PHI 103 Identifying Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning: A Critical Analysis
A critical analysis of common fallacies in everyday reasoning, examining logical errors and their impact on decision-making.
Olivia Smith
Contributor
4.2
55
about 1 month ago
Preview (2 of 2)
Sign in to access the full document!
PHI 103 Identifying Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning: A Critical Analysis
PHI 103 Week 3
Discussion Question 1
Considering the fallacies discussed in Chapter Four of An Introduction to Logic, construct
three different arguments that display distinct fallacies. Give an explanation of why each
makes a mistake in drawing the conclusion it does. Review your classmates’ examples and
see if they, in fact, commit the fallacy identified.
“Begging the Question” or “Circular Reasoning”
“To beg the question is to commit a mistake in reasoning by assuming what one seeks to prove.
Often this kind of reasoning is criticized as "circular reasoning," in that the premise that supports
the conclusion is in turn supported by the conclusion, and thus goes in a circle”. (Mosser, 2011).
Smoking cause’s lung cancer in humans, lung cancer kills millions of humans, so smoking will
kill you.
Though this may technically be true, it still begs the question. The premises may be true as well
as the conclusion, but smoking does not always cause lung cancer and does not kill everyone.
Many people have smoked for many of years and had never developed lung cancer.
The Slippery Slope Argument
“The slippery slope fallacy is committed when one takes an example and extends it indefinitely
to show that a given undesirable result will inevitably follow. Often the idea is that if an
exception is allowed to a rule, then more and more exceptions will follow, leading to the
inevitable result that few people, if any, will follow the rule. But this conclusion isn't always
warranted. A library may well wish to prohibit certain kinds of material, such as pornography,
but that doesn't mean that libraries will end up banning all kinds of materials.”(Mosser, 2011).
We have to stop the gas prices from increasing! The next thing you know, they'll be charging
$20.00 a gallon!"
“One has to examine the premises of the specific argument to determine if, in fact, they support
the conclusion. The premises must be shown to lead to the conclusion and the connection
between the premises and conclusion must be demonstrated.” (Mosser, 2011).
Hasty Generalization
PHI 103 Week 3
Discussion Question 1
Considering the fallacies discussed in Chapter Four of An Introduction to Logic, construct
three different arguments that display distinct fallacies. Give an explanation of why each
makes a mistake in drawing the conclusion it does. Review your classmates’ examples and
see if they, in fact, commit the fallacy identified.
“Begging the Question” or “Circular Reasoning”
“To beg the question is to commit a mistake in reasoning by assuming what one seeks to prove.
Often this kind of reasoning is criticized as "circular reasoning," in that the premise that supports
the conclusion is in turn supported by the conclusion, and thus goes in a circle”. (Mosser, 2011).
Smoking cause’s lung cancer in humans, lung cancer kills millions of humans, so smoking will
kill you.
Though this may technically be true, it still begs the question. The premises may be true as well
as the conclusion, but smoking does not always cause lung cancer and does not kill everyone.
Many people have smoked for many of years and had never developed lung cancer.
The Slippery Slope Argument
“The slippery slope fallacy is committed when one takes an example and extends it indefinitely
to show that a given undesirable result will inevitably follow. Often the idea is that if an
exception is allowed to a rule, then more and more exceptions will follow, leading to the
inevitable result that few people, if any, will follow the rule. But this conclusion isn't always
warranted. A library may well wish to prohibit certain kinds of material, such as pornography,
but that doesn't mean that libraries will end up banning all kinds of materials.”(Mosser, 2011).
We have to stop the gas prices from increasing! The next thing you know, they'll be charging
$20.00 a gallon!"
“One has to examine the premises of the specific argument to determine if, in fact, they support
the conclusion. The premises must be shown to lead to the conclusion and the connection
between the premises and conclusion must be demonstrated.” (Mosser, 2011).
Hasty Generalization
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat
Document Details
University
Arizona State University
Subject
Philosophy