question archive Fallacies: In Section 8
Fallacies: In Section 8
Subject:PhilosophyPrice:2.87 Bought7
Fallacies: In Section 8.2, the text states that there are "fallacious argument templates" (Facione & Gittens, p. 167) and then gives a number of examples. The authors further state: "Analysis of the meanings of the terms used and the grammatical rules of the language reveal the source of error" (p.167).
- Choose one of the fallacies in this section, such as Denying the Antecedent or False Classification and pair it with the valid argument template. For example, if you choose Denying the Antecedent, the valid argument template will be Denying the Consequent. False Classification would pair with one of the fallacies in Reasoning About Classes of Objects.
- Explain, how the fallacy is revealed through analysis of the valid argument template. Think of it this way - if you know how the heart works, you will know that certain malfunctions will prevent it from working. For example, if you know that the coronary arteries supply the heart with blood, then you can reason that a blockage will stop that vital flow. So this journal prompt asks you to explain, how one of the valid argument templates work - and how that exposes the fallacy connected with that type of argument.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Answer:
A valid argument have only the correct form or called it has no formal mistakes. A valid arguments demonstrate only if it gives true conclusion from true premises. If the conclusion is false and premises are true it is an invalid argument or called fallacious one. Fallacy is two type, formally fallacious having invalid form because of misapplication of valid form,and Informally fallacious.
Formally fallacious commonly occuring because of - denying the anticident example is If A then B,Not A
therefore not B. the valid form here is If A then B,A therefore B.
Affirming the consequent-
If A then B,B therefore A. The valid form here is If A then B, Not B therefore Not A
composition- this Fallacy is committed when it is argued that a property or quality which is present or absent must be present in the whole,for example A able to do all his work very best but is unable to do work with others.
Division is opposite to composition - this Fallacy committed when it is argued that a property which is present or absent in whole must be present in all parts.
