This document discusses several types of logical fallacies:
1) Dicto simpliciter - making overgeneralized claims without exceptions or context
2) Hasty generalization - drawing broad conclusions from small, unrepresentative samples
3) Contradictory premises - arguments with inconsistent or incompatible premises
It provides examples for each fallacy type to illustrate common logical flaws in reasoning.
This document discusses several types of logical fallacies:
1) Dicto simpliciter - making overgeneralized claims without exceptions or context
2) Hasty generalization - drawing broad conclusions from small, unrepresentative samples
3) Contradictory premises - arguments with inconsistent or incompatible premises
It provides examples for each fallacy type to illustrate common logical flaws in reasoning.
This document discusses several types of logical fallacies:
1) Dicto simpliciter - making overgeneralized claims without exceptions or context
2) Hasty generalization - drawing broad conclusions from small, unrepresentative samples
3) Contradictory premises - arguments with inconsistent or incompatible premises
It provides examples for each fallacy type to illustrate common logical flaws in reasoning.
complex ideas, and to be able to read beyond what the text is saying. Logical Fallacies • the ability to pose question • the ability to analyze a problem in all its dimension - define its key terms, determine its causes, understand its history, appreciate its human dimension and its connection to one’s own personal experience. and appreciate what it makes it problematic or complex. • the ability to imagine alternative solutions to the problem and to see different ways in which the question might be answered and different perspective for viewing it. • the ability to write an effective argument justifying your choice while acknowledging counter-arguments. • can often be used to mislead people - to trick them into believing something they otherwise wouldn’t. • it is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed, leading to an unsupported conclusion. Dicto Simpliciter • argument based on as unqualified generalization, - statement that draws a general conclusion on the basis of biased or insufficient evidence.
• a fallacy that involves making oversimplified
generalizations without considering exceptions, variations or context. Example: 1. EXERCISE IS GOOD. THEREFORE EVERYBODY SHOULD EXERCISE. 2. All politicians are corrupt. 3. Children nowadays are addicted to smartphones. Hasty Generalization • Claim made on the basis of insufficient evidence. Instead of looking into examples and evidence that are much more in line with the typical or average situation, you draw conclusion about a large population using a small, unrepresentative sample. Example 1. I’ve met three redheads and they were all mean, so all redheads are mean. 2. You can speak French, I can’t speak French, Petey Burch can’t speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody in the University of Minnesota can speak French. 3. The car that just cut me off is from Danao, so all the people from Danao are jerks. Contradictory Premises involve an argument (generally considered a logical fallacy) that draws a conclusion from inconsistent or incompatible premises. Essentially, a proposition is contradictory when it asserts and denies the same thing. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
- appealing to a person’s unfortunate
circumstances as a way of getting someone to accept a conclusion. Example 1. You need to pass me on this course, since I’ll lose my scholarship if you don’t. 2. Could you please change my grade from D to C? i worked really hard for this assignment. I even pulled an all-nighter to finish on time, and my parents will be so disappointed! 3. He should not be punished becuase he is just a little child. False Analogy
- the assumption that two things
share multiple similarities simply because they have one thing in common. Example 1. Joan and Mary both drive pickup trucks. Since Joan is teacher, Mary must also be a teacher. 2. Students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during examinations. After all, surgeons have briefs to guide them during an operation, lawyers have briefs during a trial, carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a house. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (WHAT IF)
THE RESULTS OF AN EXPERIMENT OR
RESEARCH RAN COUNTER TO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY PREDICTED. OFFERING POORLY SUPPORTED CLAIM ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST OR FUTURE EXAMPLE 1. IF YOU DIDN’T FLIP HEADS ON THE COIN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAILS. 2. IF YOU TOOK THAT COURSE ON CD PLAYER REPAIR RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL, YOU WOULD BE DOING WELL AND GAINFULLY EMPLOYED RIGHT NOW. POISONING THE WELL (AD HOMINEM ATTACK) • A LOGICAL FALLACY IN WHICH A PERSON ATTEMPTS TO PLACE AN OPPONENT IN A POSITION FROM WHICH HE OR SHE IS UNABLE TO REPLY. • A TYPE OF FALLACY WHERE (IRRELEVANT) NEGATIVE INFORMATION IS PREEMPTIVELY PRESENTED TO AN AUDIENCE TO DISCREDIT WHATEVER THE OPPONENT IS ABOUT TO SAY. EXAMPLE 1. TWO MEN ARE HAVING A DEBATE. THE FIRST ONE GETS UP AND SAYS, “MY OPPONENT IS A NOTORIOUS LIAR. YOU CAN’T BELIEVE A WORD THAT HE IS GOING TO SAY”.