The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to identify the types of fallacious reasoning discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 6 discusses fallacies of insufficient.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Basics of Logical Argument Two Kinds of Argument The Deductive argument: true premises guarantee a true conclusion. e.g. All men are mortal. Socrates.
Advertisements

Deductive Validity In this tutorial you will learn how to determine whether deductive arguments are valid or invalid. Go to next slide.
Formal Criteria for Evaluating Arguments
Evaluating an Author’s Argument. © 2008 McGraw-Hill Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Argument 2 Author’s Argument An author’s argument.
©2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Identifying Rhetorical Devices The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to identify.
Value conflicts and assumptions - 1 While an author usually offers explicit reasons why he comes to a certain conclusion, he also makes (implicit) assumptions.
1 Fallacies of Weak Induction. 2 Introduction The key characteristic of these fallacies is that the connection between the premises and conclusion is.
Unit 1A Recognizing Fallacies. LOGIC Logic is the study of the methods and principles of reasoning.
Understanding Logical Fallacies
Logic & Critical Reasoning Identifying arguments.
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence.
©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 16 Thinking and Speaking Critically.
Chapter 6 Lecture Notes Working on Relevance. Chapter 6 Understanding Relevance: The second condition for cogency for an argument is the (R) condition.
 Read the following argument. Examine it closely. Do you think it is logically sound? Why?  [T]he acceptance of abortion does not end with the killing.
Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author’s Argument
Persuasive Writing Writing whose Purpose is to CHANGE MINDS and BRING ABOUT ACTION.
Fallacies Information taken from Purdue OWL, Nancy Wood’s Perspectives on Argument and Annette Rottenberg’s Elements of Argument.
Oral Communications Analysis and Evaluation. California Content Standards Analysis and Evaluation of Oral and Media Communications 1.13 Analyze the four.
Copyright © 2015, 2011, 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 1, Unit 1D, Slide 1 Thinking Critically 1.
Research Paper Arguments Premises Fallacies Take Notes!
Chapter 31: Fallacies of Weak Induction. Appeal to Authority (pp ) The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when someone is taken to be an authority.
Research Paper Arguments Premises Fallacies Take Notes!
Logical Fallacies1 This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim Just to get a scholarship does not justify.
FALLACIES COMMON AND RECURRENT ERRORS IN REASONING
McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. This tutorial well help you work through the process of spotting and identifying.
©2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Analyzing and Evaluating Inductive Arguments The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn.
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
INFORMAL FALLACIES The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize and resist fallacious arguments.
Logical Fallacies Guided Notes
NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. INFORMAL.
Chapter 5 Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
Standard: Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text… identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.
Miracles: Hume and Howard-Snyder. * For purposes of initial clarity, let's define a miracle as a worldly event that is not explicable by natural causes.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze and evaluate inductive arguments.
Academic Vocabulary Unit 7 Cite: To give evidence for or justification of an argument or statement.
Errors in Reasoning. Fallacies A Fallacy is “any error in reasoning that makes an argument fail to establish its conclusion.” There are two kinds of fallacies.
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed If spotted one can essentially render an entire line of reasoning invalid.
© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.
Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill Higher Education© 2008 McGraw Hill Higher Education 1 Critical Thinking Chapter 5 Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance.
Go To Next Slide This tutorial will help you identify examples of the types of fallacies discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 discusses fallacies of relevance.
Unit Four Seminar. Fallacies A.What is a fallacy? 1. A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone.
Chapter 9 Warranted Inferences. Chapter 9 Warranted Inferences.
The Literature Review 3 edition
Chapter 10 notes Logic and Reasoning.
Topic: Logical Fallacies Objective: I will identify various logical fallacies EQ: What are the most common logical fallacies and where do they appear?
Logical Fallacies ENGL 101.
4 The Art of Critical Reading Reading Critically Mather ▪ McCarthy
Logical Fallacies Unit 2.
Errors in Reasoning.
Workshop for Debate Teachers
Workshop for Debate Teachers
Introduction to Logic Lecture 5b More Fallacies
10.RI08 I can analyze and evaluate specific claims in a text to determine if the reasoning is valid and the evidence fully supports the claim.
More on Argument.
Errors in Reasoning.
Fallacies of Relevance
Yup, another powerpoint about this…
Chapter 5 Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance
Looking for false logic in someone’s argument
Rumessa Naqvi November 22, 2018
Logical Fallacies 2 LSH 2203 Critical Thinking.
Developing Arguments for Persuasive Speeches
More on Argument.
Fallacious Reasoning a.k.a. Fallacy.
Making Sense of Arguments
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 3a Evaluating an argument
Brain Teaser Eskimos are very good hunters, but why they don't hunt the penguins?
1. Could I receive an A for this class
Presentation transcript:

The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to identify the types of fallacious reasoning discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 6 discusses fallacies of insufficient evidence. These are fallacious arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In this tutorial you will see examples of various fallacies of insufficient evidence. Though not every type of fallacy of insufficient evidence is illustrated, the techniques demonstrated here apply to all the fallacies discussed in Chapter 6. Go to next slide.

Of course angels exist. Do you know of any proof that they don't? The first step in identifying a fallacious argument is to identify the conclusion of the argument. An argument relies on an inference linking the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion. Fallacious reasoning can often be spotted by noting how the argument fails to make this linkage. So, what is the conclusion of this argument? Go to next slide.

Of course angels exist. Do you know of any proof that they don't? Angels exist. A successful argument must have premises that provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion. In this argument, the only "proof" offered that angels exist is the fact that no one has proven that they don't exist. Based on what you have learned in this chapter, what fallacy does this argument commit? Go to next slide.

Of course angels exist. Do you know of any proof that they don't? The fallacy of appeal to ignorance. The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when an arguer claims that something is true because no one has proven it false, or conversely, that something is false because no one has proven it true. In this argument, the arguer provides no positive evidence to support her conclusion. Instead, she treats the lack of evidence against her claim as evidence that her claim is true. But the fact that we don't know that a claim is false doesn't show that the claim is true. For example, the fact that you can't prove that invisible aliens aren't spying on you doesn't provide good reason to believe that they are spying on you. Arguments must be supported by evidence, and a lack of evidence is not evidence! Go to next slide.

I've taken two psychology courses at this university, and both were taught by graduate teaching assistants. I guess all psychology courses at this university are taught by graduate teaching assistants. Go to next slide. The first step in evaluating any argument is to identify the conclusion. What is the conclusion of this argument?

I've taken two psychology courses at this university, and both were taught by graduate teaching assistants. I guess all psychology courses at this university are taught by graduate teaching assistants. Go to next slide. All psychology courses at this university are taught by graduate teaching assistants. An argument is a good one only if the premises provide sufficient evidence to accept the conclusion. Does the premise of this argument provide sufficient reason to accept the conclusion?

I've taken two psychology courses at this university, and both were taught by graduate teaching assistants. I guess all psychology courses at this university are taught by graduate teaching assistants. Go to next slide. It does not! The arguer is drawing a general conclusion based on very limited experience. Given what you learned in this chapter, what fallacy does the arguer commit?

I've taken two psychology courses at this university, and both were taught by graduate teaching assistants. I guess all psychology courses at this university are taught by graduate teaching assistants. Go to next slide. The fallacy of hasty generalization. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an arguer draws a general conclusion (i.e., a claim of the form "All A's are B's" or "Most A's are B's") from a sample that is biased or too small. In this argument, the arguer's sample is too small. The fact that he has taken two psychology courses that were taught by graduate teaching assistants does not provide good reason to believe that all psychology courses at the arguer's university are taught by graduate teaching assistants. Thus, the arguer's reasoning is fallacious.

Once your kids are watching cartoons, they’re also watching those toy commercials. If they see the commercials they’ll want the toys; before you know it, they’re obsessed with the toys and you’ve lost all control over them. So don’t let your kids watch cartoons. Go to next slide. Again, the first step is identifying the conclusion. Next, inspect the way the argument tries to support this conclusion. Ask yourself what the support is and how it is tied to the conclusion.

The conclusion, readily identified by the indicator “so,” is “Don’t let your kids watch cartoons.” Now, inspect the way the argument supports this conclusion. Watching Cartoons. Watching Toy Commercials. Wanting Toys. Being Obsessed With Toys. Being Out Of Control. What do you think of this reasoning? Go to the next slide.

Watching Cartoons. Watching Toy Commercials. Wanting Toys. Being Obsessed With Toys. Being Out Of Control. If watching cartoons will lead inexorably to your kids being out of control, then the conclusion is probably a reasonable one. However, will all of these intermediate steps necessarily happen? Doesn’t the arguer need to prove they will? Yes she does !! There is fallacious reasoning at work here. What kind is it? Go to the next slide.

Again, this tutorial has not looked at every type of fallacious reasoning from Chapter 6. However, as you have seen, the basic strategy for identifying these fallacies is the same in every case. 1. Find the conclusion. 2. Note the evidence cited and how it applies to the conclusion. Is it relevant? Do the premises, if true, provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion? 3. Realize that the specific names for the fallacies were created to fit common sorts of fallacious reasoning. Even without studying logic, you can often see that an argument is fallacious, and since you have studied logic, you can connect the logical flaw with the name. This is the end of this tutorial.