Question

Fallacies Part II

1. Hasty Generalisation

Fallacies Part III

1. Ad Hominem

2. Appeal to force

3. False Dilemma

Fallacies Part IV

1. Appeal to pity

2. Popular Appeal

3. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority

4. Slippery Slope

5. Questionable Cause

Answer 1

ANSWER-

Fallacies Part II

1.Hasty Generalisation-

A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion that is reached is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faulty generalization, a biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of qualifications.

Fallacies Part III

1. Ad Hominem -

An ad hominem argument (or argumentum ad hominem in Latin) is used to counter another argument. However, it's based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason, and logic. An ad hominem argument is often a personal attack on someone's character or motive rather than an attempt to address the actual issue at hand.

2. Appeal to force -

An appeal to force is a fallacy, or faulty argument, that is based on the threat of harm and is not relevant to the argument itself. In short, the threat does not prove or disprove the truth of the statement.

Fallacies Part IV

1. Appeal to pity -

An appeal to pity is a specific type of emotional appeal. An appeal to pity manipulates someone's feelings of pity or guilt in order to get them to support a point of view. This type of appeal is a fallacy-an illogical reasoning pattern.

2. Popular Appeal -

The appeal to popularity fallacy is made when an argument relies on public opinion to determine what is true, right, or good. This approach is problematic because popularity does not necessarily indicate something is true.

3. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority -

The arguer bases her argument on the authority of someone who does not in fact have authority in the issue at hand.
Pattern:
B is improperly positioned as an authority figure on subject S.
B makes a claim C on subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

4. Slippery Slope-

In our discussion of deductive and inductive reasoning, we noted that many of the premises used in deductive arguments are based upon inductive reasoning. In our discussion of inductive reasoning, we noted that we can never be absolutely certain of any belief that is the result of inductive reasoning. We are faced therefore with the reality of always living with an uncomfortable, insecure, and risky situation. The best we can do is be intellectually honest, admit our ultimate ignorance, and try to put together reliable, but tentative beliefs based upon strong inductions. A slippery slope is a psychologically persuasive way of arguing that takes advantage of the fact that we live in an uncertain world and that many things are possible. In particular it takes advantage of the fact that people naturally fear what might happen when we choose to do something different or new. A Slippery Slope fallacy is committed when a mere possible chain of events (one event causing another) is asserted in the premises with no supporting evidence offered that the chain of events is likely to happen.

5.Questionable Cause -

By way of introduction to structuring fallacies we examined the fallacy of Questionable Cause in Chapter 4. Now we can examine this fallacy within the proper context of weak induction fallacies. Questionable Cause is a type of Hasty Conclusion. To assert that one event is caused by another is a bold generalization. When people assert such claims as Reaganomics caused the economy to get better in the 1980s, that the Clinton presidency was responsible for the economic boom of the 1990s, that feminism caused an increase in crime, that sex education classes cause teenagers to want to have sex, which produces more teenage pregnancies and spreads venereal disease, that the use of Google and the Internet are making us stupid2 , they are making bold claims about very complex situations. It is understandable why we make such claims and why we seek reliable beliefs about underlying causal connections that produce complex behavior and physical and social events. We want to know what causes what, so that we can control reality or at least adjust to it so that we can live successfully. If it is really true that the 1980's economic policies of President Reagan produced the foundation for a better economy, then we want to sustain such policies. If it is really true that sex education classes for teenagers produce behavior that we don't want, then we should eliminate such classes. However, great harm can also be done by assuming a causal connection when there is none, and because the world is very complex at least on the surface, the amount of evidence needed to support a causal connection needs to be considerable.