You are on page 1of 6

English 105

Sec 10

Submitted to:

Mr. Abdus Selim (ASm)

Senior Lecturer

Submitted by:

Marguba Hasan Zara 093 0560 030

Faiaz Ahmed Leon 101 0700 030

Md. Rakibul Islam 101 0153 030

Kashfia Zakir Mou 103 0247 030

Bushra Rahman 103 0274 530

Tanweer Sumaiya Khan 103 0583 530

Submission Date: June 3rd, 2013


Slippery slope:

Slippery slope is an informal fallacy which means an argument whose stated premises fail to
support its proposed conclusion, but has a superficial connection with it. This is a fallacy that
is often committed not only by politicians, commercial advertisers, legislators, and advocacy
groups but even by ordinary citizens.

Example1: Like the first example which is given in our text book about the pornographic
magazine, one claiming was produced that such magazine should be banned or rather
censored, while in reaction a photographer commented that these sort of fallacy restricts or
rather controls the level of publication to the people. Also in addition, a reader has claimed
such act is to also put a ban on everything else.

Example 2: The second example given shows the imposition of military conscription back in
1941, during the time of the Second World War. It showed that imposition was rejected by
the citizens because they didn’t accept it as it defied fascism, a military conscription that was
done to unite the people of the country. It was rather suggested to look on to influences
pointing out to strengthen democracy.

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. It is an error of reasoning based on faulty
use of evidence or incorrect inference. Fallacies can be either illegal arguments or irrelevant
points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports the claim.

Begging the Question

Begging the question is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit idea would directly lead to
the conclusion. This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. For example:

"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Some
modern authors consider begging the question to be a circular reasoning. Circular Reasoning
means you report what is true, repeating what you believe, only in different words. Circular
reasoning is a fallacy in which, the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.

It is restating the claim as evidence for the claim. If the


writer makes a statement that assumes that the very question
being argued has already been proven, the writer is begging
the question. Circular reasoning is an extreme example of
begging the question. "Women should not be permitted to
join men's clubs because the clubs are for men only". The
question to be resolved first, of course, is whether clubs for
men only should continue to exist. The individual components of a circular argument can be
logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack
relevance.

Straw Man

It is a familiar diversionary tactic. It is committed when a person simply ignores a person's


actual position and substitutes a distorted, misrepresented version of that position. The name
probably derives from an old game in which a straw man was set up to divert attention from
the real target that a contestant was supposed to knock down.

One outstanding example of it was the famous Checkers speech of Senator Richard Nixon.
He was accused of having campaign funds for his personal use. At one point in radio and
television speech in which he defended his reputation, he said a man down in Texas heard Pat
on the radio mentioning our two youngsters would like to have a dog. The day before we left
on this campaign trip we got a message from Union station in saying they had a package for
us.

And it was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that the man had sent all the way from Texas.
The dog was named Checkers. All kids loved the dog and we are going to keep it.
Nixon knew that the issue was the alleged misappropriation of funds, not the ownership of
the dog, which no one had asked him to return. It was a perfect example of Straw man
fallacy.
Two wrong makes a right:

This is a fallacy based on the idea that wrongs committed by one can be used to excuse
wrongs committed by others. In this way attention can be diverted from the issue.

Examples can be, a man beating another because he found the man frying to seal his car.

A real life example could be, when President Jimmy Carter attacked the human rights record
of Soviet Union, Russians did not deny the failure but they pointed the failures and lacking of
America.

Non Sequitur:

This is a Latin term which means “it does not follow”. In simple word, it means speaking
irrelevance words.

In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious
because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

All invalid argument is special causes of non sequitur.

If we take an example then we can say the number of sales can’t proof of the books their
ethical soundness.

Another real life example could be if a popular and famous person like Anonto jolil doesn’t
says things that are not always right. So it is irrelevant to make an example.

Ad Populum

Ad populum is Latin for to the people, the phrase ad populum is used to describe a technique
in debate where you make an appeal ‘to the people’ or the popular vote. You might consider
it to what is known in general to the majority of the population or think of it as common
knowledge. The danger with ad populum is that even though it is commonly known, believed
or accepted, it doesn’t mean that it is right or truthful. Phrases like “everybody knows…. or
“all religious people know…” are examples of ad populum.

Examples:
1) Everyone knows that the Bible is full of contradictions.
2) All scientists believe that Evolution is not longer a theory but now accepted it as fact.

3) A person is standing trial for their spouse’s murder- it is a common assumption to look
first to the spouse in these cases and thus, prosecutors try to sway the jury in their favor with
this notion.

Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice,
argumentum ad anti -quitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on
the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of
"this is right because we've always done it this way.

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not true:

1. The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, since the old way of
thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
2. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect
grounds.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be
untrue.

Example:

1)"The Sun has risen from east for as long as man has existed, hence it will also
rise from East tomorrow."
2)"These rules were written 100 years ago and we have always followed them.
Therefore, there is no need to change them."

Faulty Emotional Appeal

Appeals to the emotions of audience are treated as illegitimate or “counterfeit Proofs.”

All such appeals, however, are not illegitimate

If the appeal is irrelevant to the argument or draw attention from the issues being argued or if
they appear to conceal another purpose then it is a faulty emotion appeal.

Two popular appeals are mostly treated. - To pity and to fear.

Appeal to pity, compassion, and natural willingness to help the particular are hard to resist.
But these appeals to our sympathetic feelings should not divert us from considering other
issues in a particular case.

Appeal to fear are likely to be even more effective. But they must be based on evidence that
fear is an appropriate response to the issues.

An emotional response by itself is not always the soundest basis for making decision.

Readers always want to be given the opportunity to consider all the available kinds of support
for an argument.