Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


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.


Fallacy or Fallacious Reasoning

No description

Amiti Munshi

on 8 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Fallacy or Fallacious Reasoning

Definition Similar devices, strategies, and concepts How the device creates or contributes to the meaning of a text Formal Fallacies
1.A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
2.A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. SYLLOGISM is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. A typical form of this type of argument is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”

EXAMPLE: All women are potential mothers.
Betty is a potential mother.
Betty is a woman. Fallacies are generally used as tools of persuasion, to provide or challenge an argument. In a text, they can be used to provide an argument or position, possible outcomes, or a conclusion.
However, it will not be able to provide valid support or strengthen the argument, as fallacies are illogical arguments and are not factual. A formal fallacy is a pattern in reasoning that is always wrong. Fallacy or Fallacious Reasoning fal·la·cy (Noun) Opposite devices, strategies, and concepts Informal Fallacies An informal fallacy may have a valid logical form, but be false due to its language rather than its structure. Specific Examples "You're gonna like the way you look. I guarantee it."
-The Men's Warehouse commercial

This is an example of a hasty generalizations fallacy. It cannot be proven or guaranteed that everyone is going to "like the way they look" in clothing purchased from The Men's Warehouse, though that is the conclusion that is drawn. INDUCTIVE REASONING is a major kind of reasoning process in which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases or regularities and resemblances from the past. This reasoning is derived from specific examples.

EXAMPLE: That basketball team has won their last five games. Thus, they will probably win their next game. Classification Amiti Munshi
Period 5 Fallacies can be both linguistic (spoken) and non-linguistic. Types of Fallacies Fallacies of Ambiguity Fallacies of ambiguity appear to support their conclusions only because of the use of imprecise language, because of the use of certain words or phrases that have more than one distinct meaning.

EXAMPLE: It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly how it began and exactly when. Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations in support of their conclusion that do not relate to finding whether or not it is true. The considerations offered by such usually affect a person psychologically, even if they don’t actually provide any evidence.

EXAMPLE: Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.
But we all know that Harold dresses funny and smells bad.
Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.
(ad hominem argument, attacking the person) Fallacies of presumption are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors, but do not establish their conclusion or provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions.

EXAMPLE: You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says, and the law is the law. Fallacies of Presumption These arguments are wrong because of error in their logical structure or form.
A formal fallacy may appear to be a valid logical argument, as one of the beginning statements may be true, but the invalid point may be found in the argument's conclusion.

EXAMPLE: Some men are doctors.
Some doctors are women.
Therefore, some men are women.
Informal fallacies come from a flaw in reasoning that make the conclusion unpersuasive.
Unlike formal fallacies, it is not just a flaw in logic.

EXAMPLE: Nothing would be better than a high score on this test, but a poor grade would be better than nothing, so conclude that a bad grade would be better than a high score. Fallacies can be separated into two general groups: There are many types of fallacies, but some examples are: "Now we have more chronic long-term unemployment than this country has ever seen before, twenty million people out of work, stopped looking for work, or in part-time jobs that need full-time jobs, we've got housing prices continuing to decline, and we have foreclosures at record levels. This president has failed."
-former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney

What Romney was saying was that the president's previous actions are the reason for all of the failures occurring today. His argument was that (a) Barack Obama was elected president in 2008; (b) the economy has been bad since 2008; so (c) Barack Obama is responsible for today's bad economy.
This is an example of the use of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, which states that since an event followed another, the event following must have occurred because of the first event.
Full transcript