Embedded Files
Chapter Learning Objectives
Chapter Learning Objectives
Identify and describe various types of logical fallacies, including ad hominem, straw man, and false dilemma, and understand how they undermine the validity of arguments.
Analyze and evaluate real-life examples of arguments to distinguish between valid reasoning and fallacious logic in written and spoken discourse.
Apply critical thinking skills to construct and defend arguments effectively, avoiding common fallacies, in academic writing and everyday communication.
Introduction (Chat GBT to be edited or redone by faculty)
Introduction (Chat GBT to be edited or redone by faculty)
In this chapter, we embark on a meticulous journey through the labyrinth of fallacies, viewed through the prism of critical thinking and writing, an essential endeavor for any college-level discourse. Fallacies, deceptive errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of arguments, are not merely academic concepts but practical pitfalls that students and scholars alike must learn to navigate. By dissecting various kinds of fallacies—from the subtle mis-directions of ad hominem attacks to the seductive simplicity of false dichotomies—this chapter aims to sharpen the reader's ability to identify and critique flawed arguments in all spheres of discourse.
Our exploration is rooted in the conviction that understanding fallacies is not just about spotting errors in others' arguments but about refining our thought processes and enhancing the clarity, coherence, and persuasiveness of our writing. Each section delves into a different category of fallacy, elucidating its characteristics, demonstrating its impact on discourse, and offering strategies for avoiding its trap in one's reasoning and writing. Through examples drawn from contemporary and historical sources, we illustrate how fallacies can distort understanding, mislead audiences, and derail rational debate, highlighting the importance of this knowledge in fostering a more informed and critical society.
By integrating the study of fallacies with critical thinking and writing skills, this chapter serves as a guide for students to not only engage more deeply with the material but also apply these insights in crafting arguments that are logical, evidence-based, and free of deceptive reasoning. The ultimate goal is to empower readers with the analytical tools needed to navigate the complex landscape of modern discourse, ensuring that their contributions to academic and public conversations are both intellectually rigorous and ethically sound. This journey through the world of fallacies, therefore, is not just an academic exercise but a vital step in developing the critical faculties necessary for effective communication and argumentation in any field.
Definition
Fallacies in critical thinking refer to errors or flaws in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. These fallacies can be intentional or unintentional, but they all detract from the argument's validity and persuasiveness. They often involve misleading reasoning or irrelevant points that do not directly support the argument's conclusion. There are many types of fallacies, but they can generally be categorized into a few main groups:
Definition
Fallacies in critical thinking refer to errors or flaws in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. These fallacies can be intentional or unintentional, but they all detract from the argument's validity and persuasiveness. They often involve misleading reasoning or irrelevant points that do not directly support the argument's conclusion. There are many types of fallacies, but they can generally be categorized into a few main groups:
Formal Fallacies: Mistakes in the argument's form or structure, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, regardless of the premises' truth.
Informal Fallacies: Errors in reasoning that involve issues with the argument's content rather than its form. These can include problems with the premises' relevance, ambiguity, or assumptions.
Some common examples of fallacies include:
Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Appeal to Authority: Assuming that because an authority figure believes something, it must therefore be true.
Slippery Slope: Arguing that a relatively minor first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
False Dilemma (or False Dichotomy): Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Circular Reasoning (or Begging the Question): Assuming in the premise what the argument seeks to prove in the conclusion.
Understanding and identifying fallacies is a crucial skill in critical thinking, as it enables individuals to evaluate the strength of arguments and to construct more valid and convincing arguments themselves.
4.43: Video- Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies
4.43: Video- Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies
Many of the texts you’ll read in college will rely heavily on logical arguments. Logic is highly valued as a way of persuading readers, since it can be confirmed to be true.
However, logic can be used badly. When you’re reading, you’ll want to be able to pick out bad logic as well as good logic. This video series helps us identify different types of “bad logic” in reading we might encounter.
Broken Logic
Broken Logic
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208
The Man Who Was Made of Straw
The Man Who Was Made of Straw
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208
Getting Personal
Getting Personal
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208
The Gambler’s Fallacy
The Gambler’s Fallacy
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208
Have you encountered these types of bad logic, also called fallacies, in reading you’ve done so far? Once you’re aware of them, they start to appear before your eyes, in text and in advertising of all types.
CC licensed content, Original
Introductory Text: Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies. Provided by: Lumen Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution
CC licensed content, Shared previously
Critical Thinking Part 2: Broken Logic. Authored by: techNyouvids. Located at: https://youtu.be/VRZk62QNOsM. License: CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking Part 3: The Man Who Was Made of Straw. Authored by: techNyouvids. Located at: https://youtu.be/kgdDK4XMpm0. License: CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking Part 4: Getting Personal. Authored by: techNyouvids. Located at: https://youtu.be/W_veZ24nC3g. License: CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking Part 5: The Gambler's Fallacy. Authored by: techNyouvids. Located at: https://youtu.be/K8SkCh-n4rw. License: CC BY: Attribution
4.43: Video- Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies is shared under a not declared license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.
1.7: Week 7 - Rhetorical Fallacies
1.7: Week 7 - Rhetorical Fallacies
Mt Hood Community College via MHCC Library Press
A rhetorical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Rhetorical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people. They are not always easy to spot and frequently we commit them accidentally. Spotting them in our own arguments and in the arguments of others is a superpower that can help you strengthen your analytical tool kit.
Rhetorical fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don’t allow for the open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful conversations depend. Instead, they distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning. They can be divided into three categories:
Emotional fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience’s emotions.
Ethical fallacies unreasonably advance the writer’s own authority or character.
Logical fallacies depend upon faulty logic.
Keep in mind that rhetorical fallacies often overlap. Regardless, we need to develop our skills in recognizing rhetorical fallacies in our work and the work of others and correcting them with clear, fair and well-supported reasons. This unit is intended to help you explore and develop these very skills. Don’t worry so much about trying to memorize the individual names of all of the various rhetorical fallacies. Spend your time and energy, rather, learning to identify when someone (yourself included) is using them in an argument and how best to correct them and keep the discussion on track.
View the video: Logical Fallicies (Logos) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6brsxUsnhBo
View the video: Logical Fallacies (Ethos) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-u3j4aHDBg
View the video: Logical Fallacies (Pathos) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0QYRSy6c-o
View the video: Top Ten Logical Fallacies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawIjqOJBU8&feature=youtu.be
View the video: Five Fallacies in Ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNWCDh1XRN0&feature=youtu.be
View the handout: Logical Fallacies #1
View the handout: Logical Fallacies #2
View the handout: Logical Fallacies #3
View the outside link: Your Logical Fallacy Is? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
View the outside link: 15 Logical Fallacies You Should Avoid https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
Our use of logical support in arguments is subject to several possible corruptions along the way to a sound argument. Sometimes an arguer will commit these fallacies on purpose with the intent of fooling or manipulating the audience. But more often, we make these mistake accidentally, with the best of intentions. Regardless, if we are to evaluate and make sound arguments, we need to be able to spot the presence of logical fallacies, in our own arguments and in the arguments of others. The presence of a logical fallacy does not mean the entire argument is invalid, just that the particular reasoning is flawed or lacking in this one place. Finding and correcting logical fallacies can actually lead to making an argument stronger and easier to accept. We have not abandoned the use of Logos, Pathos and Ethos in our evaluation of arguments, but rather now added the concept of rhetorical fallacies to the mix. As we go forward in the class, try to continue to use all of the tools we are exploring in your analysis of the arguments we write and read.
This page titled 1.7: Week 7 - Rhetorical Fallacies is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Andrew Gurevich (MHCC Library Press)
End of Chapter Summary
End of Chapter Summary
End of Chapter Discussion Questions
End of Chapter Discussion Questions
This text is a remixed OER licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share and Share a like 4.0 International License unless otherwise stated . https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en
OER Links that might work to build off for this chapter:
Fallacies
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse