Rhetorical fallacy project

Groups of three:

Teach two fallacies to the class.

Have a clear definition.

Have an example from video or print (Onion) with a cogent rhetorical analysis and sources.

Put into power point.

MLA source page with correct parenthetical references for all outside information and research.

  1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Character of Opponents)

  1. Appealing to Authority (aka: ad verecundiam)

  1. Appealing to Ignorance (aka: ad ignorantiam)

  1. Appealing to Pity (aka: ad misericordiam)

  1. Appealing to Tradition

  1. False Analogy

  1. Attributing Guilt by Association

  1. Bandwagon (aka. Ad populum)

  1. Ignoring the Question

  1. Either/or (aka: False Dilemma)

  1. Equivocating

  1. Division

  1. Red herring/Smokescreen

  1. Gambler’s Fallacy

  1. Hasty Generalization

  1. Jumping to Conclusions

  1. Non sequitur (aka: It Does Not Follow)

  1. Straw Man

  1. Sliding Down a Slippery Slope

  1. Appealing to Prejudice

  1. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (aka: Post Hoc or Attributing False Causes)

  1. Begging the Question

  1. Oversimplification (aka: Dicto Simpliciter)
  2. Two Wrongs make a right

Sources:

  1. Does the PPT conform to the format? Look at the headings, content on each slide, number of slides, etc.

  1. Does the PPT include LINKS that WORK to cited information?

  1. Definition: Is the definition for the fallacy easy to understand and accurate? Your job is to make this fallacy super CLEAR for your audience! You may choose to include a couple of definitions; you may choose to include a definition in your own words.

  1. Written example: Does the written example accurately represent the fallacy? Is it easy to understand? Is it edited for length and ease of explanation? Are you able to explain how it is an example of that fallacy?

  1. Graphic: Does the graphic accurately represent the fallacy? Does the graphic help the audience understand the fallacy and/or remember it? In other words, does the graphic enlighten, make the fallacy clearer, and show a mnemonic device for the audience?

  1. Video example: Does the video example accurately represent the fallacy? Can the presenters explain the connection clearly, concisely, and accurately?

  1. Does the last slide include MLA citations for all sources used, including for definitions, examples & the video? Are the MLA citations accurate in content and format?

Do all group members understand the assigned fallacy? Are they able to answer clarifying questions? Can they provide further explanation or additional examples to support their thinking? You may want to think about your fallacy in comparison to others—it is like x, but not like y, etc.
Comments:

appeal to authority

By Richard Nordquist, About.com Guide

A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous.

Examples and Observations:

  • "Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. 'These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'"
    (W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Humanities Press, 1980)
  • "We make an appeal to authority whenever we try to justify an idea by citing some source of expertise as a reason for holding that idea. Appeals to authority are often valid, as when we tell someone to use a certain medicine because the doctor has prescribed it. But appeals to authority can be fallacious, as when we cite those who have no special competence regarding the matter at hand. The fallacy of appeal to authority, therefore, is an argument that attempts to overawe an opponent into accepting a conclusion by playing on his or her reluctance to challenge famous people, time honored customs, or widely held beliefs. The fallacy appeals, at base, to our feelings of modesty, to our sense that others know better than we do."
    (S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 3rd ed. St. Martin's Press, 1986)
  • "Another common fallacy is the appeal to authority, which consists of arguing a point by invoking the opinion of an expert. However, experts may be wrong, they may be expressing an opinion outside their area of expertise or they may have been incapacitated or joking when making the point. It is the expert's reasons that are valuable, not the fact that they were announced by an expert."
    (Daniel Sokol, "The Right Way to Argue." BBC Magazine, Dec
  • Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):

attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's positi

  • attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)

Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:

Turing thinks machines think.
Turing lies with men.
Therefore, machines don't think.

(Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)

A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes ?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.

A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists were drunk."

Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic ?"

There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem." Or "I don't care if other people say you're [opinionated/boring/overbearing]."

Attacks don't have to be strong or direct. You can merely show disrespect, or cut down his stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a lot, or that he has forgotten what he said last week. Some examples: "I used to think that way when I was your age." "You're new here, aren't you ?" "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you ?" "What drives you to make such a statement ?" "If you'd just listen.." "You seem very emotional." (This last works well if you have been hogging the microphone, so that they have had to yell to be heard.)

Sometimes the attack is on the other person's intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, "Even you should understand my next point."

Oddly, the stupidity attack is sometimes reversed. For example, dismissing a comment with "Well, you're just smarter than the rest of us." (In Britain, that might be put as "too clever by half".) This is Dismissal By Differentness. It is related to Not Invented Here and Changing The Subject.

Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, the Ad Hominem is undermining an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.

  • Reductio Ad Absurdum:

showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd conclusion. This is in general a reasonable and non-fallacious way to argue. If the issues are razor-sharp, it is a good way to completely destroy his argument. However, if the waters are a bit muddy, perhaps you will only succeed in showing that your opponent's argument does not apply in all cases, That is, using Reductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes using the Fallacy Of The General Rule. However, if you are faced with an argument that is poorly worded, or only lightly sketched, Reductio Ad Absurdum may be a good way of pointing out the holes.

An example of why absurd conclusions are bad things:

Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope". Russell immediately replied, "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."

Redcuto ad Absurdum

In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO's does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.