it is some few questions on Clear thinking and logic subject or philosophytopic onSome Common Fallacies
the attached file might help
no need for reference list
Arguments from Analogy (similarity) P1 A is similar to B in possessing properties 1, 2, 3…. P2 A also possesses property N C So, B possesses property N Terminology: A is the analogue. B is the primary subject. 1, 2, 3 etc are the shared properties. N is the target property. Example: P1 A Midsummer Night’s Dream is similar to The Tempest in that both plays were written by William Shakespeare, both are comedies, they are similar in length and they are both written in Elizabethan English. P2 A Midsummer Night’s Dream was read by me in the space of an evening. C So, The Tempest could be read by me in the space of an evening. Evaluating Arguments from Analogy: 1. How many properties do A and B share, and (more importantly) how relevant are those properties to the conclusion? (Note: A property is relevant to the conclusion if it increases the likelihood of B having property N.) 2. How many properties do A and B have which are not shared, and (more importantly) how relevant are these dissimilarities to the conclusion? (Note: A dissimilarity is relevant to the conclusion if it decreases the likelihood of B having property N.) 3. Are there things other than A which are similar to B in relevant respects, and if so, do these things have property N. Another Example: P1 Earth is similar to Twin Earth in that both are planets of the same size, revolving around stars of the same size and type at the same distance from those stars. P2 Earth has intelligent life. C So, Twin Earth has intelligent life. Further Information: Earth and Twin Earth are both approximately 4 billion years old. There is no water on twin earth. Some Common Fallacies Appeal to Inappropriate Authority: arguing that a claim is true because it is made by an expert, when the claim is about matters which are outside the expert’s field of expertise. e.g. It is ridiculous to believe in God. Professor Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist, says religion is only superstition. Ad Hominem (against the person): this occurs when instead of considering a person’s claim or argument on it’s merits, one simply attacks the person proposing the argument as bad, stupid etc,, and takes this as justification for rejecting their claim or argument. e.g. Of course academics argue in favour of proposed expansion of university education: the more aspiring graduates there are, the more job opportunities there are for people like them. Tu quoque (you too): this is a special form of ad hominem which involves rejecting a person’s claim or argument because they are hypocritical and don’t act in accordance with their own claims. e.g Peter: ‘Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing.’ Bill: ‘But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong. Appeal to Popularity/Majority: arguing that a claim must be true simply because many/most people believe it is true. e.g. Most people in the world today still believe God exists. It has to be true. Peer Pressure: believing a claim is true simply because one’s peers believe it. e.g. All my friends think the Beatles suck. So, I guess they must suck. Appeal to Tradition: arguing that because a belief or practice has existed for a long time it must be true or good. e.g. Bullfighting has always been part of Spanish culture. So, it must morally acceptable. Appeal to Ignorance: this consists in arguing that because a claim has not been demonstrated to be false it must be true, or alternatively, that because a claim has not been demonstrated to be true it must be false. e.g. Of course there is a God. No one has ever shown that there isn’t. Appeal to Pity: occurs when someone urges acceptance of a claim on grounds of pity, when those grounds are irrelevant to the truth of the claim. e.g. Jones certainly deserves the job. He’s got two children and his wife is very ill right now. Appeal to Fear: believing that something is true because one has been threatened with harm if one doesn’t believe it. E.g. I’m sure you agree that our party should be supported. You might lose your job if you don’t Wishful Thinking: believing that something is true simply because one strongly desires that it be true. e.g. I know I’m going to win the lottery because I desperately need the money. Fallacy of hasty generalization: making a claim about a group/class on the basis of a sample which is too small to be representative of the group as a whole. e.g. Three Martians were observed in this area and they were all green. Therefore, all Martians are green. Fallacy of biased generalization: drawing a conclusion about all members of a class on the basis of a sample which is not representative because it was not selected randomly (i.e. not all members of the class had a roughly equal chance of being selected to be included in the sample). e.g. 99% of all people coming out of Football Park after a football match said that they liked football. So, 99% of all Australians like football. Post hoc Fallacy: arguing that simply because event B occurred after event A, it must have been caused by event A. e.g. Since I started wearing my magic crystal necklace I haven’t been sick once. So, my magic crystal necklace prevents me from getting ill. Fallacy of jumping from correlation to cause: arguing that because A and B are always or often found together B must have been caused by A. e.g. All animals which have kidneys also have a heart. So, having a kidney is the causes an animal to have a heart The Slippery Slope Fallacy: asserting that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. e.g. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!" Selected Answers to Practice Questions on Fallacies Name any fallacy (e.g. appeal to the majority, ad hominem, post hoc fallacy etc) in each of the following passages, state the conclusion, and briefly explain why the premises fail to provide adequate support for the conclusion. 1. Since I came into office two years ago, the rate of violent crime has decreased significantly. So, it is clear that the longer prison sentences our government introduced are working. Fallacy: Post hoc fallacy Conclusion: It is clear that the longer prison sentences our government introduced are working. Explanation: The mere fact that one event i.e. the rate of violent crime decreasing occurred after another event (i.e. longer prison sentences) does not provide adequate support for the claim that the latter caused the former, because lots of other things occurred before the decrease in the rate of violent crime, and one of these, e.g. perhaps restrictions on late night alcohol consumption, may have caused the decrease. 2. I have just broken up with my boyfriend – it just goes to show that I’ll never make a relationship work. Fallacy: the fallacy of hasty generalisation. Conclusion: I’ll never make a relationship work. Explanation: The premise is based on a sample which is not representative because it is too small (i.e. only one relationship) and so it cannot provide adequate support for a universal conclusion. 3. We realise our proposal concerning the library is flawed. But the merits of the proposal outweigh its flaws. After all, we worked awfully hard on it and for so many hours! I hate to think that we wasted all that time. Also, if you reject it, I might be denied my next promotion. Fallacy: Appeal to Pity Conclusion: The merits of our proposal concerning the library outweigh its flaws. Explanation: The premises, e.g. I might be denied my next promotion etc, may arouse pity and so cause us to accept the conclusion, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion. Whether the conclusion is true or not depends instead on whether it will actually make the library better. 4. Poet Allen Ginsberg has argued in favour of abolishing censorship of pornographic literature. But Ginsberg’s arguments are nothing but trash. Ginsberg, you know is a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture. Fallacy: Ad hominem. Conclusion: Ginsberg’s arguments (in favour of abolishing censorship of pornographic literature) are nothing but trash. Explanation: The premises, e.g Ginsberg is a marijuana-smoking homosexual, are just a personal attack on Ginsberg, and are irrelevant to the soundness of his argument which depends only on the quality of the argument itself, and not on any (alleged) personal defects of the arguer. 5. Abortion is wrong because Dr Skarn, the physicist who won the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on cold fusion, says it is wrong. Fallacy: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority. Conclusion: Abortion is wrong. Explanation: The premise, Dr Skarn says abortion is wrong, does not provide adequate support for the conclusion because he is making a claim in an area (i.e. ethics) which is outside his area of expertise (physics). 6. God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God. Fallacy: Appeal to the Majority. Conclusion: God must exist. Explanation: The premise, 85% of Americans believe in God, does not provide adequate support for the conclusion because majorities can be, and often are, mistaken in their view. Name:Student# Clear Thinking and Logic – JFSP 2020 Test 6 – Class 2 Time Allowed: 30 minutes Name the