Study Guides (238,466)
Canada (115,150)
York University (9,811)
MODR 1730 (17)

Fallacy Test.docx

6 Pages
Unlock Document

York University
Modes Of Reasoning
MODR 1730
Hilary Davis

Fallacy Test Main Conclusion (MC): persuasive claim Premise (P): premise Fallacies 1. Appeal to Force or Threat of Force:Instead of offering reasons this fallacy threatens to use force to get another to do something or accept an idea. 2. Appeal to Emotion: Instead of offering reasons to support a conclusion they persuade us by manipulating our emotions and desires. a. Appeal to Pity: The defendant has already suffered enough so you should not find him guilty. b. Appeal to Fear: If you don’t convict this defendant of murder and you do not find him guilty, he will be released and you may become his next victim. c. Appeal to Flattery: You should make an exception and give me an extension because you are the most compassionate professor on campus. d. Appeal to Guilt or Shame: The argument attempts to persuade by making the person to be persuaded feel guilty for not accepting the position. 3. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Instead of challenging an individual’s arguments, the person, often their character is attacked. Even someone with poor character can build a good argument. a. Abusive Ad Hominem: Opponent is insulted or abused. An attempt to make a personal characteristic of the opponent a valid reason to discount his or her ideas. **NOTE**: Sometimes is confused with Question-Begging Epithet. Distinction – Abusive ad Hominem attacks the person, Question- Begging epithet attacks the argument or a thing. b. Circumstantial Ad Hominem: Argument criticized on basis that it merely advocates the interests of the opponent. Distinct from Abusive ad Hominem because focus is on the person’s circumstances 1 or situation, not their personal characteristics. Again, opponent’s motives are irrelevant. c. Guilt by Association: Instead of offering reasons, an opponent’s argument is discredited because she or he is the member of a particular group. d. Tu Quoque: Opponent, or person advocating a position, is accused of acting in a manner which contradicts that position. Charge of hypocrisy – ‘pot calling the kettle black’ & accusing opponent of not ‘practicing what s/he preaches.’ Focus on behaviour of opponent is not relevant to the merits of his/her argument. e. Poisoning the Well: A psychological technique which aims to make it impossible for the opponent to reply or disagree. It dispenses with objections by making anyone who objects appear foolish. Or the opponent is discredited before they present their argument. A rebuttal seems to only strengthen the accusation. **NOTE**: Sometimes what appears to be an ad hominem fallacy is justified For example: If someone is testifying based on his or her experience and there are good grounds for doubting that person’s memory or truthfulness. E.g. someone with a history of perjury 4. Shifting the Burden of Proof: When someone who introduces an argument shifts the burden of proof to the critic rather supporting their argument with reasons. **NOTE**: Not a fallacy if the opponent notes that the arguer has not supplied support for the argument & needs to. 5. Self- Evident Truth: The arguer presents his or her position asself-evident & not requiring defense. a. Indicator Phrases: i. “It is self-evident that…” ii. “It is obvious to everyone…..” iii. “No one can deny that…..” iv. “Obviously….” v. “It is common sense…..” 2 6. Appeal to Ignorance: The listener’s inability to disprove the conclusion is used as proof of the argument’s correctness. “You can’t prove me wrong, therefore, I must be right.” or “If you can’t prove it is right then it must be wrong.” Appealing to the lack of evidence as though it were evidence. However, a lack of evidence only proves that there is no evidence. 7. Loaded Presupposition: Also known as Fallacy of Many Questions, Fallacy of Loaded Questions, or Fallacy of Complex Questions. An argument is made which has a controversial presupposition buried within it. 8. Begging the Question: Instead of presenting reasons to support the conclusion, the premises merely reassert the conclusion in different words. Arguments that beg the questions are circular arguments. 9. Appeal to Popularity: Instead of reasons, we are told to accept something as true because it is widely believed, accepted, or done. a. Appeal to Tradition: An appeal to custom or tradition not evidence or reasons. Tradition and custom can be result of a history of oppression. Or can be an excuse. i. Common Belief: Something everyone has always thought of, believed. ii. Common Practice: Something everyone has always done, practiced upon. b. Appeal to Group Membership or Patriotism (Mob Appeal): Uses patriotism, repetition, sarcasm, innuendo, high-mindedness to exploit our emotions. Exploits our need to belong to a group & assures us that our group is right, flattering the crowd or appealing to their prejudices. The presentation is theatrical; repetition is used. Makes it difficult for us to disagree or express the opposite opinion. For if we disagree we are excluded from the group. 10. Appeal to Authority: Appeals to authority are a secondary way of getting evidence. You are being asked to be convinced on someone’s word or authority. Fallacious appeals to authority appeal to our sense that others know better than we
More Less

Related notes for MODR 1730

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.