MODR 1730 Study Guide - Final Guide: False Dilemma, Epithet, Perjury

171 views6 pages

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

1
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
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 6 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
2
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…..”
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 6 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

Grade+
$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class