apa style reply

by

Discussion Reply: Reply to Each Peer

Reply#1

Sarah

(Moore, 2017), defines a fallacy as a mistake in reasoning, an argument that doesn’t really support or prove the contention it is supposed to support or prove. A fallacy of relevance which is also called red herrings has a premise that may seem relevant but when it is actually not. (Moore, 2017), gives us an example of a driving situation where the issue in question is ignored and the focus is instead put on the person that said it is dangerous to text when driving.

Weak induction fallacy is clearly defined by its name. Inductive arguments with so much ignorance surrounding the fallacies. The argument’s premises are not strong enough to support the conclusion. Such fallacies also involve an emotional appeal to make their case. For example, I might tell someone that I bought a nice green sweater, all green sweaters are nice. This is an example of a weak induction fallacy. Just because the green sweater I bought was nice, it does not mean all green sweaters are nice.

Fallacy of ambiguity has unclear phrases that may have several meanings used within the argument which does not support the conclusion. For example I read something funny online that said “Call me a taxi” and the person that was told to help call a taxi instead responded with “Do you want me to get you a taxi or tell you that you are a taxi?”. Such phrases can be really confusing and unclear.

Reference:

Moore, B. N., Parker, R. Critical Thinking. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/1260184714/

Reply #2

Susan

A fallacy is a type of mistake in reasoning. There are two types of fallacies, formal and informal. Fallacy of relevance, fallacy of weak induction, and fallacy of ambiguity all fall under informal. Fallacy of relevance is the use of irrelevant information, making a statement wrong. Under fallacy of relevance there are 8 types. One type is appeal of emotion. The best way I can explain it is someone using emotions to get another person to accept the argument. An example would be “I’ve had a stressful few days at work, so I should not have to do any work”. A fallacy of weak induction according to Moore and Parker (2017), Poc Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc means “After this, therefore because of it”. It is related to cause and effect (pg. 204). In this week’s presentation it states, “It takes two things that happen together and interprets that correlation as proof that one caused the other”. You may hear in high school or middle school students say they have a lucky pencil. I can say I used my lucky pencil during my math test, I got an A+, therefore my lucky pencil got me an A+ on my math test. A fallacy of ambiguity is false due to the lack or clarity. There are three types of fallacy of ambiguity. They are equivocation fallacy, fallacy of composition, and fallacy of division. Fallacy of ambiguity lacks clarity, causing the premises to not be supported. One example of this would be a phrase we all hear very often, “first come, first serve’. Some may misinterpret this as does the one that arrives first serve all? Or as the first one to arrive gets the first serving.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2017). Critical Thinking (12th ed.). Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/1260184714/…