Greetings: As you work through the course, you will realize that this is indeed challenging! I thought you might need an opportunity to do some extra credit to make up for any assignment you had particular trouble with, so here is a great chance to "overcome" a mistake or two.

DUE MONDAY JUNE 5th before 9:00AM

 

PHILOSOPHY EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENT (40 POINTS MAXIMUM)

 

To begin with, you will want to read the Stanford section on logic to get a better notion of its fundamental philosophical principals at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/

 

In this way, it can be seen that logic requires a system of meaning that is mutually agreed upon by its users. Yet, as we shall see, a formal system of logic is not always so easy to employ. Then, please investigate the FOLLOWING KINDS OF LOGICAL FALLACIES listed below. Write a four (4) page (approximately 1000 word) paper that discusses 10 of these 15 different types of LOGICAL FALLACIES.

 

1. Define the meaning and function of 10 terms. You may pick any 10 out of the 15 provided.

 

2. Provide your own example for each kind of logical fallacy and discuss how you would be able to tell when you or someone else commits this kind of logical fallacy.

 

The paper should follow these guidelines for effectively organized writing:

 

Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph for the essay.

 

Each of the terms should be addressed in a single paragraph with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.

 

Adhere to standard rules of grammar, punctuation, and mechanics.

 

The format of the paper is to be as follows:

 

Typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.

 

In addition to the four (4) pages assigned, a title page with the title of the assignment, your name, the instructorâs name, the course title, and the date is to be included, as well as a Reference Page.

 

Sources documented using APA style for in-text citations and listed on the References Page using APA style format.

 

FALLACIOUS REASONING

 

AMPHIBOLY

 

This fallacy is used when the speaker purposely uses awkward construction to confuse the listenerâusually with a dangling participle. For example, âBeing beat up, he was able to buy the car for only $500.â More examples of amphiboly can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/amphibol.html

 

ARGUING FROM AUTHORITY

 

This argument suggests the validity of a statement based simply on the prestige of the supporter rather than on evidence. For instance, âThe President of the United States uses BRAND X; therefore that brand is the best.â More examples of arguing from authority can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

 

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

 

Also called âPoisoning the Well.â If an argument attacks the man, rather than what he says, the speaker has used Argumentum ad hominem. For instance, âHe is a convicted felon, so he can not be a reliable witness to this crime.â More examples of argumentum ad hominem can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

 

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM

 

This âargument from ignoranceâ professes that something must be true because there is no evidence to disprove it. For example, religious people often contend that God exists because there is no proof that He does not exists. However, if this were logical, we also contend that unicorns exists. More examples of argumentum ad ignorantium can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

 

ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM

 

This fallacy appeals to the emotion of pity rather than the facts. For example, âMy client would not have committed the crime because he was seven children at home in a one-bedroom house with no heat, and his youngest daughter is dying of cancer.â In this case, the lawyer draws attention away from the evidence of the crime by making the jury feel sorry for the accused. More examples of argumentum ad misericordiam can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html

 

BEGGING THE QUESTION

 

One begs the question when he employs the same statement as a premise and the conclusion or when he assumes the conclusion to be true and bases a premise on that conclusion. We also call this âcircular argumentation.â More examples of begging the question can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

 

COMPOSITION

 

The fallacy of composition occurs when a person asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. For example, because a person sees one elderly person who is a bad driver, she assumes that all elderly people are bad drivers. More examples of the fallacy of composition can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

 

DIVISION

 

Also called, âdicto simplicter,â this fallacy of division occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the whole is necessarily true of every part. For instance, one might safely state that the United States is a wealthy nation. However, this does not mean that John Does is wealthy because he is a citizen of the United States. More examples of dicto simplicter can be found at http://www.fallacyfiles.org/accident.html

 

FALSE ANALOGY

A person uses a false analogy when that person compares two things which are not necessarily the same. For example, a student might claim that since a carpenter can look at blueprints while he is building a house, the student should be able to use notes while taking a test. More examples of false analogies can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

HASTY GENERALIZATION

This fallacy calls for a conclusion before sufficient evidence is collected. For example, âEach of the last three times we have been to matinee movie, kids have talked during the whole movie. Therefore, we should avoid kids at the show because they always talk.â More examples of hasty generalizations can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hastygen.html

 

IGNORANTIO ELENCHI

 

This fallacy, also known as âirrelevant conclusion,â occurs when an argument proposes to prove one thing, but instead concludes with something else. For example, one may intend to prove that the Florida Marlins have a better team than the Atlanta Braves. However, the argument moves to the conclusion that the Marlins have spent more money for their team. This may be true, but it is not the conclusion originally sought. More examples of ignorantio elenchi can be at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

 

NON SEQUITUR

 

Literally, Non Sequitur means âdoes not follow,â and, therefore, most fallacious arguments contain a non sequitur. In particular, it occurs when the premises are true, but the conclusion does not logically follow. For example, someone might say, âI have never been in an accident before while drinking. I can still walk in a straight line after these four beers. Therefore, I am safe to drive on the freeway at sixty-five miles per hour.â More examples of non sequiturs, in the form of the cartoon Non Sequitur can be found at: http://www.arcamax.com/nonsequitur

 

POST HOC

 

An argument which uses Post Hoc established a cause-effect relationship simply because one event precedes another in time. For example, âI walked under a ladder. Then I tripped and hurt my ankle. Walking under the ladder brought me bad luck.â More examples of post hoc argumentation can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

 

SLIPPERY SLOPE

 

This fallacy takes its name from a sad situation where one loses footing, begins to slide, and cannot regain controlâas on a muddy slope. It applies when one foresees consequences well beyond what is logical. For example: âMom, if you donât extend my curfew, Iâll never get a date, and then Iâll never have a boyfriend⦠and Iâll die an old maid.â More slippery slope arguments can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

 

STRAW MAN

 

This fallacy is used when one attacks a position similar to, but different from his opponent. For example, one candidate, citing the First Amendment, allows for an adult-only movie theater. His opponent then claims the first candidate supports pornography. More Straw Man fallacies can be found at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html