Be sure to turn on the All Markup setting in your Word processor so that you
see the entire markup. Go to REVIEW in the ribbon above, and then just to
the right of Track Changes you’ll see the pull-down. Set it on All Markup and
then click Show Markup.
Unit 4 Discussion: Persuasive Writing
Initial post:
1. Explain what is meant by false arguments.
False arguments are those based on false (unsound) conjecture. According to Douglas Jordan “false
arguments are those which are based on unreliable particulars (or details) within an argument or
debate. According to Douglas Jordan, Fallacies can either be formal, informal, or both. Formal
fallacies entail a flaw in the logical reasoning of an argument. Informal fallacies entail a flaw in the
premises of the argument. It is also possible for a fallacy to contain elements of a formal fallacy and
an informal fallacy, where the logic and premises of an argument are flawed” (Jordan, Douglas R.,
2016).
Furthermore, false arguments can be avoided by evaluation. (VanderMey, VanRys, & Sebranek,
2012) To evaluate a topic, start by learning as much about it as possible. Then consider which
criteria or standards are appropriate. Next, judge how the topic measures up based on those criteria.
Support your judgment with concrete details, examples, illustrations, and comparisons (VanderMey
et al., 2012, p.24).
2. Provide examples of types of logical fallacies that might be involved.
Ad hominem = An individual employing judgment of the speaker to evaluate the truth of a
statement, rather than using the fundamental logic of the statement to evaluate its truth. Simply put,
ad hominem fallacies mean ignoring the topic at hand, and choosing to insult the person’s character
or actions.
Example: “That guy isn’t qualified to be a police officer because his brothers are convicted felons!”
Simply put, ad hominem is a glorified version of name-calling; the name itself comes from the Latin
phrase “at the man”.
Circular reasoning = The reasoning relies on the conclusion being true. This is flawed due to both
the premise and conclusion being dependent on each other (A because B, and B because
A). Begging the question may also be a part of circular reasoning but isn’t always.
Example: “God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible is true since it’s the word of God[.]”
Red herring = To distract from the topic with unrelated material; something to mislead from the
original conversation (an intentionally misleading object).
Example: “I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for graduate students. This
proposal should also be recommended by my colleagues; after all, we are in a budget crisis and we
do not want our salaries affected.”
See, the topic was about stricter graduation for students, the speaker then used a red herring
(budget crisis) to distract the crowd.
3. Explain the strategies involved argumentation and persuasive in academic writing.
In academic writing, the argumentative is why the reader should choose your side through your own
personal reasoning (whether it be statistical or anecdotal), while a persuasive is why the
reader should choose your side based on the form of convincing. Strategies include debasing and
Commented [S1]: Comma not necessary here
Commented [S2]: Note that the final period stays inside
the quotation mark unless it’s followed by an in-text
citation.
countering: since the individual is attempting to show why he or she agrees with a particular
argument (or shares the same point of view/perspective), this in turns argues with the readers’
preconceived notions, and through the individual’s reasoning for their choices is obviously an
attempt at convincing the reading audience to see his or her side.
References
Jordan, D. R. (2016). Fallacy (logic). Salem Press Encyclopedia.
VanderMay, R., Meyer, V., VanRys, J., & Sebranek, P. (2012). The college writer brief: A guide
thinking, writing, and research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Words: 560
Replies to Colleagues:
In my opinion, two of the worst fallacies are slippery slope and ad hominem because both are
almost always identified incorrectly. Not all “slippery slopes” are fallacious; and not all personal
things are ad hominem (e.g. they can be relevant to the argument). Not to mention that little do
people know: ad hominem includes calling out hypocrisy. Calling out someone’s hypocrisy is a
fallacy because you are attacking the inconsistency of the person saying the argument rather than
the argument itself. So[,] if someone else who isn’t hypocritical uses the exact same argument,
you have nothing, so you haven’t actually weakened the argument itself.
On a side note, I can’t remember if it was Plato or Aristotle who said this but “the mark of an
educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without believing it.” This philosophy is at the
Commented [S3]: This is a sentence fragment. The easiest
remedy is to connect it with the previous sentence.
Commented [S4]: Note that the final period stays inside