The next move is to argue that because they have the one quality in common, they are likely to have a second quality in common. Inductive reasoning by analogy depends upon two objects, events, or situations having a quality in common. The alcohol abuse may be the result of mental illness rather than the cause of it. However, a mentally ill individual may use alcohol to ‘self-medicate’. For example, the observer concludes that alcohol abuse has caused an individual to develop a mental illness. However, the observer may have mistaken cause for effect, and vice versa. Two events occur close together so that an observer concludes that one event causes the other. Once the correct cause is identified, glasses are prescribed, and two problems are solved simultaneously. However, the adult is mistaken in concluding that the squinting causes the headaches because both squinting and headaches are caused by a third factor: the child is nearsighted. An adult suggests that if the child stopped squinting the headaches would go away. For example, a child may be squinting and complaining of headaches. However, both events in fact may be caused by a third event. *To review the STAR criteria, see the answer to the following questions in the CORE 101 section of the Handbook under the Academic Argument assignment: How can you use STAR to assess appeals to logos? and What makes evidence relevant, not just related? 2. For example, the “facts” offered by the author might seem credible, but what if they are framed using dysphemisms that demonize people who sincerely disagree with the position taken by the writer or speaker? Or what if the argument is phrased in god terms that don’t seem to leave room for an honest debate of a complex issue? What if the language evokes excessive emotion or tries to stampede the audience into accepting a position because “everyone else does”? Strategies such as these mark manipulative language and likely signal the presence of fallacies. If so, you may be inclined to evaluate the argument favorably in terms of logos, as well as being impressed by the writer or speaker’s ethos, based as it is on her ability to project authority.īut familiarizing yourself with common fallacies will allow you take a closer look before you decide that an argument is indeed persuasive. At the outset, an argument may at least appear to be rational and well-supported. You can begin by using the STAR* criteria ( Sufficiency, Typicality, Accuracy, and Relevancy ) to assess the logos-the reasoning and evidence-of an argument. How can you determine whether a writer or speaker makes sound use of reasoning and evidence and demonstrates fairness toward opponents-specifically, how can you determine whether that author avoids fallacies such as unsupported claims or inappropriate appeals to emotion or authority? How does the rhetorical triangle apply to an analysis of King’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”?.How can poor word choice lead to fallacies?.What are additional examples of fallacies of pathos?.What are additional examples of fallacies of logos?.What are additional examples of fallacies of ethos?.How can the premises of an argument affect an author’s ethos?.When is an either/or argument a fallacy?.How do I evaluate a generalization in my source?. When is a generalization inappropriate?.When is an if/then syllogism a fallacy?.When is a categorical syllogism a fallacy?.What is required for an appropriate analogy?.What is inductive reasoning by analogy?.Fallacies and Other Types of Manipulative Arguments Please follow the manuscript formatting guidelines provided by your instructor. The following essays have been reformatted for publication.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |