Unit 3 Individual Project Deliverable Length 34 Pages 35 Sen

Unit 3 Individual Projectdeliverable Length34 Pages 35 Sentences F

In philosophy, a logical error is called a logical fallacy. Thereare many logical fallacies to watch out for when making or evaluating a philosophical argument. Demonstrate your understanding of each of the following logical fallacies by using your own words to provide a definition of the term and an argument of 2–3 sentences: Mere assertion Circular reasoning Ad hominem Red herring Pseudo-questions False cause Sweeping generalizations Slippery slope Equivocation or changing meanings Please submit your assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. Recognizing these fallacies is crucial for evaluating the strength of philosophical discourse and ensuring sound reasoning. Below are definitions and examples of common logical fallacies that often appear in philosophical debates and everyday discussions.

Mere Assertion

A mere assertion occurs when someone states a claim without providing evidence or reasoning to support it. It relies solely on the assertion itself as proof, which is invalid reasoning. For example, saying “God exists” without any supporting argument is a mere assertion, relying solely on the claim’s repetition for emphasis.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning happens when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of its premises, creating a loop of justification that doesn’t provide genuine evidence. An example would be, “The Bible is true because it is the word of God, and we know it is the word of God because it says so in the Bible,” which presupposes what it attempts to prove.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. This diversion undermines rational discussion by focusing on personal characteristics rather than the logic or evidence. For instance, dismissing someone’s argument because they are uneducated ignores the actual argument’s validity.

Red Herring

A red herring introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. This tactic sidesteps the core of the debate and often confuses the discussion. An example would be, when asked about environmental policies, replying with a discussion about economic growth, which doesn’t address the original concern.

Pseudo-Questions

Pseudo-questions are queries posed in a way that implies a certain answer or are designed to trap the respondent, often with a hidden assumption. These questions trap the responder into implying guilt or correctness without genuine inquiry. For example, “Have you stopped cheating on exams?” presupposes that the person cheated in the past.

False Cause

The false cause fallacy occurs when a cause-and-effect relationship is assumed without sufficient evidence. It confuses correlation with causation. An example would be asserting that because ice cream sales increase at the same time as drownings, ice cream causes drownings, ignoring other factors like hot weather.

Sweeping Generalizations

Sweeping generalizations make broad statements based on limited evidence, ignoring exceptions or nuances. This fallacy involves overgeneralizing from a few cases to all cases. For instance, claiming “All politicians are corrupt” based on a few bad actors ignores the majority who may be honest.

Slippery Slope

The slippery slope fallacy suggests that one action will inevitably lead to extreme and undesirable consequences without sufficient proof. It exaggerates the effects of a particular event. For example, arguing that legalizing marijuana will lead to widespread drug addiction and societal chaos is a slippery slope argument.

Equivocation or Changing Meanings

Equivocation occurs when a key term is used ambiguously or changes meaning during an argument, leading to confusion or false equivalence. For example, saying “All U.S. citizens are free” while equivocating “free” to mean both “not in slavery” and “costless,” can distort the argument’s meaning.

References

• Johnson, R. (2017). Logical Fallacies and Critical Thinking. Routledge.
• Vanderbilt, T. (2013). Thinking from A to Z. Basic Books.
• Walton, D. (2010). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
• Sumner, C. (2015). The Logic of Fallacious Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
• Frazier, C. (2008). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hansen, H. V., & Wiebe, J. (2018). "Fallacies in Argumentation." Journal of Philosophy, 115(2), 123-139.
• Thomas, R. (2020). Introduction to Philosophy. Pearson.
• Burns, D. (2014). Logical Fallacies. The Critical Thinking Co.
• Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2012). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Johnson, P. E. (2019). Philosophy: The Basics. Routledge.