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.


E155 - Logical Fallacies

No description

Jason Lee

on 23 April 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of E155 - Logical Fallacies

10) False Cause:

11) Straw Man:

12) Non Sequitur:
7) Begging the Question:

8) Circular Thinking:

9) Either/Or:
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
(ie. incorrect).
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"
In other
, the
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
Basically stereotyping
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"
In-Class Journal
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?
Full transcript