Assignment 2: Discussion—Informal Fallacies

In this assignment, you will compose three original examples of informal fallacy arguments. This assignment allows you to examine common fallacies in everyday reasoning.

Start by reading the article “Fallacies of Logic: Argumentation Cons” found in the Argosy University Online Library.

Shapiro, I. D. (2007). Fallacies of logic: Argumentation cons. et Cetera, 64(1), 75–86. Retrieved from
http://www.thecampuscommon.com/library/ezproxy/ticketdemocs.asp?
sch=auo&turl=http://search.proquest.com/docview/204105839

Using the types of arguments listed in this article or in the module readings, respond to the following:

• Draft two original fallacies. Do not identify the fallacies, allow your peers to determine what fallacy your example represents.

Next, using the Internet, respond to the following:

• Research a third informal fallacy not already covered in the readings.
  • Identify and define the fallacy. For example, appeal to tradition, false dichotomy, etc.
  • Explain why this type of fallacy is a bad way of reasoning.
  • Construct an original fallacy argument of that type.
  • Provide a citation for your source. Ensure that you apply APA standards to the citation of sources.

Support your statements with examples and scholarly references.

Write your initial response in 200–300 words.

By Sunday, April 17, 2016, post your response to the appropriate Discussion Area. Through Wednesday, April 20, 2016, review and comment on at least two peers’ responses, using at least 75 words per response. Identify their fallacies and suggest ways in which they can refine their arguments.

Grading Criteria and Rubric

Assignment 2 Grading Criteria	Maximum Points
Initial Discussion Response	16
Discussion Participation	16
Writing Craftsmanship and Ethical Scholarship	8
Total:	40