1 / 5

Go To Next Slide

This tutorial will help you identify examples of the types of fallacies discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 discusses fallacies of relevance. These are fallacies that occur when the premises provide no relevant support for the truth of the conclusion.

barnabas-sean
Télécharger la présentation

Go To Next Slide

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. This tutorial will help you identify examples of the types of fallacies discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 discusses fallacies of relevance. These are fallacies that occur when the premises provide no relevant support for the truth of the conclusion. In this tutorial you will see examples of various fallacies of relevance. Though not every type of fallacy of relevance is illustrated, the techniques demonstrated here apply to all the fallacies discussed in this chapter. Go To Next Slide

  2. Caitlyn has argued that Dallas has better Tex-Mex restaurants than Seattle. But Seattle is a wonderful place to live. It has great coffee, great scenery, and it doesn't rain nearly as much as people think. Clearly, Caitlyn's argument is no good. The first step in identifying a fallacious argument is to identify the conclusion of the argument. Remember, an argument relies on an inference linking the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion. Fallacious reasoning can often be spotted by noting how the argument fails to make this linkage. So, what is the conclusion of this argument? Go To Next Slide

  3. Caitlyn has argued that Dallas has better Tex-Mex restaurants than Seattle. But Seattle is a wonderful place to live. It has great coffee, great scenery, and it doesn't rain nearly as much as people think. Clearly, Caitlyn's argument is no good. Caitlyn's argument is no good. That's right, the main point the arguer is defending is that Caitlyn's argument is no good. The next step in looking for fallacious reasoning is to inspect the way the argument tries to support the conclusion. A good argument will have relevant premises that provide good evidence that the conclusion is true. Go To Next Slide

  4. Caitlyn has argued that Dallas has better Tex-Mex restaurants than Seattle. But Seattle is a wonderful place to live. It has great coffee, great scenery, and it doesn't rain nearly as much as people think. Clearly, Caitlyn's argument is no good. In this argument, the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. The relevant issue here is whether Dallas has better Tex-Mex restaurants than Seattle. The arguer's points about what a great city Seattle is have no bearing on this issue. So, based on what you learned from the text, what fallacy has the arguer committed? Go To Next Slide

  5. The fallacy of red herring. This fallacy occurs when an arguer tries to sidetrack his or her audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has been effectively addressed by the irrelevant diversion. In this argument, the arguer ignores the real issue (whether, as Caitlyn claims, Dallas has better Tex-Mex restaurants than Seattle), raises an irrelevant issue (why Seattle is a great place to live), and then claims that the original issue has been settled by the irrelevant diversion. This is the end of this tutorial

More Related