Unit 2 Overview fallacy Analysis I can identify and analyze an author’s use of logic. I can evaluate whether an argument uses fallacious reasoning. Unit 2 Overview fallacy Analysis

agenda Overview of Rhetorical Analysis Overview of Argument Logos/Logic Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Logical Fallacies Practice Identifying and Analyzing Fallacies Application: Social Media Fallacies Homework: Read Everything is an Argument, Chapter 6

AP Exam: Rhetorical Analysis Rhetorical Analysis is the deconstruction of a passage into its components in order to examine how a writer develops a subject. The AP exam requires the analysis of structure, purpose, and style. Here are some of the terms you need to know for analysis: Structure Modes of Discourse/Rhetorical Strategies, etc. Purpose To Persuade, to Inform, to Entertain Style Syntax, Diction, Tone, Point of View, Rhetorical Devices, etc.

Rhetorical Strategies review The basic approaches a writer uses to tell a story, explain a point, describe a situation, or argue a position. Sometimes called rhetorical modes or techniques, these strategies help a writer organize evidence, connect facts into a sequence, and provide clusters of information necessary for conveying a purpose or an argument. Rhetorical Strategies: Cause/Effect Compare/Contrast Classification Definition Description Process Narration Exemplification

AP Exam: Argument Argument is the presentation and defense or support of a specific thesis, assertion, or claim. To convince the reader to accept this position, the writer provides support using objective facts or logical evidence, and sometimes, even emotional appeals. The AP exam requires the formation of well-developed argument. Here are some of the terms associated with argument: Rhetorical Situation Rhetorical Appeals and Techniques Ethos: An appeal to authority/character Pathos: An appeal to emotion Logos: An appeal to inductive and deductive reasoning

Argument: Logic What does it mean? A logical appeal is a method of persuasion based on evidence and reasoning. You start with a premise—a fact or commonplace (a belief, value, or attitude) and apply it to a specific case to reach a conclusion. More simply: “start with something true, follow it with another truth, and you reach a conclusion that also must be true” (Thank You for Arguing). Logos uses both inductive and deductive reasoning.

deduction Deduction reaches a probable conclusion based on a given premise. Conclusions can be drawn from implicit premises such as: universal truths, possibilities the reader will readily accept, familiar sayings, and facts that everyone (including the reader) know. Syllogism is the format of a formal argument that consists of Major Premise: All A must C. Minor Premise: B is an A. Conclusion: Therefore, B must C. Example: All PLD seniors must write a research paper. Sean is a senior at PLD. Therefore, Sean must write a research paper. Enthymeme: (abbreviated syllogism) A figure of reasoning in which one or more statements of a syllogism is/are left out of the configuration. All PLD seniors must write a research paper. Sean must write a research paper.

Induction Induction forms generalizations from a set of specific examples. Example: Margo has 17 stuffed bears, 3 stuffed cows, 11 monkeys, 4 camels, and 6 stuffed elephants. Margo loves to collect stuffed animals. Based on the large number of stuffed animals Margo has, we assume that the possibility that Margo loves to collect stuffed animals is true. Potential problems of inductive reasoning: Generalization covers many unobserved persons, objects, etc. If the conclusion begins with ALL, any exceptions would invalidate the generalization Cited facts are incorrect Assumed connections are incorrect Assumption is a conclusion NOT supported by the evidence.

Fallacy: false or misleading statements that are used to persuade an audience. Logical Fallacy are mistakes or lapses in reasoning. Ad Hominem Red Herring Non Sequitur Straw Man Hasty Generalization Slippery Slope Also Circular Reasoning Faulty Causality Also: Circular/Begging the Question Faulty Causality (Post Hoc) Ignorance as Proof

Logical Fallacy Circular Reasoning Definition: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.   Logical Forms: X is true because of Y. Y is true because of X. Claim X assumes X is true. Therefore, claim X is true. Example: “Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.” Tools: It relies on the ability to deceive someone based on the speaker’s confidence and the audience’s poor listening skills.

Fallacies of Logic Faulty Causality (Post HOC) This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this." Fallacies of Logic Faulty Causality (Post HOC) Definition: An assumption that because one action follows another, the first action caused the second. This reduces cause to simple or convenient explanations. It is difficult to determine causes of complicated events. Something can appear as the cause, but really exists as one of many factors. Watch out for correlation! This isn't the same thing as causation. Logical Form: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Example: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.“ The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other. Tools: relies on the human desire to believe in a simplistic explanation or “quick fix”

PRACTICE Identifying FALLACY

Non Sequitur! Identify the Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g8Qq7U0iXM What does not follow? What is the missing link? What information is being omitted? Non Sequitur (Latin for “Does not Follow”) Non Sequitur!

Hasty Generalization! Identify the Fallacy: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/ What generalization is being made in this instance? What do you think of when you hear the word terrorist or terrorism? Definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. According to Public Mass Shootings in the United States: Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy, a report prepared for members of Congress, “Of the public mass shooting incidents identified by CRS for which information on the race of the perpetrator(s) was available, over half of the shooters were reportedly white” (CRS 11). Hasty and Overgeneralizations Hasty Generalization!

Slippery Slope! Identify the Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIv3m2gMgUU If __________________________, then__________________________, then _______________________, then __________________________. Slippery Slope Slippery Slope!

Red Herring! Identify the Fallacy: How is the argument being redirected? Red Herring Red Herring!

Straw Man! Identify the Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT_VhDrn8NY How is the argument begin distorted or misrepresented? Straw Man! Straw Man

Ad Hominem! Identify the Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBXMMeog08 What is the main focus of the ad? Is this relevant to the political issues at hand in the Kentucky race for Governor ? Is it attacking Bevin’s position on political issues or him personally? Ad Hominem Ad Hominem!

Circular Reasoning! Identify the Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA What claim is being made? ___________________is true because of _________________________. X Y Y X Circular Reasoning Circular Reasoning!

Faulty Causality! Identify the Fallacy: Post hoc/Faulty Causality What is the cause/effect relationship being assumed?

Visit your favorite social media site (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc) Then, find texts (either in posts or comments) that use fallacy. Identify the type of fallacy used and explain how it uses fallacious reasoning. Application

Read Everything Is An Argument, Chapter 6 – Rhetorical Analysis Homework Read Everything Is An Argument, Chapter 6 – Rhetorical Analysis