Reading Critical assignment (ADR)

fallacies.pptx

Home >Reading homework help >Reading Critical assignment (ADR)

Module 4: Fallacies & Persuaders Spring 2026

Critical Thinking Online

Fayetteville State University

Dr. Jon Young, Instructor

In this Module, you will:

Explain that fallacies can be beguiling because they appear to be arguments because they include a conclusion and at least one premise.

Explain that fallacies with irrelevant premises are defective arguments because they include irrelevant premises, which means that even if the premises are true they have no bearing on the truth of the conclusion.

Define and give examples of fallacies of irrelevant premises and fallacies with unacceptable premises.

Explain that persuaders or rhetorical moves (“language tricks”) seek to persuade and influence by use of nonargumentative and emotive words or phrases; they substitute language tricks for arguments.

Explain and give an example of each of the following persuaders: innuendo, euphemisms, dysphemisms, stereotyping, ridicule, and rhetorical definitions.

Identify fallacies and persuaders in specific passages.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

In this Module, you will

Complete the Required Readings

PowerPoint Introduction

Chapter 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 in your electronic textbook .

Earn at least six of ten points on the Quiz

Submit a writing assignment.

Contribute to the Discussion and possibly earn bonus points. .

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Fallacies – Flawed Arguments

Remember the definition an argument: a set of claims (statements) in which one or more statements (premises) provide reasons for accepting another of the claims (the conclusion),

Fallacies can be beguiling – They look like arguments in that they seem to have a conclusion and at least one premise. The problem is NOT that the premises are necessarily false, but are either 1) irrelevant to the conclusion or 2) are unacceptable.

Another type of non-argumentative persuasion are “persuaders,” “rhetorical moves or devices.”

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Irrelevant Premises

“Relevance,” and its opposite, “irrelevance,” are among the most important terms in critical thinking.

A is relevant to B if the truth of A has a bearing on the truth of B.

A is irrelevant to B if the truth of A has no bearing on the truth of B.

Fallacies with irrelevant premises include premises that – even if true – do not affect the truth of the conclusion.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Fallacies with Irrelevant Premises – I encourage you to make flash card for each fallacy

Genetic Fallacy

Composition

Division

Appeal to the Person – Ad Hominem

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Equivocation

Appeal to Popularity

Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to Emotion (pity)

Appeal to Emotion (fear – or Scare Tactics)

Red Herring

Straw Man

Two Wrongs Make A Right

Example – Irrelevant Premises

Example: Snodgrass says that we should not move too quickly to renewable energy sources. But he owns stock in fossil fuel companies so we can ignore his ideas.

Explanation: Even if it is true that Snodgrass owns stock in fossil fuel companies, this fact does not – by itself – make his views about transition to renewable energy sources wrong. This fact is irrelevant to the truth of truth or falsity of Snodgrass’ claim. His ownership of stock is about the person; hence this is appeal to the person – you must know the Latin name – Ad Hominem.

Once you pay attention, you will find many examples in everyday life of irrelevant premises!

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Fallacies with Unacceptable Premises

The premises included in these fallacies are not so much false as flawed, deceptive, or just as dubious as the conclusion they are intended to support.

You will learn six of these fallacies. In each one, the premises are unacceptable in a unique way. As you memorize the names and an example of each, be sure you can explain why the premises are unacceptable.

Begging the Question; False Dilemma; Slippery Slope; Hasty Generalization; Faulty Analogy; Decision-Point Fallacy

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Example: Fallacies with Unacceptable Premises

Let’s say we are leaders of a company discussing whether or not to invest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance our business processes. As one who is convinced that investment in AI is essential to our future success, I may say something like this: “Either we can invest in AI or we can go out of business. Since no one here wants us to go out of business, we must invest in AI.”

What is the problem here? My conclusion,“we must invest in AI,” is supported by the premises: “Either we invest or we go out of business and no otn wants to gou of business.

We should immediately recognize that the first prmise is unacceptable because it proposes a false dilemma; false because it suggests that we have only two options, when in fact there are many other possible options. (we coild invest modestly at first ans invest more as we see the reults)

Beware: people who want to take a specific course of action will often contrast the action they want with one that you will immediately reject (i.e., going out of business). Your task is to see through the false dilemma by identifying other possible courses of action beside the two proposed by the speaker.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Example: Fallacies with Unacceptable Premises

Let’s explore this example further. Perhaps I am opposed to investingin AI and I argue the following: “We shoud not invest in AI because if we do, when the next new technology comes alonge we will have to invest in it, and then we will have to invest in another new technology. It won’t be long until we are throwing all our money away on new technologies while we neglect other priorities.”

Take note: My conclusion not to invest is supported by premises that claim that doing so will lead to inevitable chain of event whose outcome will be bad. These premises are unacceptable because they propose a slippery slope – once you take one step down a slippery slope, you will be unable to avoid sliding all the way down.

Your task is to recognize that the chain of events does NOT necessarily follow from the first event.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Persuaders

Persuaders, rhetorical moves, rhetorical language are words or phrases designed to convince without offering reasons or an argument. Persuaders substitute deceptive, tricky language in the place of reasons and arguments.

The following slides reviews persuaders that are discussed in the textbook, but also explains some common persuaders that are not discussed in the text.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in Textbook: Innuendo

Innuendo – Suggests something denigrating (bad) about a person is without stating it explicitly. Ex. “The preacher has been spending a lot of time with Widow Smith, but I am sure he’s doing nothing but pastoral counseling.” Despite the explicit disavowal that nothing in appropriate is going on, the speaker plants a seed of doubt about it.

Critical thinkers will not be duped by innuendo. If a person wants to convince you that something is true, they should state clearly what it is and offer reasons.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in textbook: Innuendo

Sometimes an innuendo is expressed in a question. In a program trying to convince us that aliens visited earth many years ago and gave humans tools for civilization. Referring to some ancient writings, the narrator asks, :”Is it possible that these ancient writings are referring to space ships?” They want to suggest this is true without saying it. The question, “Is it possible?” can just as easily be answered, “No” as “Yes.”

I saw Nathaniel leaving the building after dark. I am sure he wasn’t doing anything wrong. (It doesn’t explicitly say Nathaniel was doing something wrong, only suggests it.)

My entrance into the race for mayor proves that there is at least one honest politician in this town. (Doesn’t say that his opponent is dishonest, but suggests it.)

Margaret is the smartest person in her graduating class, I suppose. (“I suppose” raises doubt without explicitly stating it.)

Can this “so-called” professor be trusted? “So-called” suggests that the credentials are suspect without saying it, which raises doubt about her trustworthiness.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in textbook: Euphemisms

“Euphemism” derives from the Gree term, “sounds good.” They are intended to convey positive or neutral attitudes or meanings in place of more negative ones.

Sometimes people try to fool us by using language that makes something sound better than it really is.

We won’t be able to go out tonight. I have a little cash flow problem. (I’m broke.)

This house has a lived-in look. (The house has a lot of wear and tear.)

The president will seek some revenue enhancements. (but not new taxes)

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in textbook: Euphemisms

The patriotic Americans that participated in the January 6, 2021 protest at the capital were exercising their free-speech rights. “Free speech rights” sounds much better than “attacking the capital” “or engaging in an insurrection.”

The company CEO admits that he had a rendezvous with a younger woman. “Rendezvous” sounds better than had an affair.

In World War II, people of Japanese descent were ‘relocated to internment camps’ sounds better than “forced into concentration camps.”

She was “creative with the facts” sounds much better than “she lied.”

The executive made some technical, accounting errors sounds better than he “committed fraud.”

I bought a “pre-owned” car sounds better than “used” car.

The mission caused some “collateral damage” sounds better than “injured and killed civilians.”

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in textbook: Dysphemisms

Dysphemism are words used to convey negative attitudes or emotions in the place of more positive one.

If we describe a person who gives substantial amounts of money to charities as a “do-gooder” or “bleeding heart” we make their giving seem disingenuous or suspect.

If we call someone a “loser” we are suggesting something worse than they are unaccomplished in a specific area. (Aren’t we all “losers” in some areas? I played one game of Black Jack in Las Vegas and immediately lost $25. Certainly, I a loser when it comes to gambling.)

If we says that someone who is very passionate about a specific (possibly noble) cause a “fanatic,” we make it sound as if they are sick, deranged, or crazy.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in textbook: Dysphemisms

Some politicians have gained great support by fighting against the “death tax.” (Sounds like you are being taxed for dying, but the tax is on inherited wealth, and does not apply to the first $625,000 of inheritance.”)

If we call a governmental employee a “bureaucrat” it often implies that the individual is a mindless robot who follows orders and pushes paper.

If we call a person with great technical skills a “nerd” or “egghead,” we are diminishing the value of the person’s skills.

If we say that a school curriculum is intended to “brainwash” or “indoctrinate” our children, we are trying to persuade you that the curriculum is sinister without offering any reasons.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in textbook: Stereotyping

An unwarranted conclusion or generalization about a group applied to an individual.

Men are pigs so you can’t trust anything Benjamin says.

So Barbara dumped you for richer guy. No surprise. Women don’t care about anything but money.

People from the North are rude and always in a hurry. So it shouldn’t surprise you that Marcus, the Yankee, is so rude and always in a hurry.

The inherent problem with stereotypes is that they are dehumanizing. Rather than look at the individuality of persons, we see them as part of a group. Every person has is part of specific groups based on gender, race, geographic region, nationality, language, social class, political affiliation, and others. But because we are human, we are always MORE than these attributes. When we rely on stereotypes we consider others as nothing more than a member of a group. In other words, we ignore their humanity.

Please note the connection between the Ad Hominem fallacy. If I dismiss a person’s argument based on their gender, race, language, nationality, etc. then my Ad Hominem is a stereotype.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in Textbook: Ridicule

Ridicule is the use or derision, sarcasm, laugher, or mockery to disparage a person or idea. It substitutes derision and mockery for evidence for the claim one is making.

A commentator on CNN said – Mike Pompeo couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had a big U with a picture of a crane. (Makes fun rather than address his argument.)

So you believe Joe Biden. I suppose you also believe in the tooth fairy. (Ridicules rather than offers reason.)

The Governor says she has a plan to reduce the state’s reliance on revenue from fossil fuels. Sure, and then next she will teach frogs to fly. (Dismisses a proposal with a joke rather than giving reasons.)

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in text: Rhetorical Definitions

Rhetorical definitions must be distinguished from three other types of definitions:

Lexical definitions state the meaning that the word has among people who use the language. Dictionaries provide lexical definitions. A dictionary definition of “automobile,” for example, is; “a road vehicle designed primarily for passenger transportation and commonly propelled by an internal combustion engine or electric motor.”

Stipulative definitions are used to stipulate a meaning of a word usually for convenience or economy of expression. If I writing on the topic of about travel in Los Angeles, I might offer a stipulative definition of “automobile” as the preferred method of transportation for most residents.

Precising definitions, as the term suggests, offer a more precise definition of a term for use in a specific context. For example, if I am discussing the impact of automobiles on climate change, I may give a more precise definition as a vehical with an internal combustion engine.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Included in text: Rhetorical Definitions

A rhetorical definition persuades by skewed, emotion-charged definitions. It tries to sway you toward particular attitudes and beliefs.

If I define “automobile” a gas-guzzling, environment-destroying, death-causing hunk of tin,” or as a “miracle of modern technology that has improved the lives of all human beings,” it should be obvious that I am trying to sway your beliefs and attitude by offering a distorted, emotion-charged definition.

In the heated controversies about abortion, most will use rhetorical definitions: for some abortion is “taking the life of an innocent human being” or “the exercise reproductive freedom.”

If we describe a tax proposal as either “making the rich richer and the poor poorer,” or “as handouts to lazy bums who don’t want to work,” it’s clear that I trying to buld an argument into the very language I use.

The persuasive power of rhetorical definitions arises exclusively from the words used rather than arguments.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Not Included in text: Excessive vagueness

Excessive vagueness refers to a statement whose lack of detail makes it impossible to know exactly what it means or how to evaluate its truth.

Excessively vague language functions as a persuader or rhetorical move when it is used intentionally as a substitute for arguments and reasons.

We have seen that political slogans and advertising jingles are intentionally deploy excessive vague because they want to convince by appeals to emotions rather than reasons.

Examples: “Americans know that Washington, D.C. is broken.” Note the vagueness: Which Americans? All, some, a few? What exactly is broken about Washington, D.C? If you are already angry or resentful of the government, then the statement will appeal to your emotions withour reference to any reasons.

“You deserve a break today.” Why do I deserve a break? What kind of break? Note, that many of us “feel” we need a break so the slogan appeals to us.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Vague language: Insults and Name Calling

Social media sites are full of insults and name calling that rely on vague terms.

“Democrats are evil.” (“Evil” is very broad term; the person needs to specify the ideas of actions that he considers evil. The truth of this statement cannot be evaluated until the meaning is specified.)

Republicans are morons. (This is little more than name calling. Unless the speaker specifies the ideas or actions she considers moronic, it is impossible to evaluate the truth of the statement.)

Liberals hate America. (It is not clear who the liberals are and what they have done to show they hate America.)

None of these expressions offer any details or reasons – They are not really statement – how would you determine their truth? All such expressions do is convey contempt; those who share the contempt will “like” the post, deluding them into thinking they have said something.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Recent Example

As I was working on this presentation, I read an official from the current administration (11/13.2025) who responded to a congressman’s social media post, “This is disgusting, even by the low expectations we have of politicians.” Instead of offering reasons why the post was disgusting, the speaker uses innuendo to suggest that since the person is a congressman (politician) we know he can’t be trusted. Notice how easy it is to use social media to insult and call names rather than engage in reasoned dialogue. I hope that this course will help you become a little more circumspect and respectful in your ue of social media, that you will not let you get yourself sucked into such unreasonable behavior.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Weasel Words (a type of vague claim)

A weasel word (or weasler) makes a claim seem much stronger than it is. It often has a built in protection against criticism.

Three out of four dentists surveyed recommended sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum. This makes you think that most dentists recommend sugarless gum. Moreover, “three out of four” suggests there was a survey of many dentists with @75% recommending chewing gum. But note how vague “three out of four” is. Perhaps only four were actually surveyed. (Or, perhaps the dentists were saying, “If you must chew gum chew sugarless gum.)

Note the reference “for patients who chew gum.” Perhaps they’d rather you not chew gum at all.

A weasel word makes a statement seem very strong, but leaves room to weasel out, i.e. if you must chew gum, chew sugarless.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Weasel Words (a type of vague claim)

“Selling this product is guaranteed to increase your income by up to 25%. Wow! I would like to increase my income by 25%. Wouldn’t you? But suppose you start selling the product and your income doesn’t increase by a penny. The person can weasel out of the original claim, I only promised “up to” 25%, which means that 0 increase is also possible.

Prices slashed by as much as 75%. You go to the store to get some great sale prices only to discover most prices are slashed only by 1% to 2%. You protest but the store owner explains, I didn’t say everything was 75% off, just “as much as” which includes 0 – 75%. As long as one item is discounted 75%, technically the store owner can truthfully say, “as much as” “as much as 75%” means 0 – 75%

Young’s Bakery: “Quite possibly the best cake you’ll ever eat!” If you eat some cake and find it only mediocre and complain, Young can reply, I only said it was possibly the best you’ve ever eaten, but could possibly be the worst cake you’ve ever eaten.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Proof substitutes – A type of weasel word

These terms make the claim seems stronger than it is because it suggests there is proof of the claim, but it fails to provide the proof.

“Research shows that people who use this shampoo have more friends” “Everybody knows that ____ is the best team, singer, school.”

“Obviously (evidently), we should invest in this new product.” (When someone uses the terms “obviously” “evidently,” ask them “obvious, evident to whom?”)

“It goes without saying “ that Jeffrey is guilty;

When someone uses words and phrases like, “everybody knows;” “it goes without saying,” ”research has shown;” “obviously;” or “evidently;” make sure that they have evidence and are not just using words to make their statements seem stronger than they really are.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Proof substitutes – A type of weasel word

These terms make the claim seems stronger than it is because it suggests there is proof of the claim, but it fails to provide the proof.

“Research shows that people who use this shampoo have more friends” “Everybody knows that ____ is the best team, singer, school.”

“Obviously (evidently), we should invest in this new product.” (When someone uses the terms “obvious” “evidently,” ask them “obvious, evident to whom?”)

“It goes without saying “ that Jeffrey is guilty;

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Hyperbole

The exaggeration and distortion of the truth.

From an advertisement: “the Ford Explorer – the greatest exploration vehicle of all time!” (Really! Of all time?!)

I don’t think it is partisan politics to points out that former President Trump is especially prone to hyperbole. Explaining why he did not want to accuse the Saudis of murdering Jamal Khashoggi, he said he did not want to lose $100 billion in arms sales. The amount of sales was actually $4 billion. Of you listen closely to what he says, you will likely recognize many examples of hyperbole.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Evaluate each of the following

My opponent, Pat Smith, is the worst disaster of a mayor in all of recorded history!

If you think politicians really care about their constituents then let me sell you some beach-front property in the middle of the desert.

Yes, I did have a little run-in with the law, but nobody’s perfect.

It’s obvious that Bill Clinton should never have been elected president.

This new brand of mouthwash will make your mouth feel fresher than ever.

I heard that the preacher has gotten a little too friendly with the one of his church members. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Evaluate each of the following

My opponent, Pat Smith, is the worst disaster of a mayor in all of recorded history! The underlined portion is hyperbole; if the mayor is really so bad, give some examples of why rather than using such loaded language.

If you think politicians really care about their constituents then let me sell you some beach-front property in the middle of the desert. Ridicule. Laughing or mocking someone is never an acceptable substitute for offering evidence and reasons to show why they are wrong.

Yes, I did have a little run-in with the law, but nobody’s perfect. The underlined portion is a euphemism. We don’t know exactly what the person did – it could be very serious. But, the language makes it sound like it’s not such a big deal.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Evaluate each of the following

It’s obvious that Bill Clinton should never have been elected president. “Obvious” functions as a substitute for proof. Be very careful when people use such language. It’s much easier to say “it’s obvious” than offering evidence or reasons.”

This new brand of mouthwash will make your mouth feel fresher than ever. The underlined portion sounds good – I want my breath to feel fresher than ever, but the meaning is vague. How is fresh measured? The claim is so vague that it is impossible to even know how you determine its truth.

I heard that the preacher has gotten a little too friendly with the choir director. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Good example of innuendo. The speaker is not explicitly claiming that the preacher is doing something wrong, only insinuating it. If you do not have good reason to believe something is true, then it is probably better to say nothing.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Evaluate:

“Buy my new book, Stock Market Success. It is filled with tips on how to get rich in the stock market. I’ve been a Wall Street investor for decades and I’m sharing all that experience with you.”

What is the conclusion of this argument?

What are the premises?

Which persuaders are used here?

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Evaluate:

What is the conclusion of this argument? Buy my new book.”

What are the premises? It is filled with tips….; I’ve been a Wall Street investor for decades; I’m sharing all that experience with you.

Which persuaders are used here. “for decades” is excessively vague; if years of experience is a reason for buying the book, the years of experience should the number of years should be stated more precisely. It could also see this as a weasel word. “Decades” gives an impression of many years but could mean as few as 11 years (the person is in the second decade of experience.) It could also be considered a euphemism since “decades” sounds much more impressive than 11 years.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

This week

Read Chapter 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 in your electronic textbook – make a flash card for each fallacy and persuader – you can use the flash cards on the quizzes.

Earn at least six of ten points on the Quiz.

Submit a writing assignment.

Contribute to the Discussion and possibly earn bonus points by doing so.

7 Fallacies and Persuaders

Good luck!

Contact me through Canvas, at jyoung@uncfsu.edu or post yoru questions in the Q&A Discussion.