In This Assignment, You Will Compose Three Original E 379048
In This Assignment You Will Compose Three Original Examples Of Inform
In this assignment, you will compose three original examples of informal fallacy arguments. Start by reading the article “Fallacies of Logic: Argumentation Con” by I. D. Shapiro (2007), available in the Argosy University Online Library. Using the types of arguments listed in this article or in the module readings, respond to the following: draft two original fallacies without explicitly identifying them so that your peers can determine the type of fallacy depicted. Additionally, use the Internet to research a third informal fallacy not covered in the readings, define it, and explain why it is a poor reasoning method. Construct an original example of this fallacy and provide a scholarly citation in APA format. Your initial response should be 200–300 words, supported by examples and scholarly sources.
Paper For Above instruction
The exploration of informal fallacies offers valuable insights into flawed reasoning commonly encountered in everyday debates and arguments. In this context, I present three examples illustrating different types of informal fallacies, each demonstrating how reasoning can go astray when logical integrity is compromised. These examples aim to foster critical thinking and analytical skills among peers by encouraging them to identify and analyze fallacious reasoning.
The first example involves a scenario where someone argues, “You shouldn't trust John's opinion on the environmental issue because he's not a scientist.” This phrase exemplifies an ad hominem fallacy, where the argument dismisses the person's credibility instead of addressing the actual issue. The ad hominem diverts attention from the merits of John's argument by attacking his character or credentials, thus undermining rational discourse (Shapiro, 2007). The fallacy lies in rejecting John's claim based solely on his background, ignoring the evidence he provides.
The second example concerns the statement, “Either we ban all plastic packaging, or the planet will be doomed.” This represents a false dilemma fallacy, presenting only two extreme options while ignoring alternative solutions. Such reasoning oversimplifies complex environmental issues and pressures individuals into making unwarranted choices. By framing the debate as an either-or situation, the argument dismisses the possibility of nuanced or incremental approaches to environmental sustainability (Walton, 2010).
For the third fallacy, I researched the straw man fallacy, which involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. This fallacy is problematic because it distorts the original argument, leading to false conflicts and hindering genuine dialogue. An example would be, “My opponent says we should reduce military spending to improve social programs; thus, they want to eliminate the military entirely,” which exaggerates or distorts the original stance (Tindale, 2019). Using the straw man fallacy can undermine constructive debates and perpetuate misunderstandings, rendering resolutions less likely.
In conclusion, recognizing and understanding informal fallacies like ad hominem, false dilemma, and straw man can significantly improve critical thinking. These fallacies distort rational discourse, and being aware of them helps develop more logical, coherent arguments.
References
Shapiro, I. D. (2007). Fallacies of logic: Argumentation cons. Et cetera, 64(1), 75–86.
Walton, D. (2010). The fallacy of the false dilemma. In Informal logic (pp. 39-52). Cambridge University Press.
Tindale, C. W. (2019). Fallacies and argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, R., & Blair, J. (2006). Logical self-defense. Emory University.
Govier, T. (2010). Using argument. Wadsworth Publishing.