Supplement Reviewer for Final Exams PDF

TAKE NOTE: Kindly study the other Power points and PDF files provided in your BBL. This will only serve as a ‘supplement’ to your studies. HUM011: LOGIC, REASONING WITH CRITICAL THINKING MODULE 3: FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACY Formal Fallacy  Please refer to slides and le...

TAKE NOTE: Kindly study the other Power points and PDF files provided in your BBL. This will only serve as a ‘supplement’ to your studies. HUM011: LOGIC, REASONING WITH CRITICAL THINKING MODULE 3: FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACY Formal Fallacy  Please refer to slides and learning materials provided in BBL. How to Detect Fallacies  In providing ‘evidences’ and ‘arguments’, they resort to the use of 1) emotions/feelings (becoming irrational in a discussion), 2) attack on one’s credibility and 3) deception (leading away from the main topic of discussion). Informal Fallacy  a type of fallacy where in verifying whether a conclusion/claim is true or false, there are no valid evidences/arguments to support their claim. o Informal Fallacy of Relevance: using evidences/arguments NOT connected to the claim/conclusion o Informal Fallacy of Weak Induction: using ‘weak’ evidences/arguments that are not totally connected to the claim and conclusion Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum):  Threatening someone with force or harm to get them to agree with you.  Use of strong emotions to enforce fear and coercion.  For example: "If you don't vote for me, I'll raise your taxes." Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam):  Trying to get someone to agree with you by making them feel sorry for you.  Use of ‘sympathy’ and ‘soft emotions’ to influence other’s decisions  For example: "I know you're going to give me a good grade on this paper, because I've been working so hard and my grandmother is sick." Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam):  Claiming that something is true because an authority figure says so, even if there is no evidence to support the claim.  For example: "Dr. Smith says that vaccines are safe, so they must be safe." Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam):  Claiming that something is true because we don't have any evidence to prove that it is false.  Affirmative Claims: Since there are no “negative” evidences, then the claim must automatically be ‘true’  Negative Claims: Since there are no “positive” evidences, then the claim must automatically be ‘false’   For example: "We don't have any evidence that ghosts exist, so they must exist." Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum):  Claiming that something is true because most people believe it is true.  For example: "Everyone believes that global warming is real, so it must be real." Appeal against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem):  Attacking the person who is making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself. o Abusive ad Hominem: Direct attack on the person o Circumstantial ad Hominem: attacking the person based on his ‘circumstances’ (background and context) o Guilt by Association: attacking the person based on what kind of people they belong to. (Sexists, Racists, Misogynists, etc) o Tu Quoque (‘You Too”): attacking the person with the level of claims [‘Back to you!’, “Ikaw din naman ah!~”  For example: "You're not qualified to talk about politics because you're a liberal." Genetic Fallacy: Explanation: This fallacy occurs when the origin or history of an idea or person is used to discredit the idea itself. Example: "You can't trust her argument about renewable energy; she comes from a family of oil industry executives." Fallacy of Accident: Explanation: This fallacy involves applying a generalization to a specific case where the generalization doesn't hold. Example: "Exercise is good for health, but Tom had a heart attack while exercising, so exercise must be bad for you." Red Herring Fallacy: Explanation: Introducing irrelevant information to divert attention from the main issue. Example: "We were discussing the budget cuts, and you bring up my personal spending habits? That's a red herring." Arithmetical Fallacy: Explanation: Making mathematical errors or misusing mathematical concepts in an argument. Example: "Our profits have increased by 50%, so next year we'll double our profits." (Ignoring other factors) Fallacy of Hasty Generalization: Explanation: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. Example: "I met two people from that city, and they were both rude. Everyone from that city must be rude." Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy: Explanation: Assuming that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second. Example: "I wore my lucky socks, and then we won the game. Therefore, my lucky socks caused the victory." Slippery Slope: Explanation: Arguing that a particular event will inevitably lead to a chain reaction of negative events. Example: "If we allow students to retake exams, soon everyone will want to retake exams, and our academic standards will plummet." Fallacy of Weak Analogy: Explanation: Drawing a comparison between two things that are not sufficiently similar to support the conclusion. Example: "Rejecting this law is like refusing to wear a seatbelt; both are just common sense." Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning Fallacy): Explanation: Assuming the conclusion in the premise; begging the question. Example: "The Bible is the word of God because God tells us it is in the Bible." Complex Question Fallacy: Explanation: Asking a question that presupposes a particular answer. Example: "Have you stopped cheating on exams?" (Assumes the person was cheating in the first place.) False Dilemma Fallacy: Explanation: Presenting a limited set of options when there are more possibilities. Example: "Either you support my candidate, or you're against progress." IMPORTANT NOTES in Formal Fallacies: 1. Rules 1 to 4 of the Rules of Categorical Syllogisms are the rules governing the terms. 2. Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules of Categorical Syllogisms are the rules governing the propositions/syllogism itself. 3. Two affirmative premises can give an affirmative conclusion 4. From two particular premises, particular follows. 5. The middle term must not have two different senses 6. From two negatives, negative follows. 7. Fallacy of equivocation also refers to fallacy of four terms. 8. The conclusion must follow the weaker premise. 9. An invalid argument has a fallacy. 10. The major term can be found in both premises. 11. Rules 4 and 7 negates (violates) one another 12. Rule 3 and 5 negates one (violates) another. 13. The middle term should occur in both of the premises. 14. A universal conclusion cannot be drawn from premises with only one universal premise. 15. An affirmative conclusion is drawn when both premises are affirmative. 16. The middle term must be distributed universally, at least once, in the premises. 17. To be valid, the middle term must be capital in the conclusion 18. There is the possibility of having an invalid conclusion to any premises. 19. The Middle Terms must always be taken in the same content/context (beware of the Fallacy of Equivocation) 20. Formal Fallacies are the type of fallacies which present an error within the ‘form’ or ‘system’ of a given syllogism. ANALYZING SYLLOGISMS All humans (M) are mortal (P). Socrates (S) is a human (M). Therefore, Socrates (S) is mortal (P). Capital M Middle Term Universal Capital P Major Term Universal Capital S Minor Term Universal small case m Middle Term Particular small case p Major Term Particular small case s Minor Term Particular + Affirmative Proposition - Negative Proposition Example: All human beings (M) are rational (+P). [Code A, Universal Affirmative] My pet dog (+s) is not a human (-m). [Code O, Particular Negative] My pet dog (+s) is not rational(-p). [Code O, Particular Negative]