Forum Discussion
Humanities
F 5.1 FORUM DISCUSSION THE LOGIC WORKOUT
We start with this simple preparation:
What is the first letter of your last name? (My last name is “Smith,” so my answer is the letter “S.”)
On pages 75-76 in your text you will find “The Logic Workout (5.3), a list of 21 examples of logical arguments, tagged “A-U.” Each illustrates one or more logical fallacies.
Select two examples. Your first example should have the letter tag as your first name. Your second example should have the letter tag for your second name. SA, I would pick, examples “J” and “S.”
FOR EACH QUOTE your posting should have five parts, which you should label as below:
1. ARGUMENT: The actual logical argument I am discussing
2. PREMISES/CONCLUSIONS: Here are the premises and ccnclusions (f any) I found
3. GENERAL FLAWS: The premise or premises display some (or all) of the following general flaws
a. Irrelevant?
b. Insufficent?
c. Incorrect?
d. Ambiguous?
4. SPECIFIC LOGICAL FLAWS The argument displays these logical flaws (from your text)
BAD EXAMPLE
Some people argue that being vegetarian prevents heart disease. There is not logical because there is no evidence for it. There are lots of people who are not vegetarians who do not get heart disease.
BETTER EXAMPLE
ARGUMENT: “Eating a vegetarian diet is the only way to prevent heart disease. I know Professor Smith, who was fired for displaying bad judgment when making bad jokes in his classes, does not believe everyone should be vegetarian. Therefore Professor Smith does not want to prevent heart disease.”
PREMISES/CONCLUSIONS: PREMISES: There are three. The first is that eating a vegetarian diet is the only way to prevent heart disease. The second is that Professor Smith does not believe everyone should be a vegetarian. The third is that Smith had bad judgment because he makes bad jokes in class. These are premises because they are presented as support for the CONCLUSION that “Professor Smith does not want to prevent heart disease.”
GENERAL FLAW: So what if Professor Smith does not believe everyone should be a vegetarian. That says nothing about whether he wants to prevent heart disease. So, this premise is IRRELEVANT. That fact that he makes bad jokes when he should be giving serious lectures is also IRRLEVANT.
SPECIFIC LOGICAL FLAWS: I think this may an APPEAL TO FEAR (the fear of getting heart disease). It is also an AD HOMIMEN ARGUMENT or a RED HERRING. Whether or not Professor makes bad jokes in class is an attempt to smear his reputation so he can’t be believed (ad hominem). It is also a distracting bit of bad information to get us off the topic (red herring).
YOUR TWO POSTINGS SHOULD USE THE ABOVE FORMAT. DIVIDE YOUR POSTING INTO 4 PARTS. LABEL EACH PART. USE THE CAPCON SYSTEM.
EXTRA CREDIT!
If you find a type of logical fallacy one of your classmates failed to identify, you can earn extra credits
You may comment on what your classmates have posted, identifying what they may have missed or perhaps gotten wrong.
Post to find fallacy:
C. D.
THE LOGIC WORKOUT
Top of Form
ARGUMENT: After Baltig presents an eloquent and compelling case for delaying the midterm exam, Torkul throws a monkey wrench into the discussion and asks students if we should trust someone who has a poor grade point average, has missed weeks’ worth of classes and eats animals’ others consider to be family pets.
PREMISES/CONCLUSIONS:” The First premise, “After Baltig presents an eloquent and compelling claim for delaying the midterm”. The Second premise, Torkul asks students if we should trust someone who has a poor grade point average, missed a week’s worth of classes and eats animals others consider to be family pets. In which supports the CONCLUSION that “Torkul is jealous of Baltig.
GENERAL FLAW: So what if Baltig eats animals that other people would consider pets, that is IRRELEVANT to his claim of wanting to delay the midterms. Also, the fact that he “doesn’t seem credible” to one student (Torkul)” is IRRELEVANT.
SUPERFICIAL LOGIC FLAWS: I think this may be an AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. Whether a student eats animals, whom others may disapprove of, has nothing to do with if their argument is believable or not.
ARGUMENT: The evidence that a fatty diet contributes to heart disease is very weak. My neighbor is a vegetarian and she has heart disease.
PREMISES/CONCLUSIONS: the First premise is “The evidence that a fatty diet contributes to heart disease is very weak”. The Second premise is “My neighbor is a vegetarian and she has heart disease”. Which comes to the CONCLUSION “since my neighbor has heart disease, and is a vegetarian, a fatty diet doesn’t contribute to this”.
GENERAL FLAW: So what if the neighbor is a vegetarian, that is IRRELEVANT. Who knows how long has the neighbor been a vegetarian? What evidence do you have that supports the argument regarding fatty diets and heart disease?
SUPERFICIAL LOGICAL FLAWS: I think this is an APPEAL TO FEAR. Also, since the information is vague and has no concrete facts, this is a RED HERRING TACTIC
