Class Notes (1,200,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSG (50,000)
INI (100)
INI100H1 (100)

Notes taken during lecture

Innis College Courses
Course Code
Vikki Visvis

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
*** look at the colour-coded copy of King’s letter, to be emulated for own work
Lecture – Fallacies continued; Classical and neoclassical arguments
Faulty use of authority or appeal to authority
-what an authority believes is true, thus true
omake sure authority IS an authority
oalways check other authoritative opinions
ois this one authority’s opinion representative of entirety expert opinion
Guilt by association
-form of distraction – distracting from issue at hand
-shuts down discussion/further debate
-final stand on issue
-closed to further opinions
-present in Hitler piece
-for educated audience, not so well
-for desperate, insecure audience, very effective – offers certainty, stability
Moral equivalence
-form of hyperbole, exaggeration
Ad hominem
-Latin for against the man/person
-1, attack maker of claim
-2, suggest attack on person is way to undermine argument
-actually two separate things, but made to seem same
-claim maker not to be trusted
-flaw in character of claim maker has no bearing on logical soundness of his or her
-CLAIM IS AVOIDED – distraction
-TYPE 1: Abusive – personal attack used as substitution of critique of their
oFallacious because insults do not undermine or affect the argument in
oFrequently used by politicians keen for votes
oGovernors outed as having affairs, resigning – fallacious thinking that
marital troubles indicate poor governing skills
-TYPE 2: Circumstantial
oClaim maker motivated by self-interest, dogmatic bias
oGets around issue
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

-TYPE 3: Tu quoque
oArgument not disproved
Straw Man
-Illusion of strong attack or good argument
-Misrepresenting opponent’s argument, quotes, intentions,
-Attack by substituting superficially similar argument, and refuting it
oOriginal proposition not actually refuted
-Ex. liberalize exaggerated into “unrestricted access
Hasty Generalization
-Inductive generalization
-Small sample less likely to contain enough to be proportional of the whole
-Diversity, population size, purpose affect size of necessary sample
-Lack of qualifying words – use of universals
Post Hoc or Doubtful Case
-A caused B because A preceded B in time
False analogy
-focus on CONTENT
-because A and B are similar, A is X, thus B is X too
-Question of degree of similarity
-No analogy is perfect – always some difference between A and B
oTo refute – point out property neither shares
-Always some similarities between two objects – Carroll: What does a raven and a
writing desk have in common? – “Poe wrote on both”
Begging the question
-no evidence provided
-begging audience to believe argument, rather than providing evidence and
-CIRCULAR argument
oConclusion at beginning and end of the argument
Non sequitor
-conclusion does not follow from the premises
Ad populum
-Appeal to the people
-If the majority likes it, it’s okay
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version