Download
1 / 16
160 likes | 374 Views
Rhetorical Fallacy. If you must argue, argue correctly. Remember…. A solid argument is based on three key appeals: Ethos (appeals to the sense of right and wrong) Pathos (emotional appeals) Logos (appeals based on logic). However….
E N D
Rhetorical Fallacy If you must argue, argue correctly.
Remember… A solid argument is based on three key appeals: • Ethos (appeals to the sense of right and wrong) • Pathos (emotional appeals) • Logos (appeals based on logic)
However… • Many arguments fail to persuade because they lack sound reasoning. • Rhetorical fallacies are to blame!
Definition: fal⋅la⋅cy [fal-uh-see]–noun 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: EX. That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. a misleading or unsound argument. 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; 4. In logic, any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
Rhetorical Fallacies… …come in three flavors: • Ethical Fallacies: unreasonably advance the writer’s own authority or character • Emotional Fallacies: unfairly manipulate the audience’s emotions • Logical Fallacies: depend on faulty logic
Look out! • One problem that many people have when they argue is that they slip fallacies into their arguments without knowing it. • Fallacies weaken arguments! • They sound great, and may seem to make sense on the surface, but do not serve to actually persuade the opposition.
A glossary of rhetorical fallacies. • Know them. • Recognize them. • Do not use them! • The best part of all comes when one can point out a fallacy during the course of argument to the speaker. The argument usually stops very quickly thereafter.
Ethical Fallacies • False authority: asks audiences to agree with the speaker’s assertion based on his/her character or the authority of another person or institution that isn’t qualified to offer that assertion. • EX. My third grade teacher said so, so it must be true. • Guilt by association: calls someone’s character into question by examining the character of that person’s associates. • EX. Sara’s friend Amy robbed a bank; Sara is a delinquent. • Dogmatisim: shuts down discussion by asserting that that the speaker’s beliefs are the only acceptable ones: • EX. I’m sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that’s that.
Ethical Fallacies • Ad hominem (character attack)– arguments that attack a person’s character rather than their reasoning • EX. Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced will keep his campaign promises? • Strawman – these arguments set up and dismantle easily refutable argument in order to misrepresent and opponents argument in order to defeat him or her • Speaker A: We need to regulate access to handguns. • Speaker B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom.
Emotional Fallacies • Sentimental appeals: use emotion to distract the audience from the facts. • EX. The thousands of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source. • Scare tactics: these try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences. • EX. If you don’t support the party’s tax plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty. • Bandwagon appeals: encourage an audience to agree with the speaker because everyone else is doing it. • EX. Eight out of 10 people agree that Verizon offers better cell phone service than AT&T. Therefore you should switch to Verizon.
Emotional Fallacies • Slippery Slope: these arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous consequences. • EX. If you get a B in my class, you’ll never get into college, and therefore will never have a meaningful career. • Either/Or choices: reduces complicated issues to two possible courses of action • EX. The patent office can either approve my new engine design or say goodbye forever to a low emissions car. • False need: these arguments create false need • EX. You absolutely have to have an iPad if you want people to think you are cool.
Logical Fallacies • Hasty generalization: draws conclusions from minimal evidence • EX. I wouldn’t eat at that restaurant – the only time I ate there my entrée was undercooked. • Post hoc (false causality): these arguments confuse chronology with causation, one event can occur without being caused by it. • EX. A year after the release of the violent shoot-’em-up game Annihilator, incidents of violence tripled – surely not a coincidence. • Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow): is a statement that does not logically follow or relate to what comes before it. • EX. "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty!"
Logical Fallacies • Begging the question: occurs when the speaker simply restates the claim in a different way; such an argument is circular. • EX. His lies are evident from the untruthful nature of his statements. • Faulty analogy: an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things. • EX. Letting prisoners out on early release is like absolving them of their crimes.
