Fallacious Reasoning

Fallacious Reasoning

1. Hasty generalization fallacy. A general conclusion is made without sufficient supportive points. The hasty generalization makes the arguer commit to a stereotype that a cheap house must have a problem. However, there is no valid reason to support this statement; therefore, the claim could be false.

   Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

   GET CUSTOM PAPER
2. Ad Hominem fallacy. The text fails to advance thoughtful sound reasoning and thus substitutes the logical thought with a personal attack that is not related to the argument (Bennett, 2017). The arguer feels he/she has been working a lot, and he/she deserves a promotion, but pointing out that someone is responsible is unnecessary. Directing frustration to another person is an attack that is not part of the logical reason.
3. The straw man argument fallacy. This is because this statement creates a ridiculous position of racism and knocks it down. The recipient is accused of being against the speaker’s ideology of politics only because he/she is racist. Racism is a position that is imagined, and it is not necessarily true. The arguer fails to address the argument and attacks an opinion that the opponent does not have.
4. Circular argument fallacy. This argument is just repeating what is assumed earlier in the text (El Khoiri & Widiati, 2017); the case is not arriving at any different conclusion. There is no new substantive idea being propagated.
5. The red herring fallacy. The last part of the argument seems to be relevant, but it is not in line with the topic. The main point is how children are different from adults because they are imaginative. Suggesting that they should have a good education is a distractive line of thought.
6. Equivocation fallacy. The term ‘Cogito ergo sum’ is used intentionally to confuse the audience to believe it to be true. There is no point in quoting a foreign word and then later translating it.
7. Hasty generalization fallacy. The arguer rushes to a conclusion that if a person votes for a democrat then definitely the person has voted against the war on terror. The end lacks supporting facts, and it is hasty.
8. Causal fallacy. The argument identifies the cause of sex experimentation in schools, and the logical reason given is sex education. However, sex education is an unproven cause.
9. Hasty generalization fallacy. The arguer has created a ridiculous claim that all Muslims are terrorists and proceeded to castigate them by saying they should be killed. The claim lacks details that support it.
10. The red herring fallacy. The last part of the argument is used to cause distraction from the initial statement. The segment is related to the topic of discussion, but it is not relevant enough to be of help.
11. The appeal to authority fallacy. In this case, the statement by the poll or the authority is believed to be absolutely true without the use of logical reasoning.
12. The slippery slope fallacy. This statement presents ideas that move from a sensible beginning to an extreme end. The text works through small steps with some causal chains that are reasonable, but some are complicated. Eventually, the outcome is unlikely since there is a lack of convincing evidence.
13. The appeal to ignorance fallacy. The text provides claims that are not proof of anything; it also presents a contradictory conclusion due to lack of knowledge. There is no proof that terrorists only attack cities like New York and Washington, and clearly, there is no knowledge that they will not attack Iowa. Lack of knowledge regarding terrorist attacks does not make the claim true or false.
14. False dilemma. This statement limits the options to two when there are more than two choices in the scenario. It suggests that it is either a country relinquishes terrorists to America or it is siding with terrorists. However, the options are numerous since a country can surrender terrorists to another country or fight terrorists on its own.
15. The alphabet soup fallacy. The statement has overused acronyms that astonish people into trusting that they know what is being discussed; therefore, they must be correct while other people are considered wrong.
16. The appeal to pity fallacy. This text uses emotional appeal to incite Americans against immigrants when the issue of immigrants is not entirely relevant to the argument.
17. The bandwagon fallacy. This is whereby this statement assumes that a person of integrity honors his/her commitments since most people believe it to be true.
18. Equivocation fallacy. The term ‘Esse est percipi’ is used intentionally to confuse the audience to believe whatever is said is true.
19. The red herring fallacy. This statement includes a smart but irrelevant point that distracts the argument from the actual topic that is being discussed (Zhou, 2018). The main idea in the text is the recruitment of young Muslims to murder innocent people; however, another argument of a humanmade hell is introduced. Therefore, the last part diverts from the actual context.
20. The slothful induction fallacy. In this particular scenario, the logical evidence indicates that the conclusion ‘Socrates is mortal’ is correct, but the arguer fails to acknowledge that. Instead, the conclusion attributes the logical reasoning to something unrelated.

References

Bennett, B. (2017). Logically fallacious: the ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies (Academic Edition). EBookIt. com.

El Khoiri, N., & Widiati, U. (2017). Logical Fallacies in Indonesian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing: Students’ Perspectives. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 71-81.

Zhou, Z. C. (2018). The Logical Fallacies in Political Discourse.