Critical thinking writing assignment

Fallacies A​ ​fallacy​ ​is​ ​an​ ​error​ ​in​ ​reasoning.​ ​The​ ​kinds​ ​of​ ​fallacies​ ​we​ ​are​ ​currently​ ​interested​ ​in​ ​are​ ​called informal​ ​fallacies.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​fallacious​ ​arguments​ ​which​ ​are​ ​psychologically​ ​compelling,​ ​but logically​ ​empty.​ ​Fallacies​ ​are​ ​essentially​ ​bad​ ​inferences​ ​in​ ​arguments.​ ​Certain​ ​information​ ​is used​ ​to​ ​support​ ​an​ ​idea​ ​(premises​ ​supporting​ ​a​ ​conclusion​ ​in​ ​an​ ​argument),​ ​but​ ​the​ ​connection between​ ​that​ ​information​ ​and​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​it​ ​is​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​support​ ​is​ ​either​ ​not​ ​sufficient​ ​or completely​ ​absent.​ ​Psychologically,​ ​however,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​inclined​ ​to​ ​think​ ​that​ ​the​ ​inference​ ​is​ ​an acceptable​ ​one.​ ​These​ ​errors​ ​rest​ ​on​ ​ambiguous​ ​language,​ ​unwarranted​ ​assumptions,​ ​or​ ​irrelevant premises.

1. Equivocation:​ ​​ ​A​ ​key​ ​term​ ​changes​ ​its​ ​meaning​ ​during​ ​the​ ​argument,​ ​allowing​ ​one​ ​to conclude​ ​anything​ ​based​ ​on​ ​slipping​ ​definitions.

a. We​ ​have​ ​a​ ​right​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​the​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​our​ ​own​ ​death.​ ​Therefore, voluntary​ ​active​ ​euthanasia​ ​is​ ​legal.

b. Man​ ​is​ ​a​ ​rational​ ​animal;​ ​no​ ​woman​ ​is​ ​a​ ​man;​ ​therefore,​ ​no​ ​woman​ ​is​ ​rational. 2. Division:​ ​A​ ​bad​ ​inference​ ​from​ ​the​ ​characteristics​ ​of​ ​a​ ​whole​ ​group​ ​to​ ​its​ ​individual

parts. a. The​ ​team​ ​is​ ​the​ ​best​ ​in​ ​the​ ​league.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​ ​players​ ​are​ ​the​ ​best​ ​players​ ​in

the​ ​league. 3. Composition:​ ​A​ ​bad​ ​inference​ ​from​ ​the​ ​characteristics​ ​of​ ​the​ ​individual​ ​parts​ ​to​ ​the​ ​whole

group. a. You​ ​can’t​ ​see​ ​the​ ​atoms​ ​that​ ​make​ ​up​ ​my​ ​body.​ ​I​ ​am,​ ​therefore,​ ​quite​ ​invisible.

4. Ad​ ​Hominem:​ ​When​ ​one​ ​attacks​ ​the​ ​person​ ​who​ ​made​ ​an​ ​argument​ ​in​ ​an​ ​effort​ ​to​ ​refute it​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​the​ ​argument​ ​itself;​ ​can​ ​be​ ​abusive​ ​(poison​ ​the​ ​well)​ ​or​ ​contextual (hypocrite​ ​or​ ​stereotype).

a. My​ ​opponent​ ​claims​ ​that​ ​we​ ​should​ ​all​ ​vote​ ​for​ ​him​ ​because​ ​he’ll​ ​save​ ​the country,​ ​but​ ​he​ ​can’t​ ​even​ ​maintain​ ​a​ ​marriage,​ ​so​ ​we​ ​should​ ​not​ ​vote​ ​for​ ​him

b. The​ ​defendant​ ​has​ ​been​ ​accused​ ​of​ ​theft,​ ​fraud,​ ​and​ ​criminal​ ​negligence​ ​in​ ​the past,​ ​so​ ​he​ ​must​ ​be​ ​guilty​ ​this​ ​time.

c. Bob​ ​says​ ​that​ ​burning​ ​fossil​ ​fuels​ ​contributes​ ​to​ ​greenhouse​ ​gas​ ​buildup​ ​in​ ​the atmosphere,​ ​so​ ​it’s​ ​wrong​ ​to​ ​drive.​ ​I​ ​know​ ​he​ ​drives​ ​everywhere,​ ​even​ ​down​ ​the street,​ ​so​ ​I’m​ ​not​ ​buying​ ​it.

d. She​ ​claimed​ ​that​ ​we​ ​should​ ​avoid​ ​giving​ ​too​ ​much​ ​power​ ​to​ ​the​ ​state,​ ​but​ ​she’s​ ​a Republican​ ​so​ ​of​ ​course​ ​she’d​ ​say​ ​that.

5. Appeal​ ​to​ ​force:​ ​Use​ ​or​ ​threat​ ​of​ ​force/fear/loss/gain​ ​to​ ​compel​ ​without​ ​rational​ ​support for​ ​truth​ ​or​ ​falsity;​ ​one​ ​is​ ​forced​ ​to​ ​think​ ​of​ ​personal​ ​stakes​ ​instead.

a. It’s​ ​not​ ​right​ ​for​ ​us​ ​to​ ​vote​ ​for​ ​a​ ​tax​ ​increase​ ​because​ ​it​ ​would​ ​make​ ​our​ ​revenues less.

Prof.​ ​Eckel,​ ​U.​ ​Toledo,​ ​FA17

b. You​ ​should​ ​stop​ ​cheating​ ​because​ ​you’ll​ ​eventually​ ​get​ ​caught. 6. Appeal​ ​to​ ​pity:​ ​Evoking​ ​irrelevant​ ​emotions​ ​or​ ​sympathies​ ​for​ ​others’​ ​losses​ ​or

circumstances​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​reasons​ ​for​ ​truth​ ​or​ ​falsity;​ ​context​ ​matters​ ​for​ ​relevance. a. Officer,​ ​I​ ​can’t​ ​get​ ​a​ ​speeding​ ​ticket​ ​because​ ​I​ ​can’t​ ​afford​ ​it​ ​and​ ​I’m​ ​already​ ​late

to​ ​work. b. If​ ​you​ ​don’t​ ​come​ ​to​ ​my​ ​fundraiser,​ ​you​ ​will​ ​break​ ​my​ ​heart.

7. Popular​ ​appeal:​ ​Appeal​ ​to​ ​popular​ ​opinion​ ​as​ ​source​ ​of​ ​truth​ ​itself;​ ​what​ ​most​ ​people believe​ ​is​ ​said​ ​to​ ​be​ ​true​ ​for​ ​that​ ​reason;​ ​snob​ ​appeal​ ​is​ ​the​ ​elitist/niche​ ​version,​ ​where one​ ​is​ ​said​ ​to​ ​be​ ​correct​ ​because​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​like​ ​everyone​ ​else.

a. Most​ ​consumers​ ​choose​ ​Bank​ ​of​ ​America​ ​for​ ​their​ ​personal​ ​banking​ ​needs.​ ​So you​ ​should​ ​too.

b. Joe​ ​the​ ​Plumber​ ​is​ ​the​ ​ideal​ ​candidate​ ​because​ ​he’s​ ​like​ ​everyone​ ​else,​ ​an average,​ ​normal​ ​American.

c. Be​ ​better​ ​than​ ​average;​ ​be​ ​you;​ ​be​ ​unique.​ ​You​ ​deserve​ ​it​ ​because​ ​you’re​ ​a person​ ​of​ ​discernment​ ​and​ ​fine​ ​tastes.​ ​You​ ​deserve​ ​a​ ​[insert​ ​snobbish​ ​product here].

8. Appeal​ ​to​ ​tradition:​ ​Claiming​ ​that​ ​since​ ​something​ ​has​ ​been​ ​believed​ ​or​ ​done​ ​in​ ​a traditional​ ​sense​ ​through​ ​history​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​true​ ​or​ ​moral​ ​for​ ​no​ ​other​ ​reason.

a. We​ ​allowed​ ​redrawing​ ​of​ ​districts​ ​since​ ​the​ ​inception​ ​of​ ​this​ ​country​ ​so​ ​should continue​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​it.

9. Appeal​ ​to​ ​ignorance:​ ​Claiming​ ​that​ ​a​ ​belief​ ​must​ ​be​ ​true/false​ ​because​ ​it​ ​hasn’t​ ​been proven​ ​otherwise​ ​(false/true);​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​proof​ ​is​ ​said​ ​to​ ​be​ ​positive​ ​proof;​ ​shifting​ ​the burden​ ​of​ ​proof​ ​as​ ​an​ ​alternative.

a. There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​inexistence​ ​of​ ​bigfoot,​ ​so​ ​it​ ​is​ ​rational​ ​to​ ​believe​ ​in​ ​this creature​ ​until​ ​proven​ ​otherwise.

b. Until​ ​we’ve​ ​ruled​ ​out​ ​the​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​solar​ ​activity​ ​on​ ​the​ ​climate,​ ​we​ ​should​ ​not accept​ ​that​ ​climate​ ​change​ ​is​ ​due​ ​to​ ​carbon​ ​emissions.

c. You​ ​are​ ​guilty.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​your​ ​innocence,​ ​and​ ​you​ ​will​ ​be​ ​guilty until​ ​there​ ​is.

10. Hasty​ ​generalization:​ ​Using​ ​too​ ​small​ ​or​ ​biased​ ​of​ ​a​ ​sample​ ​group​ ​to​ ​make​ ​an​ ​inference about​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​group​ ​of​ ​which​ ​the​ ​sample​ ​is​ ​a​ ​part

a. We’ve​ ​polled​ ​five​ ​hundred​ ​students​ ​on​ ​campus​ ​this​ ​morning​ ​about​ ​whether​ ​the school​ ​should​ ​have​ ​a​ ​Chick-fil-A​;​​ ​74%​ ​say​ ​yes;​ ​26%​ ​say​ ​no.​ ​A​ ​majority​ ​of​ ​people on​ ​campus​ ​are​ ​for​ ​having​ ​Chick-fil-A​ ​on​ ​campus.

11. Straw​ ​man:​ ​Using​ ​a​ ​distorted,​ ​more​ ​imperfect​ ​version​ ​of​ ​an​ ​opponent's​ ​argument​ ​as though​ ​it​ ​were​ ​their​ ​own​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​refute​ ​it

a. Person​ ​A:​ ​We​ ​should​ ​regulate​ ​the​ ​financial​ ​industry​ ​more​ ​closely​ ​because​ ​the​ ​acts that​ ​led​ ​to​ ​the​ ​07/08​ ​crash​ ​are​ ​still​ ​very​ ​possible.

Prof.​ ​Eckel,​ ​U.​ ​Toledo,​ ​FA17

Person​ ​B:​ ​Person​ ​A​ ​believes​ ​that​ ​we​ ​need​ ​more​ ​regulations​ ​on​ ​the​ ​financial industry.​ ​I​ ​think​ ​we​ ​need​ ​less.​ ​Person​ ​A​ ​claims​ ​that​ ​either​ ​we​ ​have​ ​a​ ​massive bureaucracy​ ​to​ ​regulate​ ​the​ ​industry​ ​so​ ​that​ ​it​ ​can’t​ ​operate​ ​freely,​ ​or​ ​there​ ​will be​ ​a​ ​catastrophic​ ​financial​ ​collapse,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​a​ ​fallacy.​ ​It​ ​doesn’t​ ​matter,​ ​because if​ ​we​ ​regulate​ ​the​ ​industry​ ​that​ ​much,​ ​lenders​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​lend​ ​and​ ​there will​ ​be​ ​a​ ​financial​ ​collapse​ ​anyway.​ ​Less​ ​regulation​ ​is​ ​better.

12. Red​ ​herring:​ ​Responding​ ​to​ ​a​ ​claim​ ​or​ ​making​ ​a​ ​point​ ​by​ ​taking​ ​a​ ​tangent​ ​away​ ​from​ ​the original​ ​line​ ​of​ ​reasoning,​ ​directing​ ​attention​ ​away​ ​from​ ​it​ ​to​ ​conceal​ ​faulty​ ​reasoning before​ ​returning​ ​to​ ​the​ ​intended​ ​conclusion.​ ​Associations​ ​take​ ​the​ ​place​ ​of​ ​reasoning.

a. We​ ​cannot​ ​provide​ ​humanitarian​ ​aid​ ​to​ ​Puerto​ ​Rico​ ​since​ ​they’re​ ​debt​ ​is​ ​too​ ​high and​ ​it’s​ ​not​ ​clear​ ​how​ ​they’ll​ ​pay​ ​the​ ​debts​ ​they​ ​already​ ​had.

b. The​ ​candidate​ ​for​ ​senate​ ​shouldn’t​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​seriously.​ ​Though​ ​they​ ​have​ ​great ideas,​ ​experience​ ​in​ ​passing​ ​laws,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​perfect​ ​legislative​ ​platform,​ ​they​ ​look like​ ​an​ ​eccentric​ ​bum​ ​and​ ​aren’t​ ​very​ ​compelling​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​ ​a​ ​podium.​ ​They​ ​are neither​ ​passionately​ ​progressive​ ​nor​ ​conservative,​ ​but​ ​a​ ​kind​ ​of​ ​worker​ ​who​ ​will get​ ​overshadowed​ ​by​ ​Washington's​ ​self-interested​ ​political​ ​games​ ​without​ ​being on​ ​either​ ​team.

13. Begging​ ​the​ ​question:​ ​An​ ​argument​ ​where​ ​the​ ​conclusion​ ​is​ ​the​ ​same​ ​thing​ ​as​ ​a​ ​premise but​ ​reworded;​ ​accepting​ ​the​ ​premise​ ​is​ ​accepting​ ​the​ ​conclusion.

a. The​ ​biologist​ ​found​ ​that​ ​90%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​trees​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​had​ ​the​ ​fungus.​ ​The​ ​other 10%​ ​showed​ ​resistance​ ​and​ ​were​ ​healthy.​ ​Of​ ​the​ ​90%​ ​less​ ​than​ ​half​ ​will​ ​live​ ​to their​ ​normal​ ​life​ ​range.​ ​Because​ ​of​ ​all​ ​of​ ​this,​ ​therefore,​ ​one​ ​in​ ​ten​ ​trees​ ​did​ ​not have​ ​the​ ​fungus.

b. We​ ​cannot​ ​allow​ ​democracy​ ​to​ ​fall​ ​because​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​unacceptable​ ​to​ ​fail​ ​to maintain​ ​political​ ​arrangements​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​people​ ​hold​ ​political​ ​power.

14. Inappropriate​ ​appeal​ ​to​ ​authority:​ ​Taking​ ​an​ ​expert​ ​in​ ​one​ ​field​ ​to​ ​be​ ​an​ ​expert​ ​in​ ​a​ ​field in​ ​which​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​an​ ​expert,​ ​a​ ​halo​ ​effect.

a. A​ ​new​ ​study​ ​signed​ ​by​ ​1,000​ ​physical​ ​scientists​ ​has​ ​claimed​ ​that​ ​climate​ ​change​ ​is not​ ​necessarily​ ​human-caused.​ ​Therefore,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​good​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​think​ ​that​ ​there is​ ​a​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​consensus​ ​about​ ​climate​ ​change​ ​being​ ​human-induced.

15. False​ ​dilemma:​ ​When​ ​a​ ​complex​ ​situation​ ​is​ ​reduced​ ​to​ ​two​ ​oversimplified​ ​solutions​ ​as either/or;​ ​this​ ​is​ ​an​ ​absolutist​ ​inflexibility​ ​and​ ​can​ ​be​ ​a​ ​stacked​ ​deck.

a. Either​ ​we​ ​destroy​ ​North​ ​Korea​ ​or​ ​they​ ​destroy​ ​us. 16. Questionable​ ​cause:​ ​Assuming,​ ​without​ ​sufficient​ ​evidence,​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​cause/effect

relation​ ​when​ ​there​ ​is​ ​not;​ ​post​ ​hoc​ ​ergo​ ​propter​ ​hoc​ ​(after​ ​this​ ​therefore​ ​because​ ​of​ ​this). a. We​ ​gave​ ​the​ ​patient​ ​the​ ​prescribed​ ​dosage​ ​but​ ​were​ ​unable​ ​to​ ​save​ ​them.​ ​The

illness,​ ​therefore,​ ​was​ ​too​ ​much,​ ​and​ ​they​ ​succumbed​ ​to​ ​it. b. He​ ​stopped​ ​talking​ ​to​ ​me​ ​after​ ​I​ ​told​ ​him​ ​he​ ​drinks​ ​too​ ​much,​ ​so​ ​obviously​ ​he​ ​was

offended​ ​by​ ​what​ ​I​ ​said​ ​and​ ​it​ ​caused​ ​our​ ​friendship​ ​to​ ​collapse.

Prof.​ ​Eckel,​ ​U.​ ​Toledo,​ ​FA17

17. Slippery​ ​slope:​ ​The​ ​assumption​ ​that​ ​if​ ​certain​ ​actions​ ​are​ ​permitted,​ ​all​ ​actions​ ​of​ ​this type​ ​will​ ​be​ ​permissible,​ ​or​ ​worse.

a. If​ ​we​ ​allow​ ​gay​ ​people​ ​to​ ​get​ ​married​ ​then​ ​it​ ​will​ ​become​ ​the​ ​norm.​ ​If​ ​gay marriage​ ​becomes​ ​the​ ​norm​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​heterosexual​ ​marriage,​ ​then​ ​there​ ​will​ ​be nothing​ ​stopping​ ​people​ ​from​ ​marrying​ ​children​ ​or​ ​pet​ ​turtles.​ ​We​ ​obviously​ ​can’t allow​ ​that,​ ​so​ ​shouldn’t​ ​allow​ ​gay​ ​marriage​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​place.

18. Naturalistic​ ​fallacy:​ ​Assuming​ ​that​ ​what​ ​is​ ​natural​ ​is​ ​good​ ​and​ ​unnatural​ ​is​ ​bad. a. Foods​ ​that​ ​have​ ​been​ ​manipulated​ ​by​ ​humans​ ​are​ ​less​ ​natural​ ​than​ ​foods​ ​we’d

find​ ​in​ ​the​ ​wild.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​less​ ​healthy​ ​for​ ​us​ ​for​ ​that​ ​reason. b. We​ ​should​ ​legalize​ ​marijuana​ ​use​ ​because​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​more​ ​natural​ ​substance​ ​and​ ​a

healthier​ ​option​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​cigarettes​ ​which​ ​are​ ​filled​ ​with​ ​so​ ​many​ ​different chemicals.

19. Faulty​ ​analogy:​ ​Making​ ​an​ ​assertion​ ​about​ ​something​ ​by​ ​comparing​ ​it​ ​to​ ​something similar​ ​and​ ​assuming​ ​that​ ​the​ ​two​ ​things​ ​must​ ​be​ ​similar​ ​in​ ​a​ ​further​ ​way.

a. I​ ​passed​ ​the​ ​last​ ​class​ ​I​ ​had​ ​when​ ​I​ ​showed​ ​up​ ​every​ ​day,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​in​ ​the​ ​morning,​ ​I studied​ ​once​ ​a​ ​week,​ ​I​ ​turned​ ​in​ ​9/10​ ​of​ ​the​ ​homework,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​professor​ ​was easy​ ​to​ ​reach.​ ​In​ ​my​ ​current​ ​class,​ ​the​ ​professor​ ​is​ ​easy​ ​to​ ​reach,​ ​I​ ​have​ ​turned​ ​in 9/10​ ​of​ ​the​ ​homework,​ ​I​ ​study​ ​once​ ​every​ ​week,​ ​it’s​ ​in​ ​the​ ​morning,​ ​and​ ​I​ ​show​ ​up every​ ​day.​ ​So​ ​I​ ​will​ ​pass​ ​this​ ​class​ ​too.

Prof.​ ​Eckel,​ ​U.​ ​Toledo,​ ​FA17