Class

1. Begging the question

Everyone should be vegan because chickens are treated cruelly at farms when being used for eggs.

Begging the question assumes a major point. When stating that everyone should be vegan, you would then wonder why, and the fallacy above assumes a particular answer by saying because chickens are treated cruelly at farms when being used for eggs. I have no evidence of this, although I may be able to search the internet and find supportive information. This alone may not be reason enough for someone to be vegan. This might have been avoided by instead saying, "You might consider being vegan because chickens are treated cruelly at farms when being used for eggs". This argument can be supported by evidence from the internet, but again, it may not be reason enough for a person to become vegan, that is why we change the wording to "You might consider being vegan" instead of " Everyone should be vegan".

Hasty Generalization

All of my friends that are women like to drink coffee, therefore, all women probably like to drink coffee.

This generalization was made based on a group of friends that are all probably from the same geographic location. You can not assume that all women like to drink coffee based on a handful of women that do like to drink it all from the same location. This would have been better stated as,   All of my friends that are women like to drink coffee, therefore, most women probably like to drink coffee.

Appeal to inadequate authority

My friend has high blood pressure and I have the same symptoms that she had, so she says that I have high blood pressure, therefore, I have high blood pressure.

My friend is not a doctor. This is something that should be diagnosed by a doctor. Although the symptoms are the same, I should still seek medical treatment and an appropriate diagnosis from an actual authority on the subject. This could have been changed to , "My friend has high blood pressure and I have the same symptoms that she had. She thinks that I have high blood pressure, therefore, I might have high blood pressure.  Veazey

2. Fallacies of Support:

‘A vegan diet is better for your body because it is healthier’.

I saw this claim on a chalkboard outside a vegan café near to where I live in the UK. I can now identify this claim as begging the question which means that the ‘premises of the argument claim something that someone probably would not agree with if he or she did not already accept the conclusion’ (Hardy, Foster and Postigo, 2015). One has to agree with the premise in order to accept the conclusion, however the premise does not lead to the conclusion in a logical way, rendering the argument invalid. In this instance, one could ask ‘how do you know it’s healthier’ to which the reply could be ‘because vegans say so’. The argument is more ‘an expression of a person’s belief’ which is unlikely to persuade those on the other side of the fence (Hardy et al., 2015). To improve the argument, the claim would need to give specific reasons as to why a vegan diet is healthier. It could do this by citing a study or some research conducted in this area.

. Fallacies of Relevance:

‘Imagine having to walk 2 miles every day to the nearest water supply to drink dirty water. That’s what little Josiah has to do. Your £2 a month could put an end to that’

I saw this claim on a TV advertisement for WaterAid – a charity which provides clean water supply to third world villages. I can identify this claim as an appeal to pity. These types of claims argue ‘for a point based on emotion rather than on reason’ (Hardy et al., 2015). For example, the argument is reliant upon the viewer’s imagination and doesn’t provide enough detail or clarity around how £2 a month could put an end to a child having to drink dirty water. Instead ‘our minds fill in gaps. Our minds tell us that suffering is bas, and that if we can eliminate human suffering with extra resources, then we should do it’ (Harrison, n.d.). However, these kinds of arguments do not provide enough logical reasoning or rationally justified claims. To improve this argument, it would be necessary to ‘recognize and understand exactly what the goals of the organization are before one donates one’s resources to the cause’ (Harrison, n.d.). To achieve this, the advert would need to provide more details on how and where the money is being spent.

Fallacies of Relevance:

‘Barbaric Muslims Don’t Care About Their Women!’

This was a headline I remember seeing a few months ago which really struck a chord with me because of its absolute absurdity. It featured in the Daily Mail, a right-wing UK newspaper known for lewd claims designed to incite fear and hatred. Looking at it now I can identify it as the straw man fallacy which is ‘an attack on a person’s position based on a misrepresentation of his or her actual views’ (Hardy et al., 2015). It is easy to refute this claim purely because of how dishonest and unfair it sounds. In order to improve this argument, the writer would seriously need to reflect the complexity of this particular view, and try to defend it by citing factual evidence. Guiterez

3. One fallacy I feel I commit more often than the others is the ad hominem fallacy.  An example of this would be:

Premise 1: Joe is an idiot.

Conclusion: I should not listen to Joe’s opinion on politics.

Another example would be:

Premise 1: I don’t like the Pittsburg Steelers.

Premise 2: Bill Cowher was the head coach of the Pittsburg Steelers.

Conclusion: Bill Cowher’s opinions about the NFL are invalid.

Both of these arguments are clear examples of ad hominem.  In the first, I dismiss my friend’s (possibly valid) opinions about political issues because I think he is an idiot.  As our text states, “A logical thinker neither rejects nor blindly accepts whatever someone says, but carefully evaluates the quality of the reasoning used on both sides” (Hardy, Foster, and Zuniga y Postigo, 2015).  If I would take the time and effort required to truly evaluate my friend’s position, I may find it to be valid. 

In the second example, I reject any opinion that Bill Cowher might have about the entirety or the National Football League only because he used to coach a team I do not like.  I have found that I do this a lot when it comes to sports.  If I know someone to be a fan of an opposing team I won’t listen to their reasoning when it comes to my favorite team, the Cincinnati Bengals.  Often, they are proven correct by the end of the season and had I listened to them; I may have been spared some of the emotional rollercoaster of the season’s wins and losses.  I think this could be expanded to any issue in which one is emotionally invested. Potticary

4. The fallacy that I commit the most often, is appeal to emotion. 

Premise 1: I have had a bad day.

Premise 2: Shopping makes me happy. 

Conclusion: Therefore, shopping will make my day better. 

This argument is fallacious because although I like to shop, it may not make my day better. I might find happiness during the time that I am shopping, but when I am done, I might find myself upset once more. If I think critically and determine why my day is actually bad, I might be able to fix it without spending money that I might not have. If I can get away from this appeal to emotion then I could save money that I might need for bills. Spending money simply because I am upset, is generally not a wise decision. Sometimes we make decisions that we know are not wise, simply because of how we feel during that moment. Veazey