Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Types of Proof (7)

Wood, N. V. (2009). Essentials of Argument (2ndnd ed., pp. 148-175). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
by

Jane Davis

on 26 February 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Types of Proof (7)

3 Types of Proof
Logos
Ethos
Pathos
Sign
Induction
Cause
Deduction
Analogy
Definition
Statistics
Authority
Motivational
Value
Not Proof - Fallacies
Begging the question
Red Herring
Non Sequitur
Logos
Ethos
Pathos
Straw Man
Stacked Evidence
Either-Or
Post Hoc
Hasty Generalization
Ad Hominem
Guilt by Association
False Authority
Bandwagon
Slippery Slope
Creating False Needs
visible proof
leads from general principle to a specific example
uses examples to lead to a general principle
shows effect of something
shows similarities and differences between two different things
False Analogy
agreement upon key terms
describes quantitative relationships
Smart
not so much
Types of Proof
Attacking the person instead of his/her claim
Causation isn't proven because one thing followed another.
Circular reasoning
Laying a false trail in argument
The claim and the proof are not logically connected
Attacking a minor aspect or untruthful version of an argument and then claiming argument victory.
Ignoring credible evidence to use a stack of less credible evidence to prove a point.
The assumption that a given claim has only two possible solutions.
Looking at too few examples before forming an opinion.
A comparison that breaks down on the very points that are useful to the comparison.
The notion that a small act will inevitably lead to major disaster.
The use of group identity to gain agreement
Blurring the division between need and want.
Full transcript