“ ”

“ ” “ ”
•
 While faulty generalizations tend to
forget about individuals or situations about
whom the generalization doesn’t apply,
valid generalizations can help us draw
a conclusion about our world.
 A FALLACY is the use of invalid or otherwise
FAULTY reasoning, or "wrong moves"
in the construction of an argument/claim.
“ ”
 In the short story, the protagonist must
understand that it takes more than knowledge, logic,
or reason to create an emotional connection.
– “ ”
 Overall, to avoid making, spreading, or
believing faulty generalizations, TAKE A STEP
BACK, ANALYZE THE OPINION, AND CONSIDER
THE SOURCE. To find the truth, look for evidence
both supporting and opposing a statement
because there are two sides to every story.
 – argument based on an unqualified generalization;
It is A VERY BROAD APPLICATION TO A SINGLE PREMISE hence untrue
Eg. : “Exercise is good. Therefore, everybody should exercise.”
(Reason: Exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people.)
: “Men are statistically more aggressive than women. Therefore, I, a male,
must be more aggressive than you, a female.”

– a conclusion based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE or

on a SMALL SAMPLE ONLY; few examples cannot support the argument/conclusion
Eg. : “Obama can’t speak Russian. Trump can’t speak Russian.
Therefore, I conclude that no US president can speak Russian.”
(Reason: More or less some US Presidents do not know how to speak Russian, too.)
: “Even it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.”
3.
– RESTATES/REPEATS the argument rather than proving it; assuming that an
argument is true in order to justify a conclusion
Eg. : “George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.”
(Reason: Specific evidence such as his speech delivery, his organized way of illustrating
his points would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.)
:“The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.” – Donald Trump
:“Women should be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy,
so, abortion should be legal.”
4. – an argument is concluded by REDUCING IT TO ONLY
TWO SIDES OR CHOICES possible when more than two alternatives exist.
Eg. : “We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.”
(Reason: The author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner
technology, car-sharing systems, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.)
: “The only boys worth dating on campus are Dave and Steve.”
5. – You cannot compare TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
Eg. :“If doctors use X-rays to guide them in operations, then students should
always have open notes in exams.”
(Reason: X-rays are used for medical treatment. Tests are used to measure learning.)
: Failing to tip a waitress is like stealing money out of somebody’s wallet.
(Of course, failing to tip is very rude, especially when the service has been good.
However, people are not arrested for failing to tip as they would be for stealing
money from a wallet. To compare stingy diners with thieves is a false analogy.)

6. – premises of an argument contradict each other,

THEN NO ARGUMENT CAN BE DONE; draw a conclusion from inconsistent
or incompatible premises/situations.
Simply, a proposition is contradictory when it asserts and denies the same thing.
Eg. : “I don’t care what you believe, as long as your beliefs don’t harm others.”
: “Don’t trust anyone except me.”
7. – APPEALING FOR SYMPATHY;
someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting
his opponent's feelings, sometimes the appeal is irrelevant or exaggerated
Eg. : When a boss recommends someone for a promotion and makes the argument that
the person really needs the additional money to support his family.
: Commercials show starving children in Africa before asking for donation.
: “I’ve had so much disappointments and heartaches in dating, so please don’t
break my heart.”
– one attempts to persuade another by using threats,
intimidation, or any form of implied harm instead of
presenting valid arguments; You are not winning based on your ability;
you are MANIPULATING THE SITUATION TO FORCE AN OUTCOME.
Eg. : “Agree with me, or I'll take away your toy.”
: Some ads make you feel like you must buy something now or you'll miss out.
This is a kind of threat that makes you worried you won't get something good.
 – it is persuading or trying to trick someone
to do something by praising them; uses compliments (flattery) to win over
the audience
Eg. :“Speaker A: Will you make us a cup of coffee?
Speaker B: I’m up for it, it’s no problem. However, I really like it the way
you make it. You’re like a coffee god or something.
Speaker A: Okay, sure. I’ll make it. ”
: “I see that you, my audience, are elegant, educated, smart people. I think
that people like you will like my version of the electric car.”
(Explanation: The speaker is associating elegant and educated people with the electric car
– implementing the idea in the audience that the electric car is made for them.)
10. – an appeal that presents what most people,
or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way.
Eg. : “Cathy is opposed to social media because she would rather have a face-to-face
conversations. However, more and more of Cathy's friends have joined social media
sites, so Cathy feels like she needs to create an account as well.”
: “A 2005 Gallup Poll found that an estimated 25% of Americans over the
age of 18 believe in astrology—or that the position of the stars and planets can
affect people's lives. That is roughly 75,000,000 people. Therefore, there must be
some truth to astrology!”
11 – a conclusion that does not follow logically from what
preceded it; RESPONSES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the conversation
which indicates adbsurdity
Eg. : If a friend asked you how you are doing and you replied with something
about polar bears, that would be a non sequitur.
: ”All birds have wings. That creature has wings. Therefore, that creature is a bird.”
 . – treating hypothetical situations as fact in
formulating conclusions; offering a poorly supported claim about what might
have happened, IF (THE HYPOTHETICAL) CIRCUMSTANCESOR CONDITIONS
WERE DIFFERENT.
Eg. : “If an apple didn’t fall on Newton, we would never have discovered gravity.”
(Reason: Even if an apple hadn’t fallen near Newton, we still would have
discovered gravity somehow.)
: “John, if you would have taken a shower more often, you would still be dating Tina.”

13 – act of reducing the complexity of an issue to the point

where essential details are lost; it risks omitting critical aspects of the subject.
Eg. : “Success is solely a result of hardwork.”
: “She was saved solely because she wore a seat belt.
(We should not ignore the fact that some people wearing seat belts survive serious accidents while others do
not. The logical problem here is the dismissal of all other factors that contribute to a person's survival.)
14 – This is a conclusion based on the premise that if
A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will
happen, too. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either;
When someone assumes A VERY SMALL ACTION WILL LEAD
TO EXTREME OUTCOMES.
Eg. : “People might say that if same-sex marriage is legal, then it won’t be long
before people demand to marry minors.”
: “If we allow our teenager to have her first date tonight, what's next? A wedding, kids?”
15 – since event B followed event A, event B must
have been caused by event A; WHEN YOU MISTAKE SOMETHING for the cause
SINCE IT CAME FIRST – A mistake correlation was drawn between two events
Eg. : “Let’s not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.”
(Instead : We’ve had Bill with us twice and it rained on both occasions.)
: “One month before I met my significant one I saw a shooting star,
and I wished that I would find my soulmate. The legend is really true!”
16. – discrediting an opponent with a NEGATIVE
INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME; dismissing someone due to a perceived flaw
An example of Poisoning the well is when you negatively judge people in your personal life.
Eg. : “Oh, you are seeing Dr. Thomas? He really gives me the creeps, so just watch out.”
: “Your friend tells you that her brother wants to date you, but she says that he is a player and
never keeps a girlfriend for very long. Now, when you meet him, your opinion will be tainted.”
: “CITY COUNCILMAN: The Mayor's a very good talker. Yes, talk he can do . . .
and do very well. But when it comes time for action, that's a different matter.”
17. – This is an ATTACK ON THE CHARACTER OF A PERSON
OR PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES rather than his or her opinions or arguments
as a way to discredit their argument.
Eg. : “Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.”
(Reason: In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace
has suggested, instead, he attacks the characters by giving the such bad connotation.)
: “That face cream can't be good. Kim Kardashian is selling it.”
: “You've only ever lived in the city. The issues that matter to America's heartland
are clearly beyond your comprehension.”
18. – This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues,
often by using irrelevant information rather than addressing the issue/argument
Eg. : Andy: “Hey, what's with all this junk food you bought? You're always railing at me
about eating healthy.” Aunt Bea: “Don't fuss -- it was on sale.”
: “My opponent has argued that there’s an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases
in order to minimize global warming. But the most serious problem facing future generations
is the risk posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states and terrorists.”
19. – Person A making a claim, Person B creating a distorted version
of the claim (the straw man), then Person B attacking this distorted version in order
to refute Person A’s original assertion; The person ignores the argument and
presents a “pretend argument”
Eg. : Wife: I'd rather have a dog than a cat. Husband: Why do you hate cats?
: “Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Donald Trump's positions have
merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student believes in support racism.”
: “I overheard my friend John argue that the Bible has errors in it.
Funny, I never figured him for an atheist.”
½
Print your answers on a short bond paper.
FORMAT: Arial, 12, 1.5 spacing
1. WATCH ANY STAND-UP COMEDY SPECIAL on Netflix/Youtube
whether a full special or a video clips of it.
(You can check out comedians like Gabriel Iglesias, Pete Russel, John Mulaney Jack White,
Seth Meyers, Hasan Minhaj, Iliza Shlesinger, Ricky Gervais, Michelle Buteau, Bill Burr,
Sebastian Maniscalco, etc.)
2. IDENTIFY THREE (3) FALLACIES OF DIFFERENT TYPES from the video.
3. Write them down. Then, EXPLAIN why is it that type of fallacy.
Label each of the fallacies accordingly.
Include the title of the Special and the Comedian’s name.
Deadline on Thursday (Nov. 23)/ Friday (Nov. 24)
• https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

• https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

• https://youtu.be/Va6CI87t9rs