Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart 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.
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.
E155 - Logical Fallacies
Transcript of E155 - Logical Fallacies
11) Straw Man:
12) Non Sequitur:
7) Begging the Question:
8) Circular Thinking:
Roots of argumentation come from Ancient Greek philosophers
Reasons or Statements(
Ending or Goal (
Common Logical Fallacies
Traps that are used in argumentation. May appear correct at first, but are usually very flawed
Some History and Background
What is an "argument"?
Monty Python's "Argument Sketch"
More Common Logical Fallacies
Even More Fallacies
Dear God... Still More?
"What is an argument?"
"Common Logical Fallacies"
Argumentation: Pt. 1
"[A] connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition"
is to offer good
to support a
a back-and-forth "No"-"Yes"-"No"
The actual symbol for "philosophy,"
I kid you not.
Anything that kills is bad.
A robot killed Grandma!
Robots are bad!
1) Emotional Fallacy:
2) Bandwagon Appeal:
3) Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person):
Preys upon people's emotions to win, rather than logic.
Uses words and phrases that conjure up strong images that most likely get people riled up.
Ex: "Family Guy: Lois Runs for Mayor"
Best way to sum it up: "Everyone's doing it, so it can't be wrong!"
Just as the name suggests, you attack the
rather than the
4) Red Herring:
5) Hasty Generalization:
6) Faulty Authority:
Creating a distraction by bringing up a completely unrelated subject that has nothing to do with the argument
Ad Homimen fallacy is a TYPE of Red Herring fallacy
Claiming a conclusion or belief is correct because another person says so
Arguer assumes what they are claiming is already true without having proven anything yet
Arguer goes around in a circle, never adding anything new to support their conclusion
"Begging the Question" is a type of Circular Argument
When you limit the choices your opponent can claim
Claim stating that "A" is the reason why "B" when it may not be entirely true
Step 1: Listen to Opponent's claim.
Step 2: Distort, exaggerate, or misrepresent the claim.
Step 3: Attack newly distorted claim.
Step 4: Profit!
What happens when the conclusion has no connection to the premises
"Non sequitur": Latin for "does not follow"
1) Think about the last "argument" you might have had. What was the subject? What was trying to be proven or disproved? (Feel free to change names, places, etc. to whatever is comfortable for you.
2) Log onto the internet and find an example of one of the fallacies we discussed. What fallacy is it? Why is it wrong? What would you do to fix the argument?