66

Cuong Nguyen

ENG 3316

Avoiding Common Logical Fallacies

The audience expects perfect work from the author and the author has to ensure that the

work presented to the audience has no mistakes and errors that might raise eyebrows. No reader

will most likely entertain any form of fallacies in the work they read. One`s work is likely to be

assumed based on mistakes and errors committed in their work. Therefore, despite the message

being passed across is critical to the reader it's important the message is error-free for the reader

to have an easy time comprehending the message conveyed. As a result, this study paper

emphasizes on some of the critical measures that should be followed in ensuring the desired goals

are achieved.

Logical fallacies are the fallacies that occur when one writes due to the mistakes made in

trying to explain a point. This is an absurd situation that no profession would be at ease with such

fallacies being identified in their work. Professionals and especially writers should use all means

possible to avoid logical errors in written form and identify such errors on others` opinions and

arguments. This is critical when conducting research and seeking to avoid such fallacy in their

work. For instance, ad hominem fallacy can always be avoided by easily avoiding name-calling in

research. This would make the research neutral with the research not seeming to be an attack on a

specific person (Frank et al. 2019, p. 49).

Bandwagon fallacy is also common among writers. This requires conducting extensive

research on issues under discussion. Research would make it easier to avoid agreements with issues

based on the celebrity appeal of the issue. The majority in society is likely to be wrong and this

can only be proven through research. Therefore, as a writer through extensive researching on the

issue under study one is likely to make the right decision regardless of the perception made by the

majority.

Additionally, there is also either reasoning in which there is a perception that there is only

one solution to the existing solution. This fallacy narrows one and does not allow one to have a

big picture of the problem at hand and on how it can be solved by the use of various methods. To

avoid this fallacy as a writer it’s important that there is an extensive conducting of research and

being open-minded to easily have alternatives on the ways of solving an existing problem.

Ideological reasoning is also likely to lead to fallacy in the presentation of ideas. It’s

acceptable to share personal ideas and opinions but the audience might not be in agreement with

the author’s opinion. As a result, there must be effective consideration of what the audience

requires rather than being judgmental and sticking to personal ideology, this might not conform to

the needs of the audience (Ketokivi, 2019, p. 391). Therefore, it’s only essential that there is

thorough research to understand the beliefs, values, and opinions of the audience before making

conclusions.

Emotional appeal can also result in ad populum fallacy in which the writer presents

arguments on the emotional appeals rather than the use of researched facts. Presentation of facts is

the only way in which an argument can be won (Lamont, 2020, p. 12). Therefore, as a writer to

avoid making such fallacies, there must be effective conducting of research to get facts that would

make it easier to present them during an argument.

In summary, various types of fallacies can easily be committed when writing. Therefore,

as a writer, there must be extensive conducting of research to get facts that make it easier during

the process of handling an issue.

Works Cited

Frank, David M., et al. "Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response

to Guiaşu and Tindale." Biology & Philosophy 34.5 (2019): 49.

Ketokivi, Mikko. "Avoiding bias and fallacy in survey research: A behavioral multilevel

approach." Journal of Operations Management 65.4 (2019): 380-402.

Lamont, Peter. "The construction of “critical thinking”: Between how we think and what we

believe." History of Psychology (2020).