Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A. In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus.
There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick. Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting.
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea.
Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence. In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.
Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.
Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive such as patriotism, religion, democracy or negative such as terrorism or fascism concepts rather than the real issue at hand. In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish.
While one issue may effect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals. Loaded-Language and other emotionally charged uses of language: using slanted or biased language, including God terms, devil terms, euphemisms, and dysphemisms.
There is something objectionable about Person 1. Therefore claim X is false. Fallacies can crop up whenever definitions, inferences, and facts are at issue. Once we become familiar with fallacies we may start to see them everywhere.
That can be good and bad. Since persuasion is ever-present, it is good to be on guard against various hidden persuaders. But whether a persuasive strategy is considered fallacious may be dependent on context. Editorials and advertisements—both political and commercial—frequently use such strategies as transfer and appeals to popularity. We need to be critically aware of the techniques of persuasion being used on us, but since we expect advertisements, political speeches, and editorials on public policy or ethical issues to try to sway us emotionally, perhaps only extreme examples deserve to be judged harshly for being fallacious.
In addition, something that looks as if it is a fallacy may turn out not to be on closer examination. For example, not everything that smacks of slippery slope is fallacious. There are indeed some genuine slippery slopes, where an initial decision or action may have both great and inevitable repercussions. So whether that fallacy has been committed depends upon what the author has done or failed to do to support his claim. For example, when somebody is running for political office or for a judgeship, casting doubt on his or her character may be appropriate— if one has facts to back it up—since it relates to job expectations.
But wholesale character assassination remains a rhetorical ploy of the propagandist or demagogue. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Reading: Logic and Structure. Search for:. Evaluating Appeals to Ethos, Logos, and Pathos Introduction As a reader and a listener, it is fundamental that you be able to recognize how writers and speakers depend upon ethos , logos , and pathos in their efforts to communicate.
Evaluate an Appeal to Ethos When you evaluate an appeal to ethos , you examine how successfully a speaker or writer establishes authority or credibility with her intended audience. Does she demonstrate familiarity with different opinions and perspectives? Does she provide complete and accurate information about the issue?
Does she use the evidence fairly? Does she avoid selective use of evidence or other types of manipulation of data? Does she speak respectfully about people who may have opinions and perspectives different from her own? Does she use unbiased language?
Does she avoid excessive reliance on emotional appeals? Does she accurately convey the positions of people with whom she disagrees? Does she acknowledge that an issue may be complex or multifaceted? Does her education or experience give her credibility as someone who should be listened to on this issue? Fallacies That Misuse Appeals to Ethos Ad hominem : attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Fallacies That Misuse Appeals to Logos Hasty generalization: jumping to conclusions based upon an unrepresentative sample or insufficient evidence. For more information on common fallacies, refer to these resources available from the Writing Commons:.
Babin, C. Burnell, S. Pesznecker, N. Rosevear, and J. Skip to content Part 5: Message types. Previous: 5.
0コメント