Announcements

• No class Monday!! ☺

• And we have an awesome quiz #3 on

Tuesday!! ☺

• Prepare for quiz #3 by reviewing last

two homework assignments, today’s

review questions, and Exercises 7-9,

7-10, 7-11

HW Essay #3 Review

Assignment:

• You were asked take note of an advertisement that seems

to be using a fallacy from CH 6 and to identify what fallacy

that is.

• Then, you were asked to make an argument for why you

believe the ad is using the fallacy you think it is using.

Review:

• Need a clear conclusion and clear premise(s).

• To strengthen your premise you should

– Define your terms (in our case the fallacy you see)

– Clearly identify the “issue” – the conclusion the ad makes

– Then explain how the conclusion is being supported by rhetoric rather

than reasoning, and that this is indicative of a particular fallacy.

– Describe the ad in detail

Group Exercise

You will be shown a series of “arguments” that use one of the fallacies we’ve learned in class.

1. Identify the issue.

2. Identify the conclusion.

3. Identify the premise(s) used to support the conclusion.

4. Indicate which fallacy is being use.

*Note: Some fallacies overlap. For instance straw man fallacies are similar to false dilemmas, and both are a type of red herring.

#1 (Ch 7)

“Either we increase the number of troops in Iraq or the terrorists will be attacking U.S. cities. Seems like a simple choice to me.”

• Issue: Should we increase the number of troops in Iraq?

• Conclusion: Yes. We should increase…

• Premise: Because I don’t want terrorists attacking U.S. cities.

• False Dilemma

#2 (Ch 7)

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."

Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now.“

• Issue: Whether the gun control bill should be supported.

• Conclusion: Yes, it should be (according to Bill).

• Premise: Because last month Jill supported the bill, but now she don’t.

• Inconsistency Ad Hominem

#3 (Ch 7)

“Just how much sex has to be in a movie before you

call it pornographic? Seems to me the whole

concept makes no sense.

• Issue: Whether we should label a movie as being pornographic.

• Conclusion: No, we shouldn’t.

• Premise: Because there’s no clear distinction when a movie has enough sex to be called pornographic.

• Line-Drawing Fallacy

#4 (Ch 7)

“Twenty percent? You want to tip her 20%? Hey, next thing you’ll want to tip 25%! And then 30%! It will never end.”

• Issue: Should we tip her 20%?

• Conclusion: No. We shouldn’t tip her 20%

• Premise: Because I don’t want her tips to be forever increasing.

• Slippery Slope

#5 (Ch 7)

Jim: The Biblical flood really did wipe out all life on

earth.

Kate: I don’t think it did.

Jim: Hey, can you prove it didn’t???

• Issue: Did the biblical flood wipe out all life on earth.

• Conclusion: Yes. It did.

• Premise: Because you can’t prove it didn’t.

• Misplaced Burden of Proof

#6 (Ch 7)

“The trouble with impeaching the president is this.

If we start going after him, next we’ll be going after

senators, representatives, governors. Pretty soon,

no elected official will be safe from partisan

attack.”

• Issue: Whether we should impeach the president.

• Conclusion: No, we should not.

• Premise: Because it will lead to “no elected officials being safe from partisan attacks.”

• Slippery Slope

#7 (Ch 7)

No, I don’t believe we ought to reinstate the death

penalty in this state. Doing it isn’t going to prevent

all crime, and you know it.

• Issue: Should we reinstate the death penalty.

• Conclusion: No, we shouldn’t.

• Premise: Because doing it isn’t going to prevent all crime.

• False Dilemma - Perfectionist fallacy.

#8 (Ch 7)

The congressman thought the president’s behavior was an impeachable offense. But that’s nonsense, coming from the congressman. He had an adulterous affair himself, after all.

• Issue: Whether the president’s behavior was an impeachable offense.

• Conclusion: It is not.

• Premise: Because the congressman, himself, had an adulterous affair.

• Inconsistency Ad Hominem

#9 (Ch 7)

Your professor wants you to read Moore and

Parker? Forget it. Their book is so far to the right

it’s falling off the shelf.

• Issue: Whether we should read (learn from) Moore and Parker

• Conclusion: We shouldn’t.

• Premise: Because their book is so far to the right it’s falling off the shelf.

• Poisoning the well.

#10 (Ch 7)

I don’t think postmodern expressionism is decent

art. It’s another style spawned by the East Coast art

establishment, and, frankly, I’m tired of what that

group is dictating to the rest of the art world.

• Issue: Is postmodern expressionism descent art?

• Conclusion: No, postmodern expressionism isn’t…

• Premise: Because I’m tired of what that group’s dictating to the rest of the art world.

• Genetic Fallacy

#11 (Ch 7)

Don’t tell me I should wear my seat belt, for

heaven’s sake. I’ve seen you ride a motorcycle

without a helmet!

• Issue: Whether I should wear my seat belt.

• Conclusion: No, I shouldn’t have to.

• Premise: Because you ride a motorcycle without a helmet!

• Inconsistency Ad Hominem

#12 (Ch 7)

“Twenty percent? You want to tip her 20%???? Hey, maybe you want to give her everything we make, but I frankly think that is ridiculous!”

• Issue: Should we tip her 20%?

• Conclusion: No. We shouldn’t tip her 20%

• Premise: Because I don’t want to give her everything we make.

• Straw man

#13 (Ch 7)

Of course you should buy a life insurance policy! Why shouldn’t you?

• Issue: Whether you should buy a life insurance policy.

• Conclusion: Yes, you should.

• Premise: Because there’s no reason that you shouldn’t.

• Misplaced Burden of Proof

#14 (Ch 7)

Of course that can’t be a legitimate proposal. He’s

just trying to get the city council to pass a

regulation that will stir up some business for

himself.

• Issue: Whether it is a legitimate proposal.

• Conclusion: It is not.

• Premise: Because he’s just trying to stir up some business for himself.

• Ad hominem (circumstantial, presumably).

#15 (Ch 7)

The next speaker is going to speak in favor of the

idea. But she works for the gun lobby. Don’t even

bother listening to what she says. .

• Issue: Whether we should listen to what she says.

• Conclusion: We shouldn’t listen to….

• Premise: Because she works for the gun lobby.

• Poisoning the well.

#16 (Ch 7)

Outlaw gambling? Man, that’s a strange idea

coming from you. Aren’t you the one who plays the

lottery all the time?

• Issue: Whether we should outlaw gambling.

• Conclusion: No. We should not!

• Premise: Because “you are the one who plays the lottery all of the time.”

• Inconsistency Ad Hominem

#1 (Ch 6)

I’ll tell you why a hundred dollars is enough child

support. You go into court and ask for more, and I’ll

have my lawyer file a countersuit that will set you

back a bundle in legal fees!

• Issue: Whether a hundred dollars is enough child support.

• Conclusion: Yes, it is.

• Premise: Because if you ask for more I’ll file a countersuit and get lots of money from you.

• Scare tactics: Argument by force.

#2 (Ch 6)

Frankly, I don’t think you would be satisfied with

anything less than our Model 24, which allows for

more expansion than any other personal computer

in its class. The way you catch on to things—

something I can tell just from the questions you’ve

asked here in the store—you’re not going to be

happy with a machine whose limits you’ll soon

reach.

• Issue: Whether you’ll be satisfied with anything less than our Model 24

• Conclusion: No, you wouldn’t be…

• Premise: Because the way you catch on to things, you’re not going to be happy with less.

• Argument from Pride (apple polishing)

#3 (Ch 6)

Sure, driving after you’ve been drinking can get you

into trouble with the law, but if you’re careful I

don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. After all,

everyone does it, right?

• Issue: Whether it’s wrong to drink and drive.

• Conclusion: No, it’s not wrong…

• Premise: Because everyone does it.

• Common Practice

#4 (Ch 6)

From a letter to the editor: “They’re wrong again,

the doctors who say that the sun causes cancer.

The four substances for all life are water, food, air,

and sun. Everybody knows the sun opens the pores

of your skin to release poisons; it cannot cause

cancer. Cancer is caused by the toxins man puts in

the air, not by sunlight.”

• Issue: Whether sun causes cancer.

• Conclusion: No, it does not cause cancer.

• Premise: Because everybody knows…

• Argument from Popularity

#5 (Ch 6)

“It says here that smoke from wood-burning

stoves, no matter how airtight they’re supposed to

be, gets into your house and is a health hazard.”

“No way. We just spent close to a thousand dollars

on this new stove; what you’re reading can’t be

true.”

• Issue: Whether smoke from wood-burning stoves is a health hazard.

• Conclusion: No way.

• Premise: Because I just spent close to $1000 on this news stove.

• Wishful Thinking

#6 (Ch 6)

Me? I’m going to vote with the company on this one.

After all, I’ve been with them for fifteen years.

• Issue: Whether I should vote with the company on this one.

• Conclusion: Yes. I should.

• Premise: Because I’ve been with the company for fifteen years.

• Groupthink fallacy

#7 (Ch 6)

Gays in the military? No way. Clinton promoted the

idea just to get the homosexual vote.

• Issue: Should gays be in the military.

• Conclusion: No they shouldn’t.

• Premise: Because Clinton promoted the idea just to get the homosexual vote.

• Red Herring

#8 (Ch 6)

Are you telling me that you’re twenty-one years old

and still a virgin? I’d keep quiet about that if I were

you—you’d be the laughingstock of the dorm if

that were widely known.

• Issue: Whether you should still be a virgin at 21.

• Conclusion: No, you shouldn’t be.

• Premise: Because you’ll be a laughing stock.

• Peer Pressure

*If you said the issue was whether to keep quiet, then would this be a fallacy?