When we analyze propaganda or persuasive material for the message, we’re analyzing an argument: Claim- writer’s position on a problem/issue Support- reasons and evidence to help justify claim So to check the support, we think about the evidence, look for persuasive techniques, and logical fallacies, or problems in their logic or thinking Remind argument= point they’re trying to prove, with support

Logical Fallacies- sound good, but don’t actually make sense when you think about it

We’ve seen some types already as persuasive techniques Glittering Generalities- sounds good, no concrete argument Either-or-makes it look like there are only 2 choices, one of them bad Ad hominen (name-calling) – attack the other person instead of the issue Princess bride clip

There are more types, for example: Hasty generalization- conclusions from too little evidence, oversimplifying Weak analogy- comparing 2 things that aren’t relevantly alike Monty python clip

Post hoc (or false cause)- because B comes after A, A caused B Slippery slope- claim a dire chain reaction will happen, with little evidence Post hoc examples= game traditions, vaccines, wearing socks protects from alligators, slippery slope direct tv commercials

Red herring- going off on a tangent from argument to distract Straw man- set up weak/ different version of opponents’ argument, then take down Red herring- going off on a tangent from argument to distract Ex politician recommending probation for misdemeanors becomes politician wants jails shut down