Fallacy Summary & Application
Fallacy Summary and Application:
Three Fallacies and Organizational Examples
The concept of critical thinking can be a difficult task. The process involves analyzing an argument and determining whether it 's fallacious or not. An argument is fallacious when there is an error in its reasoning. Bassham, Irwin, Nardone and Wallace (2002) suggest there are two types of fallacies: (1) fallacies of relevance and (2) fallacies of insufficient evidence. This case study will analyze three fallacies. First, one fallacy of relevance will be defined, the straw man fallacy. Next this case study will define two fallacies of insufficient evidence: (1) the fallacy of hasty generalization and (2) the fallacy of begging the question. Specific organizational examples will demonstrate how these fallacies affected real world situations. How the strawman fallacy is applied to the "No Child Left Behind" slogan will be explained. How the death penalty argument was affected by the fallacy of hasty generalization. Finally, an article analyzing the Federal Reserve and its evaluation resulted in a fallacy of begging the question.
The Straw Man Fallacy According to Bassham et al. (2002), the straw man fallacy was committed when an argument distorts an opponent 's argument or claim in order to make it easier to attack. An attempt was made to ignore a person 's actual position by substituting it with a distorted and misrepresented version of that position. The Nizcor site illustrates this concept in the following example. Person A has position X. Person B represents Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore, X is false and incorrect. This sort of reasoning is considered fallacious since attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. In critical thinking, it was important that this argument pattern provides no logical relevance in support of its conclusion. One must think
Three Fallacies and Organizational Examples
The concept of critical thinking can be a difficult task. The process involves analyzing an argument and determining whether it 's fallacious or not. An argument is fallacious when there is an error in its reasoning. Bassham, Irwin, Nardone and Wallace (2002) suggest there are two types of fallacies: (1) fallacies of relevance and (2) fallacies of insufficient evidence. This case study will analyze three fallacies. First, one fallacy of relevance will be defined, the straw man fallacy. Next this case study will define two fallacies of insufficient evidence: (1) the fallacy of hasty generalization and (2) the fallacy of begging the question. Specific organizational examples will demonstrate how these fallacies affected real world situations. How the strawman fallacy is applied to the "No Child Left Behind" slogan will be explained. How the death penalty argument was affected by the fallacy of hasty generalization. Finally, an article analyzing the Federal Reserve and its evaluation resulted in a fallacy of begging the question.
The Straw Man Fallacy According to Bassham et al. (2002), the straw man fallacy was committed when an argument distorts an opponent 's argument or claim in order to make it easier to attack. An attempt was made to ignore a person 's actual position by substituting it with a distorted and misrepresented version of that position. The Nizcor site illustrates this concept in the following example. Person A has position X. Person B represents Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore, X is false and incorrect. This sort of reasoning is considered fallacious since attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. In critical thinking, it was important that this argument pattern provides no logical relevance in support of its conclusion. One must think
References: Bassham, G., Irwin W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J.M. (2002). Critical Thinking. [University of Phoenix custome edition e-text]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from University of Phoenix, Resource, MGT/350 Critical Thinking website: https://my campus.phoenix.edu./secure/resource/resource.asp Eddelman, T., Ten Anti-Death Penalty Fallacies. (2002, June 3). The New American. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from EBSCO database http:// /purl+rcl_ITOP_0_A87020272&dyn. Thomas, D., No Child Left Behind: Facts and Fallacies (2002, June 2). Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved November 1, 2004 from INFOTRAC database. Truman, E., Fallacies, Insults and Naivety Over the Way: Fed Should Do Its Work (2003, April 29). The Financial Times. Retrieved November 2, 2004 from INFOTRAC database http /purl+rcl_ITOF_0_CJ100829116&dyn.