduates.

Established higher education institutions accept many USL graduates.

Conclusion:

Therefore, USL produces top quality graduates.

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 4/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
 

As mentioned above critical thinking also involves skills in reasoning. Under this, we have the deductive and inductive reasoning. Now, look again at the given examples above and study them
closely. So what do you think is the difference between Sample A and Sample B? Which argument is under deductive? And which argument is under inductive? If your answer is, sample A is under
deductive reasoning and sample B is under inductive reasoning, then you are right! Let’s differentiate then deductive from inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is when you arrive at a conclusion based on a general idea that leads to a more specific idea. For example in Sample A, the main idea implied in the premises is that,
 there is a need to reduce air pollution ( general idea) and it leads to the specific idea that to reduce pollution, smoking must be banned in University A. On the other hand, inductive reasoning is
when you look at specific details and use them as bases of your conclusion. For instance in sample B, the specific details given are: leading companies hire many University A students, and
established higher education accept them. These two specific details will lead you to the general conclusion (idea) that University A produces top quality graduates.

In short, deductive reasoning is from general to specific while inductive reasoning is from specific to general. Take note, you have to be very keen in identifying whether an argument is
presented through deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. You have to evaluate well the given premises and conclusion.

Moving on, you can use the three types of rhetorical appeals or Aristotle’s modes of proof (Weida and Stolley 2013; McCormack, 2014) in expressing and defending your arguments:

    Logos(logical appeal) – uses deductive and/or inductive thinking in presenting your view, makes use of examples, consequences, and comparisons and contrasts, and uses academic or
formal language
    Ethos(ethical appeal) – finds strength in the authority and credibility of the sources of information, requires to present different sides of the argument and declare personal interest in the
issue,uses language that is suitable for a particular audience
     Pathos(emotional appeal) – involve audience by sharing specific narratives that can move them, use of rhetorical questions and figurative language to catch attention and provoke insight
about an issue, use language that evokes strong feelings

We can use the combination of logos, ethos, and pathos in developing arguments.

Oftentimes, we confidently think that our arguments are strong enough to prove our point. However, we sometimes overlook the simple things that make our arguments faulty or erroneous. We
call those faulty arguments or statements fallacies. Suarez (2018) defined fallacies as the statements that reflect flaws and inconsistencies in your reasoning. In short, it involves weak reasoning in
raising arguments. Here are the different types of fallacies you might commit unknowingly:

FALLACIES
Sources: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/  https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/writingprocess/logicalfallacies

https://www.mesacc.edu/~paoih30491/ArgumentsFallaciesQ.html

     1. Hasty generalization
    Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small).

    For example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!"
     Example 2:Two out of three patients who were given green tea before bedtime reported sleeping more soundly. Therefore, green tea may be used to treat insomnia.  

    Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion. 

     2. Missing the point

    The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

     For example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very
serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving."

    The argument actually supports several conclusions. "The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious," in particular--but it doesn't support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is
warranted.

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 5/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401

     3. Post Hoc, ergo propter hoc(after this, therefore because of this)

    Also called false cause

    Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.

     For example: "President Duterte raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Duterte is responsible for the rise in   crime.

     The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.

    Example 2: Drop-out rates increased the year after NCLB was passed. Therefore, NCLB is causing kids to drop out.

    4. Non- Sequitur (it does not follow)

    This fallacy is revealed when you jump to conclusions.

    For example: Just because an anti-dengue campaign worked in one region, it does not mean it will work for all regions.

       Remember that one incident may not necessarily lead to another.

Example 2: Professor Berger has published numerous articles in immunology. Therefore, she is an expert in complementary medicine.

     5. Slippery slope
     The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we
take even one step onto the “slippery slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop partway down the hill.

     For example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society
will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal
right now."

    Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take place.

    Example 2: If you continue to watch professional wrestling, your grades will drop, you will become violent, and eventually you will end up in jail. 

     6.  Weak analogy

   Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak
one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

    For example: "Guns are like hammers--they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers--so
restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous."

  - While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to
restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a
hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

    7.  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’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree
with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

    For example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." - While Guy Handsome may be an
authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty
than the person writing the paper.
    Example 2:“Bruce Willis supports Save the Whales International, so it must be a good cause.”

     8.  Ad populum

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 6/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
    The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked
and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince
the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

    For example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!”

    While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a substantial
number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our
desire to fit in with other Americans.

    Example 2: "The majority of Americans think we should have military operations in Afghanistan, therefore it’s the right thing to do." 

    9.   Ad hominem and tu quoque

     Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or
evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad
hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

    For Example(Ad hominem): “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?”

   Dworkin’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.   

    For Example(Tu Quoque): Imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so
forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!”

    The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your
response is fallacious.

      10. Ad Misericordiam(Appeal to pity)

    The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

    For example: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really hard for me to
study!”
    Example 2: A woman applies to college. When the Admissions Director asks about her grades, test scores, and extracurricular activities, she states that she didn’t have much time to study
because her mother has been sick for several years and she has had to work through almost all of high school.

    The arguers simply express their misery and uses emotion to convince people to accept their stance.

     11.  Appeal to ignorance

    The arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on    this issue.”

     For example:

1.      “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.”
2.       Taking vitamin X is good for you since nobody taking it has become sick.

     Not proven, therefore false.

     12.  Straw man

    It occurs when someone takes another person’s point or argument, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if this is really the claim the
person is making.

      For example:

                     Person 1: I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change.

                     Person 2: So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather, like   

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 7/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401
                                      hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If

                                      that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the southwest and perform a  

                                      “rain dance.”

    Notice that the second person’s argument overstated the argument of the first person, and began attacking it using his overstatement.

   13.    Red herring

    Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

    For example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.”

    When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice
sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not
given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

    Example 2: "Air bags in cars do not really increase safety, and, besides, most cars with air bags are Japanese imports. We all know that foreigners cannot be trusted."

  18.     False dichotomy

    The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer
wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

    For example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must
tear the building down." - The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question--for example, if only a
few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.
   Example 2: “To stop the spread of AIDS we must either quarantine all infected people or ban same sex marriage. Since the first option is clearly impossible, we should make same sex
marriage illegal.” 

   18.    Begging the question (Circular Argument/ Circular reasoning)

    It occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

    It is also called arguing in circle.

    For example: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.”

   If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,” and “help another
human being escape suffering through death” means something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion
does. The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument
“begs” (that is, evades) the real question.

    Example 2: Special education students should not be required to take standardized tests because such tests are meant for non-special education students.

  19.    Equivocation
    Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

    For example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.”

   The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both something that is correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and something to which someone has a claim (as in
“everyone has a right to life”). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or
misunderstanding. Either way, it’s important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.

   So how do I find fallacies in my own writing?

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 8/9
2/22/22, 3:56 PM Code 938_ ENGL 1013:Purposive Communication - https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443§ion_id=53066401

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:
(The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2020)

    Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to
strengthening those parts.
    List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a
particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you’re using.
    Learn which types of fallacies you’re especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on weak
analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there’s a particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.
    Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like “all,” “no,” “none,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “no one,” and “everyone” are sometimes
appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words like “some,” “many,” “few,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth.
    Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents; to be sure they are accurate and fair.

Key Take-Aways:

    Argumentation involves critical thinking and evidences to prove your point.

    Critical thinkinguses higher order thinking skills.
    Deductive reasoningis from general to specific while inductive reasoning is from specific to general.
    Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument (The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue  and Purdue University, 2020).

*** END of LESSON 8***

REFERENCES

Textbooks

Suarez, C., et. Al. (2018) Purposive Communication in English. Quezon City : Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Online Reference

Argumentative Fallacies. Retrieved from https://www.mesacc.edu/~paoih30491/ArgumentsFallaciesQ.html

Handout: Argument. Retrieved from

        http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mulready/Handouts/Argument%20Fallacy%20Handout.pdf

The Writing Center University of North Carolina at Chapel (2020 ). Fallacies. Retrieved from

       https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

Walden University (2020). Writing a paper: avoiding logical fallacies. Retrieved from  

         https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/writingprocess/logicalfallacies

https://usl-tuguegarao.neolms.com/student_lesson/show/3134757?lesson_id=14422443&section_id=53066401 9/9