You need to write Rhetorical Fallacy Analysis essay no less than 550-700 words. You need to use documents below.
Also here is a video about what should be essay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40DykbPa4Lc
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Download attachment
ENGL1312 Rhetorical Fallacies 1
? Dr. James Baker
Rhetorical Fallacies
A Rhetorical Fallacy is
an error in reasoning that is potentially deceptive; it must be intended to fool at least some of the
people some of the time. A fallacy works by deceptively distorting one (or more) valid types of rhetorical appeals to
hide the fact that (1) the speaker isn
?
t credible (
ethos
), (2) his or her argument isn
?
t reasonable (
logos
), or (3) his or her
argument isn
?
t relevant to the audience (
pathos
). The following list is grouped by logos-, ethos- and pathos-based
fallacies.
Logos-based fallacies
Ethical logos appeals are about reasonableness
?
(we perceive that an argument is logical because the speaker provides
us with accurate data that clearly supports his or her claim).
.. BUT Logos-based fallacies work by (1)Trying to convince us
by manipulating our expectation that an argument is logical; (2) Misrepresenting numerical data; (3) Poor reasoning
?
flaws in the relationship among statements in an argument.
Some common logos-based fallacies include:
x
Begging the Question Fallacy:
(AKA Circular Reasoning or Tautological Arguments): This fallacy gets its name from
the formal rules of debate
?
to
?
beg the question
?
means to ask an opponent to
?
concede
?
some point in the debate
that they obviously cannot win (because everyone accepts it
?
s true) in order to give more time to topics that are
clearly in dispute. Someone uses the Begging the Question fallacy when they make a claim about something that
people disagree about, but they phrase the claim as if it
?
s something everyone accepts as true. It
?
s also called
?
circular reasoning
?
because, when questioned about it, the arguer will use some form of the claim itself as the
evidence, for example:
?
The reason there
?
s such a big demand is because everyone wants to get in.
?
In other words,
there is a big demand because there is a big demand.
x
Cherry Picking Fallacy:
A
familiar logos-based fallacy in research, cherry picking is
?
the intentional or unintentional
selection of evidence to prove one
?
s point or support one
?
s position, in research that is presumably objective.
?
Similar to Card Stacking, Cherry Picking is specific to arguments where someone is trying to use evidence to prove a
point, but purposely suppresses evidence that contradicts their argument. You can easily find examples in the media
when reports issued by government entities are challenged for being
?
politicized.
?
x
Card Stacking Fallacy:
(AKA Half Truth, Incomplete Information, One-sided argument). Similar to the
Cherry Picking
Fallacy
, Card Stacking is more deliberate. It occurs when someone intentionally makes a one-sided case by
presenting only evidence favoring its conclusion, and ignores or downplays the evidence against it. In some
situations, it
?
s appropriate to make a one-sided case (for example, in a legal argument). However, one-sidedness
becomes the Card Stacking fallacy in contexts where we have a right to demand objectivity. Two such contexts are
news stories and scientific or other scholarly writing. Card stacking is also a propaganda technique that seeks to
manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another. Such emphasis may be
achieved through media bias or the use of one-sided testimonials, or by simply censoring the voices of critics. Card
stacking can be a tool of advocacy groups or of those groups with specific agendas.
x
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Fallacy:
(A type of False Causality fallacy). Similar to the
Post Hoc fallacy
, and often
mistaken for it, is
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
, which is the assumption that one thing must be causing another just
because a relationship between them can be identified. For example, there is a positive correlation between shoe
size and intelligence, but it would be a fallacy to argue that your shoe size determines your intelligence (it
?
s actually
your age–when you
?
re young and uneducated, you have small feet). This is a common fallacy in science, leading to
the much repeated maxim
?
correlation does not equal causation.
?
x
Either-Or Reasoning Fallacy:
(AKA False Dilemma). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible alternatives even
though a broad range of possible alternatives are really available.
x
Equivocation Fallacy:
The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one
?
s terms, or deliberately using words in a
different sense than the one the audience will understand.
x
Equivocation Fallacy:
The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one
?
s terms, or deliberately using words in a
different sense than the one the audience will understand. This is a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.
View the Answer
ENGL1312 Rhetorical Fallacies 2
? Dr. James Baker
x
False Analogy Fallacy:
this occurs when someone tries to trick the audience by using an analogy or telling a story to
represent the argument when the analogy or story doesn
?
t accurately represent the issue.
x
Hasty Generalization Fallacy:
(Also known as
?
leaping to a conclusion
?
) occurs when a speaker makes a broad claim
based on too-limited evidence. It is unethical to assert a broad claim when you have only anecdotal or isolated
evidence or instances. A hasty generalization involves an over-reaction to one occurrence that grafted onto the
entire group.
x
Ignoratio Elenchi
Fallacy:
The name means
?
irrelevant thesis
?
; formally,
ignoratio elenchi
refers to any rebuttal that
fails to address the central argument
?
it happens when someone avoids answering a direct question by changing
the subject of their answer to a different topic. It
?
s easy to find examples of this in political debates, press
conferences with politicians, or interviews with politicians. (Politicians aren
?
t the only people who use this tactic, but
they certainly use it a lot.)
x
Loki
?
s Wager Fallacy:
If Hasty Generalizations are the most common fallacy used by politicians, the Loki
?
s Wager
fallacy has to be number two. It occurs when someone tries to trick the audience by making the definition of the
issue so precise that it becomes impossible to define the terms of the argument and therefore impossible to
discuss
??
If you can
?
t define it, you can
?
t discuss it.
?
A favorite tool of politicians in power, a Loki
?
s Wager fallacy is
the opposite of
?
transparency.
?
It is purely about obstructing the flow of information.
x
Moving the Goalpost Fallacy:
Occurs when a someone continuously demands additional proof or evidence to
prevent ever reaching a conclusion. Sort of the opposite of the Procrastination Fallacy.
x
Non Sequitur
Fallacy:
Meaning literally,
?
it doesn
?
t follow,
?
the non sequitur fallacy refers to someone offering an
answer, reason, or conclusion that has no logical connection to the argument at hand
?
but acting like it does.
Similar to
Ignoratio Elenchi
,
Non Sequitur
isn
?
t necessarily deliberately changing the subject so much as it is claiming
that something irrelevant is actually relevant. For example, if a politician was asked to answer an accusation of
having an inconsistent stance on a political issue, and he answered
?
I
?
ve been married to the same woman for 25
years
?
I don
?
t think anyone
?
s more consistent than I am
??
he
?
s using a
non sequitur
fallacy.
x
Politician
?
s Syllogism Fallacy:
(AKA Undistributed Middle Term.) The politician
?
s syllogism is a form of the fallacy of
the undistributed middle which is best stated thusly: (a) Something must be done; (b) This is something; (c) This
must be done. Technically, this is a pathos-based fallacy, although it looks like logos because the
?
something
?
that
?
must be done,
?
is usually presented as some type of moral imperative.
x
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Fallacy:
(a type of False Causality fallacy). Latin for
?
after this, therefore because of this,
?
Post Hoc fallacies occur when someone assumes that since an event occurred just prior to another event, then the
first event must
?
ve caused the second one. They are particularly deceptive because chronological progression often
suggests linear causality. However, the fallacy occurs when one asserts that causation is based exclusively on the
order of events, rather than considering other factors that might disqualify the correlation.
x
Procrastination Fallacy:
Similar to Loki
?
s Wager, the Procrastination Fallacy is that claim no decision can be made
until all of the data as in (and
?
all
?
of the data is never
?
in
?
).You can find examples of this at play in ANY political
scandal. It usually begins with some politician making a strong statement about how the issue is going to be
investigated, and anyone found guilty will be prosecuted
?
to the fullest extent of the law.
?
But the investigation
never results in anything because
?
all
?
of the data never comes in.
x
Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy:
Occurs when someone, instead of proving a claim they
?
re making, argues that
it
?
s their opponent
?
s responsibility to prove them wrong.
x
Shocking Statistics Fallacy:
Occurs when a speaker presents an argument that treats information as more precise
than it really is, or using true figures and numbers to
?
prove
?
unrelated claims. This happens when imprecise
information contained in the premises must be taken as precise in order to adequately support the conclusion.
One
common way this fallacy appears is in the misuse of statistics.
x
Slippery Slope Fallacy:
One of the
?
classical
?
informal fallacies, the Slippery Slope occurs when a speaker argues that
a proposed action, decision or event will inevitably lead to a chain of events with undesirable consequences, and
therefore the first proposition should be rejected. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with
the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals.
Show entire document Running Head: FALLACY 1
Topic
Name
Institution FALLACY 2 What is a fallacy? What constitutes a statement to be a fallacy? The fallacy is a statement
or information meant to fool some or all the… The way to approach this… View the full answer