Reference no: EM13789767

Let's begin this course by highlighting the meaning and goal of academic argument, what our text simply defines as a reasoned approach to issues.

I like how our text explains the ways to get to the understanding of an issue through critical thinking and reasoning --

1. not to defeat one's opponent

2. through the respectful exchange of viewpoints

3. each side "wins" by attaining a deeper understanding of the issue.

So, let's get started by taking a better look at when we don't reason or think independently about an issue, or we see that others don't reason or think independently about an issue.

Refer to the common fallacies in argument for this discussion. The common fallacies listed on pages 18 -20 of your text list a myriad of ways we/human beings present flawed reasoning.

1. Ad hominem

2. Begging the question

3. Either-or reasoning

4. Equivocation

5. False analogy

6. Hasty generalization

7. Post hoc fallacy

8. Red herring

9. Slippery slope

10. Two wrongs don't make a right

Your Discussion Question:

When reading about these types of fallacies, which resonated the most with you? You might have recalled a time when your own claims were based on faulty reasoning (which is what I recalled when I read these :/) Or maybe you thought of someone else's faulty reasoning.

Whichever the case, in your discussion, share one of the common fallacies that you've come across recently. In your post, first define the fallacy and then give the real-life example of that fallacy. What did you think about the claim then? What do you think about it now after reading this chapter?