speakers should be concerned with what strengthens and weakens an
argument. Earlier we discussed the process of building an argument with
claims and evidence and how warrants are the underlying justifications
that connect the two. We also discussed the importance of evaluating the
strength of a warrant, because strong warrants are usually more
persuasive. Knowing different types of reasoning can help you put claims
and evidence together in persuasive ways and help you evaluate the
quality of arguments that you encounter. Further, being able to identify
common fallacies of reasoning can help you be a more critical consumer
of persuasive messages.
Reasoning refers to the process of making sense of things around us.
argues to establish a relationship between a cause and an effect...
are flaws within the logic or reasoning of an argument...
Hasty generalization. Inductive reasoning fallacy that occurs when too few examples are cited to warrant a conclusion.
False analogy. Inductive reasoning fallacy that occurs when situations or circumstances being compared are not similar enough.
False cause. Causal reasoning fallacy that occurs when a speaker argues with insufficient evidence that one thing caused/causes another.
False authority. Fallacy that
occurs when a person making an argument doesn’t have the knowledge or
qualifications to be credible but is perceived as credible because they
are respected or admired.
Bandwagon. Fallacy that relies on arguing for a course of action or belief because it is commonly done or held.
False dilemma. Fallacy that occurs when a speaker presents an audience only two options and argues they must choose one or the other.
Ad hominem. Fallacy that occurs when a speaker attacks another person rather than his or her argument.
Slippery slope. Fallacy that occurs when a person argues that one action will inevitably lead to a series of other actions.
Red herring. Fallacy that occurs when a speaker poses an argument that is meant to distract from the argument at hand.
Appeal to tradition. Fallacy that results when a speaker argues that something should continue because “it’s the way things have been done before.”