WEEK 4

1. What are the principles of good reasoning that apply to arguments? Which principles can a valid
argument violate?
Principle No. 1: The (truth of a ) claim needs to follow from (the truth of) its evidence
Principle No. 2: The evidence offered in support of a claim needs to be true.
Principle No. 3: The evidence offered in support of a claim must be logically relevant to the truth
of the claim
Principle No. 4: The evidence offered in support of a claim must be independent of the claim.
Principle No. 5: The evidence must be unambiguous.
Principle No. 6: The evidence must be free of dubious assumptions.

A valid argument can violate the following principles;

Principle No. 2, and 3. Principle 2 and 3 can be violated because even though an evidence is false, it can
still be considered as a valid argument because every argument with inconsistent evidence is valid
because any claim whatsoever follows from inconsistent evidence and by having inconsistent premises
guarantees that the argument will be valid regardless of the conclusion, so the truth of the evidence is
logically irrelevant to the truth of the claim.

WEEK 5
What is the RIFUT rule? What is the relation between this rule and the principles of good
reasoning?
- The RIFUT rule embodies the following principles; R-elevant to the claim logically, I-
ndependent of the claim, F-ree of dubious assumptions, U-nambiguous, and T-rue. The
relation between the RIFUT rule and the principles of good reasoning is that to test wether
or not an argument is cogent or not, and to test whether it is a valid argument or not or
whether the argument is fallacious or not. The RIFUT rule is the test where an argument will
be analysed whether it follows the principles of good reasoning. For an argument (deductive
or inductive) to be to be good in the fullest sense of the word, it must accord with all of the
principles of good reasoning, not just to one. And to test whether it is in accordance to the
principles, the RIFUT rule is used to test it. This procedure is designed to answer the
following question: “Is this argument cogent?”

WEEK 6

What is a fallacious argument? What are the fallacies of relevance, independence, presumption,
and ambiguity?

- A fallacious argument is an argument that commits error in reasoning..

a. Fallacy of independence – an error in reasoning that occurs when the evidence is
not independent of the claim, so the arguments begs the question. 1. Circular
argument – a fallacy of independence that occurs when the conclusion is merely
a restatement of premise.
b. Fallacies of ambiguity – errors in reasoning that occur when the evidence is
ambiguous. 1. Amphiboly – a fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when (1) a
sentence has more than one meaning due to the ungrammatical way in which it
is formed, and (2) a conclusion is drawn from the unintended or false
interpretation. 2. Equivocation – a fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when at least
two different meanings for a word or a phrase are used in evidence. 3. Half-truth
– a fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when a shift of meaning arises within an
argument as a result of a deliberate omission of relevant information or a change
in the emphasis given to its words or parts.
c. Fallacies of presumption – errors in reasoning that occur when the evidence
explicitly or implicitly presupposes the truth of something that is both unproven
and unreasonable. 1. Accident – a fallacy of presumption that occurs when one
argues from a general rule to a particular, but atypical case, whose “accidental”
circumstances render the rule inapplicable. 2. Hasty Generalization – a fallacy of
presumption that occurs when one argues from a particular but atypical case to
an unqualified generalization. 3. Complex Question – a fallacy of presumption
that occurs when someone is forced to respond to a question in a straightforward
way, but by doing so she would answer a prior question that was not even asked.
4. Composition – a fallacy of presumption that occurs when one argues that
because every part of a whole (or every member of a class) has such-and-such
attribute, the whole itself (or the class itself) must have that attribute too. 5.
Division – a fallacy of presumption that occurs when one reason that what is true
of the whole (or the collection itself) must be true of the parts (or each member of
the collection). 6. False Cause – a fallacy of presumption that occurs when one
mistakes what is not the cause of something for its “real” cause. There are three
versions; (1) post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) (2).
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”) and (3) non
causa pro causa (not the cause with the cause). 7. False dilemma – a fallacy of
presumption that occurs when someone oversimplifies a complex issue by
assuming that there are only two (or a few) sides to it, then demands that the
audience choose from those limited alternatives.
d. Fallacies of relevance – errors in reasoning that occur when the evidence is not
logically relevant to the truth of the claim, so the conclusion does not follow from
the evidence; non sequiturs (non followers)
1. Ad hominem (to the person): a fallacy of relevance that occurs when Person
B attacks Person A in order to show that what person A said is wrong ,false,
or should not be taken seriously
2. Ad populum: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when in order to win assent to
a conclusion unsupported by the evidence, one directs an appeal “to the
people” by either arousing their emotions or whatever the fact that large
 numbers of people adopt a belief or practice is cited as evidence for the truth
of that belief or practice.
3. Appeal to force: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when one appeals to force
or the threat of force explicitly or implicitly to cause acceptance of conclusion.
4. Appeal to ignorance: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when one argues
either that a claim is true because it has been proven to be false, or that a
claim is false because it has not been proven to be true.
5. Appeal to inappropriate authority: a fallacy of relevance that occurs either
when an expert appeals to another expert to bolster a particular position
(when it should be the facts that matter), or when one appeals to the
testimony of an expert in matters outside of that authority’s special field.
6. Appeal to pity: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when one attempts to arouse
pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted, but where the conclusion is
concerned with a matter of fact, not a matter of sentiment.
7. Appeal to novelty: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when one claims that a
view, practice, or product is desirable or good just because it is new.
8. Appeal to tradition: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when one claims that a
view, practice or product is desirable just because it is old or longstanding.
9. Genetic fallacy: a fallacy of relevance that occurs whenever someone
assesses value to a view, practice or individual on the basis of its origins
(genesis).
10. Red herring: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when toy deliberately
introduce an irrelevant issue into an argument in order to divert the attention
of your audience away from the real point.
11. Straw man: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when instead of being critical of
your adversary’s actual position, you exaggerate or otherwise misrepresent it,
then attack the only exaggerated and misrepresented version.
12. Slippery slope: a fallacy of relevance that occurs when one distorts an
adversary’s view by falsely claiming that adopting a particular view or course
of action will result in certain inevitable and undesirable consequences
13. Irrelevant conclusion: a non sequitur or invalid argument whose specific
relevance related error in reasoning cannot be named