Important Things to Know About Processing an Argumentative Essay and Argumentative Fallacies There are three steps that every AP student should do every time he or she reads an argumentative essay or prompt. Identify the claim or premise. Restate it in your own words. Determine his or her own reaction. Is this premise true? Do you agree, disagree, or are you ambivalent towards this premise? Ask what evidence has the author used to support his or her premise. Is the evidence relevant and reasonable? Are there sufficient examples of the evidence to support the premise?

Syllogism: A Logical Way to Build an Argument In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises, e.g. in Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal. It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus: Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal. In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion. (This example is also a syllogism!) The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.

A fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. The bottom line is that using fallacies intentionally is like lying. You use fallacies only when you know your argument is indefensible.

12 Most Common Informal Fallacies There are thousands of fallacies! Check out The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia for an extensive list. 1. Hasty Generalization—a speaker picks one example and generalizes. This is the fallacy most often relied upon by racists. Teenagers are disrespectful and bad. I saw a teenager in the hallway this morning cursing at Mrs. Adkins. Statistical Fallacy—the statistics offered are irrelevant, incomplete, or manipulated. Also you should ask who gathered the statistics, where, when and for what purpose. Ad Hominem—an attack on an individual that often appeals to the prejudice of the audience. Seen often in political campaigns the “character” of an opponent because the subject of the debate rather than their voting record or proposals

4. Tu Quoque (You also fallacy)This fallacy asserts that a statement is false because it is inconsistent with what the speaker has said or done. In other words, a person is attacked for doing what he/she is arguing against. Slippery Slope—often based on fear this fallacy diverts the audience into a series of hypothetical situations. If marijuana is legalized in this society then drug usage will become socially acceptable and this will lead to greater usage of other drugs including crack cocaine. Bandwagon—everybody is doing it and so should you! Sometimes this appears by the speaker citing someone people admire such as Abraham Lincoln, or a popular sports figure. The implication is that if Lincoln would agree with this, then you should too.

Either/Or (Black and White)—the speaker breaks a complex issue into black and white opposites. If you are against the death penalty, you are for murder! 8. Straw man—the speaker announces his or her opponents argument without the opponent being there to defend it. This allows the speaker to characterize their opponent’s argument in any way they wish. 9. Poisoning the Well—the speaker points out all the bad things about his/her opponent before letting them speak. Related to the Red Herring fallacy; the speaker attempts to switch the issue before an argument can be presented. "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." 10. Arguing from the Negative—Just because no one has ever seen this happen doesn’t mean it can’t happen. The speaker gives doom’s day predictions without offering relevant and adequate evidence that these scenarios are likely to occur. The doctor did not find any malignant cells in your body, therefore this is evidence that you do not have cancer.

11. Naturalistic fallacy—this fallacy essential asserts that is it “natural” and therefore moral for humans to do something that animals do. Example, wolves mate for life, and therefore monogamy is natural for humans too. Most often Darwin is blamed here. Students sometimes assert that “social evolution” is at work which is why the rich and educated deserve to have more than the poor. Watch out! You would never claim that it is natural for women to eat their babies because hamsters do! So why would you argue that interracial dating is “unnatural” because cardinals only mate with cardinals? 12. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc- (The Causation/Correlation fallacy). The idea that because two things are occurring simultaneously that one must be causing the other. I.e. as more women became high level managers the company increased in profits, therefore, if we write a rule that forces the company to promote even more women, then the company will make even more profits. The bottom line is, if a causation relationship is not independently verified, then it is improper to make this claim.