Need help with responding to these three discussion post 100 words each
Identify Three Fallacies Instructor Email this Author 2/27/2017 8:56:49 PM
Once you learn the names of the major logical fallacies, you will probably start noticing them all over the place, including in advertisements, movies, TV shows, and everyday conversations. This can be both fascinating and frustrating, but it can certainly help you to avoid certain pitfalls in reasoning that are unfortunately very common. This exercise gives you a chance to practice identifying fallacies as they occur in daily life.
Prepare: To prepare to address this prompt, carefully read through Chapter 7 of our book, paying special attention to learning the names of common fallacies, biases, and rhetorical tricks. Take a look as well at the required resources from this week.
Reflect: Search through common media sources looking for examples of fallacies. Some common places to find fallacies include advertisements, opinion pieces in news media, and arguments about politics, religion, and other controversial issues. You may also notice fallacies in your daily life.
Write: Present three distinct informal logical fallacies you have discovered in these types of sources or in your life. Make sure to identify the specific fallacy committed by each example. Explain how the fallacies were used and the context in which they occurred. Then, explain how the person should have presented the argument to have avoided committing this logical error.
Guided Response: Read the fallacies presented by your classmates and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. Respond in a way that furthers the discussion. For example, you might comment on any of the following types of questions: Have ever seen or fallen for similar fallacies in your own life? Are any of the cases presented also instances of some other type of fallacy? Is there a sense in which the reasoning might not be fallacious in some cases? What can people do to avoid falling for such fallacies in the future?
1. Week 4 Discussion 1 Rolland Mattoon Email this Author 3/1/2017 8:53:15 PM
Informal fallacies occur often and are often misleading. The three informal logical fallacies selected for this discussion are the Oscars, social media and President Trump’s fake news stories.
The first fallacy occurred on Sunday night during the recent Oscar’s Award show. Near the end of the show the presenter announced the wrong winner for an award. The media believes that this could have been intentional to drive ratings. Over the past two years the number of viewers has dropped 42% and by having such a major blunder will ensure that more viewers watch the next event for another potential error.
The fallacy here is that there is no evidence supporting the claim or that the error occurred on purpose. The next fallacy is a fallacy of support. The fallacy states that social medial is addictive and limits interpersonal communication. Hardy states that “There is nothing wrong with this argument as an expression of a person’s belief”. (Hardy, 2015).
The last fallacy is an example of a fallacy of clarity. Recently in the news President Trump has been discussing the fake news outlets. An example of an argument is the
P1) The news provides information
P2) The news is fake
C) Therefore, the information on the news is fake.
In this example the conclusion would be logical however there are unbiased news outlets in the market, for example NPR.
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to cirtical thinking [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/.
2. discussion 1 Barbara Lamb Email this Author 3/2/2017 2:17:26 PM
Plea to Belief:
All welfare recipients are lazy.
This is a plea to belief fallacy because it’s a common belief among society that everyone who receives government assistance is living off of the system In most cases, people recieve assistance for a short period of time interim jobs, or when they have another child.
I for a long time believed that because i got all of the same allergies that my father had, that I wouldn’t have any additional allergies.
This is a subjective fallacy because it was likely that I wouldn’t have gotten any additional allergies but just because I had the same allergies as my father, doesn’t mean I couldn’t have more than those allergies.
Begging the Question:
Mom’s not going to bed, because she’s not tired.
First off, WRONG, mom’s are always tired. But realistically, my niece jumped to the conclusion in her premise when she assumed that her Mother wasn’t tired and used it as her arguement. Instead she could have used premises such as, she just drank coffee or she just woke up as reasons that she may be concluded not to be tired.
3. Week four, Disc. 1, post1 Angela Yanni Email this Author 3/2/2017 5:28:42 PM
The first argument I found a fallacy with is something the president said.
” As we speak tonight, we are removing gang members, drug dealers, and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our innocent citizens.” Trump, D.
This can be considered, in my opinion, a couple different fallacies.
First, it is Begging the Question in a Narrow Sense
P1: As we speak tonight (implication is that the speech is about the “so called” gang members, drug dealers and criminals) about non-citizens. [This also has to be implied if you do not know he is speaking about undocumented immigrants]
C: We are removing the “gang members, drug dealers, and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our innocent citizens.
Putting his sentence, which is the basis of an argument stating that he has already started doing something good, however, all he is saying is as he talks about non-citizens, his administration is out removing them.
If we add words, to create more of an argument, It will become Argumentum ad Baculum
P1: Non-citizens are gang members, drug dealers, and criminals.
P2: Non-citizens threaten our communities and prey on our innocent citizens
C: As we speak tonight, we are removing these non-citizens, which makes citizens safer.
Argumentum ad Baculum is associated with speaking or writing in a way that scares the audience into agreeing with you. Politics is a great place to observe this type of rhetoric.