UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

Bel 313

Assignment 2
Fallacies
Prepared by: Nur Nadhirah bt Maskor : Muhammad Hariz Akram b. Othman Group :ACD5A3 2007103387 2008407614

Prepared for: Sir Md Ikram Mahadzir

When you have cancer in your body. by killing them. The analogy is weak. So we should treat criminals just as we would treat any cancer. Fallacy = Hasty Generalization Explanation = The writer only making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Killing means getting rid of or in a more medical term cure it. Lars is a Swede. ideas. It is heavily biased comparison that can be seen as a weak analogy.Part 1 1. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects. He says that Swedes eat millions pounds of cheese a year. or you kill it with radiation or drugs." "wealthy people are snobs. so he assumes that who just so happens to be Swedish eats millions pounds of cheese a year as well and the writer not specify the real person that eat millions pounds of cheese a year." etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. . so Lars eats millions of pounds of cheese a year. Swedes eat millions pounds of cheese per year. It also stereotypes about people ("librarians are shy and smart. Killing these cells is a term not to be taken for what it is. Fallacy = Weak analogy Explanation = Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects. criminals are just like a cancer in the body of the state. or situations. and so is the argument based on it. 2. you get it removed if you can. But to suddenly compare killing cancer and killing criminals is not exactly accurate. the analogy is a weak one. Cancer is a sickness associated with the reproduction of fatal cells. and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy. Well.

But stairways. or a scarecrow. lawn mowers. axes. defective flooring. The writer was told to cut down on his smoking and instead of trying to defend himself. defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either. they cause accidental deaths and injuries. 4. gas stoves. But you smoke much more heavily than I. gas stoves. He says that guns cause accidental deaths and wounding in private homes. the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man. lawn mowers. power tools. And no one would think of suggesting that these things be banned from people’s homes. This is certainly true. and heaters are just like guns. Your whole family smokes more than I do. This comparison is not relevant with each other. . Fallacy = Weak analogy Explanation = The reason for this is because the writer is comparing two or more objects that are not really alike in the relevant respects therefore the analogy is the weak one. he just points a finger at the opponent and tries to make the opponent look bad. Some people argue that guns cause accidental deaths and wounding in private homes. So it seems to me that persons who wish to assume the risk of having guns in their homes ought to be permitted to do so. isn't very impressive. Fallacy = Straw man Explanation = One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. power tools. axes. and heaters. In the straw man fallacy. but then he compares it with stairways defective flooring. You say that I should cut down on my smoking.3. too.

Those people must be bored and crazy. He says that one third of the cancer fatalities in the country can be attributed to smoking but in the end he speaks of Boyans and accused them of being bored and crazy. . But where do you draw the line? Caffeine is a drug. The Ministry of Health recently issued a report arguing that one third of the cancer fatalities in the country can be attributed to smoking. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects. Malaysians have been smoking for years and a great deal of enjoyment has resulted. and so is sugar. and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy. or situations. Fallacy = Missing the point Explanation = The premises of an argument do not support a particular conclusion that the arguer actually draws. He is comparing drugs which are basically bad with caffeine and sugar. The Boyans. You often hear people say that drugs are bad.5. But this claim is ridiculous. ideas. no gambling. for example… no booze. Fallacy = Weak Analogy Explanation = Any arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects. which is irrelevant to each other. What would life be like if you cant enjoy something once in a while? Certain people are that way. no dancing. the analogy is a weak one. 6. So it’s pointless to argue against drugs.

A caused B. who’s it going to be. In every marriage either the man or the woman must dominate. Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later but sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event.you or me? Fallacy = Begging the question Explanation = It is complicated fallacy it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we've discussed. so it is redundant to ask again. the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"). so when my girlfriend asks if that outfit makes her look fat. Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of general criticism of arguments. correlation isn't the same thing as causation. but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here. In this statement. an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence. You should always tell the truth. The writer assumes that just because people should always tell the truth. honey. the writer merely asks a question that’s already been answered by himself. Basically. That is. I’ll have to say yes. to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for a conclusion. . or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. So. then he has no choice but to say yes to his girlfriend’s question about her looking fat in that outfit. Fallacy = Post Hoc (False cause) Explanation = Assuming that because B comes after A. He already states that it’s either the man or the woman must dominate.7. 8.

It also stereotypes about people ("librarians are shy and smart." "wealthy people are snobs. If. . to go run a marathon. Mahmud is a wellknown businessman. and all of then have declared bankruptcy. En. Fallacy = Appeal to authority Explanation = Often add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. En. we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. Therefore. He says that Mahmud Agus should not be appointed as the city mayor. however. we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. Bean. it would be a good idea for Mr. so he assumes that Mr. Fallacy = Hasty generalization Explanation = It just an assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small)..9. Mahmud is a businessman who has manages five different bankrupt businesses. Mahmud would control the city’s finances." etc. who just had a heart attack. Bean who just a heart attack to run a marathon. As city mayor. He tried to back up his claim by saying that En. 10. It would not be a good idea to appoint Mahmud Agus to the office of city mayor. he has managed five different businesses. The reason for this is because the writer says that exercises are good for people in general. Strenuous exercise is good for people.

He says that aliens exist. A caused B. The good are punished and the wicked prosper. the weather was unusually hot. He says that the courts will be unfair if there is no fair judge.11. you should accept my conclusion on this issue. Therefore. the public wont allow such unfair laws. the arguer basically says. then our courts are unfair. our judges are fair. Fallacy = Appeal to ignorance Explanation = In the appeal to ignorance. That is. ." In this statement the writer is not able to find a conclusive evidence on the issue at hand therefore he feels that we should accept his conclusion on the issue. They’re predicting a heat wave next week. so I’m getting ready for another big earthquake. so he thinks there is going to be another big earthquake just because there is prediction about a heat wave happening next week. But the law cannot be unfair. The reason for this is because the writer assumes that just because there was a big earthquake several days after unusually hot weather. Fallacy = Post Hoc (False cause) Explanation = By assuming that because B comes after A. but he concluded it by saying that our judges are fair with no proof to support that conclusion. correlation isn't the same thing as causation. Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later but sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. 13. Therefore. 12. "Look. We must accept the fact that aliens exist. If there is no fair judge. For several days before the big earthquake in 1989. because no one has ever disapprove it. there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Fallacy = Missing the point Explanation = The reason for this is because the writer had set up a premise of an argument that does support a particular conclusion but he does not really support the argument that was actually drawn. just because no one has ever denied its existence.

He then eliminates one of the choices and we are then left to pick the option that the writer wants us to pick in the first place. so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. this figure is not a square. Either the sides of this figure are all equal or this figure is not a square. Fallacy = False dichotomy Explanation = In false dichotomy. Here he says that either the sides of this figure are all equal or this figure is not a square. Therefore. we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends. not just two and if we thought about them all.14. The sides are not all equal. . the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The writer tried to set up a situation to make it look like there are two choices. in the end he only gave us a choice stating that the figure is not a square. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices. But often there are really many different options.

Part 2 1. form. caused by density differences at depth. Meaning that experiments can only be performed when the skeptics are gone and true believers remain very convenient. and the previous perihelion of the planet. Anomaly Anomaly can be defined as the deviation or departure from the normal or common order. usually that of the earth's magnetic field. Gravity anomaly is a deviation from the normal value of gravity at the earth's surface. irregular. anomaly can also be defined as one that is peculiar. . and gravity anomaly. eccentric anomaly. This point is obtained by producing a perpendicular to the major axis of the ellipse through the orbiting body until it reaches the circumference of the circle. like when a psychic claims that an experiment fails because of all of the "negative energy" being given off by skeptics. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudo scientists Sometimes an ad hoc hypothesis is very vague. like claiming whenever reality fails to conform to religious expectations. for example those caused by a buried mineral body. 2. the sun. There are many types of Anomaly such as also true anomaly. For example. Eccentric anomaly is the angle between the periapsis of a particular point on a circle round the orbit as seen from the centre of the orbit. "Both men are anomalies: they have . an ad hoc hypothesis can be very specific. Magnetic anomaly is a magnetic field. The last but not least. For example one produced by a buried mineral body. mean anomaly. Mean anomaly is the angle between the periapsis of an orbit and the position of an imaginary body orbiting at a constant angular speed and in the same period as the real orbiting body. or difficult to classify. . is some idea which is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s belief or theory. Ad hoc Hypothesis An ad hoc hypothesis is the paranormal and religion. that deviates from an expected or standard value. Other times. . Other than that. abnormal. or rule. True anomaly is the angle between a planet. likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy" (David Pauly).

Of course. then no experiment on ESP can ever fail. inferences.For example is extrasensory perception. hearing. it is perception occurring independently of sight. either the ones being tested or others not being tested. and which are fallacies. but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy. Logicians study and analyze arguments. 3. mathematics. researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments. . and symbolic forms. despite the fact that it is extremely unusual or unexpected. Correct Logic Correct Logic is the study of arguments which is used in most intellectual activities. one can always say they were caused by paranormal psychic forces. “seeing is seeing as” Said to mean that if you see something yourself. Logic is the study of reasoning --. to recognize something that is not just to have an experience. on whatever means. and computer science. if this objection is taken seriously. It is not just 4. The hostile vibes. In other words. Being able to duplicate an experiment is essential to confirming its validity. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid.the nature of good or correct reasoning and of bad or incorrect reasoning. they say. Its focus is the method or process by which an argument unfolds. conditional statements. propositions. made it impossible for them to duplicate a positive ESP experiment. premises. Whatever the results. not whether any arbitrary statement or series of statements is true or accurate. nor is it just to have a feeling. or other sensory processes. It is one kind of critical thinking. you will believe it to exist or be true.

When the "hundredth" monkey learned to wash potatoes. paranormal spreading of an idea or ability to the remainder of a population once a certain portion of that population has heard of the new idea or learned the new ability. Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon The hundredth monkey phenomenon refers to a sudden spontaneous and mysterious leap of consciousness achieved when an allegedly "critical mass" point is reached. one monkey taught another to wash sweet potatoes who taught another who taught another and soon all the monkeys on the island were washing potatoes where no monkey had ever washed potatoes before. For example. Generally. it means the instant. suddenly and spontaneously and mysteriously monkeys on other islands. started washing potatoes. with no physical contact with the potatowashing cult.5. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful