Transcript Warm-up - Grammar Nerd

Agenda
Warm-up:
THE ONION & HW Check
Learning Activities:
1. HW Review.
2. Logical Fallacies and “Introduction to
Logic”
3. Soapbox discussion
Homework:
1. Finish soapbox sheet
2. Read Act 1, catalogue logical fallacies
on the chart provided. Include an
explanation of how the logic is flawed.
Beware!
The Logical Fallacy Trap
Be aware of
• The goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience
that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else's. The
Greek philosopher Aristotle divided persuasive appeals into
three categories--Ethos, Pathos, Logos.
• Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, means convincing by the character of
the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central
problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are
someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself, as author, into an
authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and
worthy of respect.
• Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions.
We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements
to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice
affects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively
be used to enhance an argument.
• Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most
important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive
and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason
to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot
be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to
substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order
to avoid them in your writing.
Appealing to Pity (Bathos)
My dog, who has an eating
disorder and separation
anxiety, ate my homework.
When the
emotion used
does not correlate
with the
conclusion or
topic at hand.
Appealing to Prejudice
Fallacious when
framed with
inflammatory
language or
offered as crowd
pleasing- sexist,
racist, classist
language
I am so glad
to be in the
great state
of Virginia!
CAN be effective
when used as
part of a major
premise
(appealing to
values).
Appealing to Tradition
OK to use with other
elements– fallacious
when argument is
based on tradition
alone!
“We can’t let
women join our
club because they
were never
members before.”
Jumping to Conclusions
This one is a
common cliché!
It is when the
conclusion is NOT
supported.
In any science there must be some jump from
observation/data to conclusion… BUT in this case there
is NOT enough data to support conclusion.
False Analogy
(a type of jumping to conclusions)
Analogy is a
strong tool BUT it
becomes
fallacious when
two items
compared have
little in common
Ad Hominem
Keep focus- do not stoop
to personal attacks
“To the man”
Attacking the
opponent while
ignoring what
they have to say!
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(False Causation)
“After this,
therefore,
because of this”
Assumption that
an event is the
result of
something that
merely occurred
before it
Dirty Socks
Superstition
with
sacrifices
Guilt by Association
Negative:
someone
associated with
criminalsassumed to be
“criminal” too
Positive: someone
associated with
stereotypical
moral peopleconsidered to be
moral too
This is not always directly argued but implied.
Circular Reasoning
An argument is circular
if its conclusion is among
its premises, if it assumes
(either explicitly or not)
what it is trying to prove
A circular argument fails
as a proof because it will
only be judged to be
sound by those who
already accept its
conclusion.
'President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of
talking effectively to the people.'
Equivocating
Vague use of words
Make your meaning
CLEAR and
CONSISTANT.
President Clinton- “I did
not have relations with
that woman.”
Ignoring the Question
Debater is asked a
direct question and
instead of
answering- changes
the subject.
Opposing a Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is
committed when a person simply
ignores a person's actual position
and substitutes a distorted,
exaggerated or misrepresented
version of that position.
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a
distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Either Or
False Dilemma: pose
choice between two
alternatives and imply
there are only two
possibilities and others
don’t exist.
“What is wrong with low
grades? Is cheating
better?”
Arguing the extremes
Non-Sequitur
“It doesn’t flow”
Conclusion doesn’t follow
logically from the explanation
Something is claimed but
there isn’t enough
information to explain
HOLD UP...
What’s the difference?
False analogy is a way of jumping to
conclusions when comparing two things
that are not really that similar
Non-sequitur claims a cause and effect
relationship without giving enough
information to explain it
Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc – claims a
cause and effect relationship just because
one happens before another
Slippery Slope
Claiming that if
ONE thing
happens all else
will fall apart.
One instance
will inevitably
lead to many
more? NOT
necessarily so!
Biased Authority
Here… the authority is one who
actually is knowledgeable on the
matter, but one who may have
professional or personal
motivations that render his
professional judgment suspect
"To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this
campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents."
Appeal to Intimidation
When focus is on
intimidation as
opposed to arguing
the topic at hand
The Historical Figures Behind the
Characters
Bert Cates/
John Scopes
Matthew Harrison Brady/
E.K. Hornbeck/
H.L. Menken
Henry Drummond/
Clarence Darrow
William Jennings Bryan
Get on your Soapbox...
•Complete
Soapbox Inventory
with your ideas
and opinions.
•Yours and yours
alone!
Homework
• Soapbox Inventory
sheet- rank topics
based on interest
• Read Act 1 – fill out
fallacy chart- try to
get ½ filled. 