Needs More Discussion: Fallacies

I think the topic about Fallacies needs more discussion because there are different types presented all over the book, and it can get pretty confusing which one’s which when all of them are put together. However, some of them are pretty straightforward just by knowing the name such as the slippery slope, emotional appeal, slanters, ridicule, and the straw man. I had trouble specifically for the Structural Fallacies because even if the definition on the book was straightforward, I think I need to see an example explaining how it works since they only showed a chart using letters like A, B, S, or P to represent the fallacy.

The site I found shows and describes more fallacies than what Epstein had in the book. I actually encountered the fallacies given in the site during my English 1B class, so I was quite more familiar with those than the ones discussed in our current book.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Hopefully this would help! :)

The most useful thing I’ve learned from the assignments is group work, and not just any group work but actually working towards a goal just by communicating online. I’m proud to say that my group has accomplished in communicating even if we have no clue how the person we’re working with looks like. Besides group work, the most useful aspect of the assignment I’ve learned is using the arguing techniques to prove our points for our papers and even real-life arguments and claims.

My group is currently working on PETA, and I’m learning on how does emotional appeal affects people when it comes to those saddening advertisements they show on T.V., which makes you want to donate. Not only those, but by knowing how ads use emotional appeal to tempt viewers also helped me decide whether to believe if they’re telling the truth or not.

I think by taking this class and doing the assignments, I’ve developed a better understanding of how to properly support my arguments or stand towards something, by not falling into traps like fallacies or vagueness. This class has also been helpful with doing research papers, because usually those require a lot of citing and proving why your point should be taken into consideration.

All and Some + Precise and Vague Generalities

Usually when we see claims, especially for advertisements, we are often lured in by the words “all” and/or “some” since these words can be used to represent how many people use the product and/or how much the product works for those who use it. However, “all” and “some” can be easily confused with if not critically analyzed or if the given statement is not direct to the point or there’s some vagueness to it.

According to Epstein, “All means “Every single one, no exceptions.” However, it can also be interpreted as “Every single one, and there is at least one.” On the other hand, “Some means “At least one,” but can also be interpreted as “At least one, but not all.” For example:

All: All puppies are cute.

Some: Some puppies are not cute.

These generalizations can be avoided if there are Precise Generalities or the given statement shows more detail and explains it more elaborately like specifying a precise number, compared to just stating all or some, which are Vague Generalities.

Precise Generalities: Seven of my friends in the group are girls. (This is more direct).

Vague Generalities: Some of my friends in the group are girls. (“Some” can possibly be an infinite number depending on the person’s interpretation).

Compound Claims and “or” claims and Contradictory of a Claim

When it comes to compound and “or” claims, there are other claims involved but it has to be considered as a one claim depending on the truth-value of the claims that are in the statement.  Another part of the “or” claim is the alternative. To clarify this claim here is an example:

Jasmine either has to do her homework on Thursday night, or do it on Saturday during the party.

The example shows how the situation is an either, or situation wherein only one thing can be chosen.

Contradictory of a claim or a negation of a claim, according to Epstein on page 114, is the reverse of the truth-value.  For example:

Claim: Jasmine is going to do her homework on Thursday night.

Contradictory: Jasmine is not going to do her homework on Thursday night.

I think among the topics discussed in Chapter 6, the negation of a claim is my favorite because it is the easiest one to understand.

Raising Objections and Refuting an Argument

We can all agree that we don’t always approve on what everyone tells us. We have the right to agree or disagree, or raise objections on a statement that we think is false or dubious.  By raising objections it is also another way of implementing that the statement is a weak or bad argument. For example:

Jeremy: We need to get a bigger flat screen TV.

Jasmine: What’s the matter with the one we have now?

Jeremy: It’s outdated and can’t play Blu Ray disks.

Jasmine: It still works perfectly fine though, and we’re just going to waste money.

Jeremy: The one I saw was actually on sale that’s why I’ve been considering on getting it.

Jasmine:  What are we going to do with the old TV?

Jeremy: We can always donate it to Goodwill.

By proving to Jasmine that Jeremy can find a way to convince her to purchase a new TV, challenges his argument despite of Jasmine’s objections to his proposal.

According to Epstein on page 149, there are three ways to directly disprove or refute an argument and these are:

·         Showing that one of the premises is uncertain.

·         The argument is not valid or strong.

·         The conclusion is false.

For example:

It’s useless to ask for advice or questions if you’re not going to take the advice people will tell you. You might as well not ask if you’re just going to do so. There is no point asking for advice.

The example shows how we are not sure if the person who is asking for advice is willing to consider taking a bad advice that someone told him or her. We are not sure what kind of advice or question the person asked, and it is not completely true that there is no point asking for advice.

Conditional Claim and Contrapositive Condition

Conditional Claim uses the “If…then…” mechanism for the statement to “have the same truth-value (page 121). The antecedent says if something is like this, then the consequent is it would be like that. To clarify that, here is an example:

If Jeremy retains what he learned from his English 1A and 1B and studied for the WST, then he has a higher chance of passing the test.

The consequent’s conditions show the possible result/s through the antecedent.

Under Necessary and sufficient conditions category, Contrapositive condition is easier to comprehend if the statement has two claims that are equal to each other “if each is true exactly when the other is,” according to Epstein. The claim and its contrapositive should complement each other for the statement to work. For example:

Claim: If Jeremy can take the 100W class, than that means he passed the WST.

Contrapositive: If Jeremy did not pass the WST, then he cannot take the 100W class.

I think the Contrapositive condition has a pretty clear definition and mechanism that we can understand easily. However, it is only one of the many ways to clarify and support a claim.

Differences Between Implying and Inferring

Implying is when someone states something that could have a different interpretation or meaning, without directly meaning or saying it but giving slight hints. For example:

Friends who pick up their phones even in the middle of the night, just to comfort you are the ones you would want to keep.

The person seems to be implying that if someone is a good friend, they would pick up their phone when you need them even if it is during an inconvenient time.

Inferring is when the person is interpreting the statement differently from what was said, and adding “therefore so-and-so it is really like this…”, or taking a different meaning of the statement besides the literal one.  For example:

Jasmine must have thought that I’m not a good friend and did not care because I missed her call around 2 AM, because I was deeply asleep.

The person is making inferences or a guess what the first example meant, even if it is possible that the first example is just simply saying so and not trying to make anyone feel bad.