Saturday, February 29, 2020
Kayson DeLaGarza
Introduction:
Attention getter-
Introduction and credibility- Kayson DeLaGarza, Seguin Resident, analyzed piece using P-OT and fallacy chart
Thesis- the writer of this piece is ineffective at making this story believable because of the fallacies included, and a lack of evidence, or even claim to have seen the creature
Preview- Hasty Generalization, Black and White, Appeal to misleading authority
Body:
Part 1- hasty generalizations
- Based his claim on internet noises, over an animal not proven to exist
- discounted all other possible causes of the noise
TRANSITION “speaking of appeal to authority”
P2- Appeal to Authority
- his navy experience
- his wife's veterinarian experience
TRANSITION
P3- Black and white
- It is either a farm animal or sasquath
TRANSITION
Conclusion:
Thesis- The authors attempts at convincing the reader that bigfoot is real fail because of the fallacies of hasty generalization, black and white, and appeals to misleading authority
Clincher-M.F. is not convincing me that bigfoot out here doing the Texas Two-Step
BigFoot Outline
Attention getter-Everyone thinks they have seen BigFoot all over the world. Newsflash if BigFoot was real, why would he be in every single location known to man.
Thesis- This story is told by a woman who claims she saw BigFoot at her house. Her story is not believable because of all the evidence I found.
Preview- We are going to talk about what kinds of fallacies and what kinds of arguments are stated in this bigfoot story.
Credibility- Professor Vrooman’s charts on Fallacies and the P-OT Chart of arguments he provided fir us.
Body-
Part 1 Fallacies:
Accident- A sweeping
generalization of a fact or a rule, presented as if it has no exception. (The woman wants us to believe
it is BigFoot who watches her.)
Red Herring- The premises of the argument are logically
unrelated to the claim. (The woman attempts to blame her missing apples on BigFoot.)
Appeal to Ignorance- Something is true because there is no
evidence for it. (unusual noises automatically mean BigFoot.)
Wishful Thinking- Something is true because I want it to be.
(No physical evidence of Bigfoot)
Transition- Now that we talked about the arguments I found, lets talk about the different fallacies.
Part 2 P-OT Arguments:
Hierarchically arranged- Example linked to double hierarchy
of multiple events/concepts.
(In this BigFoot story two different stories are being used)
Presence- Event strikes the imagination in connection with
the rule. (The woman claims that she feels someone staring
at her and she right away assumes it is BigFoot)
Space- Making it feel close. (The woman makes it seem like she can see all of BigFoot's features.)
Accident- Connections between act and essence are reduced. (The woman tries to make the reader try to believe her about BigFoot but fails.)
Space- Making it feel close. (The woman makes it seem like she can see all of BigFoot's features.)
Accident- Connections between act and essence are reduced. (The woman tries to make the reader try to believe her about BigFoot but fails.)
Conclusion- Maybe Bigfoot is real and is somewhere on the planet, but for a fact, BigFoot is not in Macoupin County, Illinois. There should be some pictures posted to prove that she did see BigFoot. She should have put more effort into her story to make it more believable.
Bigfoot basic outline slideshow
Bigfoot outline
Brianna Gonzales
Introduction:
Attention getter-
Introduction and credibility- Name, credibility being me the person who analyzed the piece
Thesis- the writer of this piece is ineffective at making this story believable because of the (fallacies included)
Preview- Repetition of accents, Appeal to authority and Hasty Generalizations
Body:
P1- Repetition
- Accent “wooooahhh”
- Appeal to authority
TRANSITION “speaking of appeal to authority”
P2- Appeal to Authority
- “Between the two of us…”
- “ I've spent the good part of my life….”
TRANSITION
P3- Hasty Generalizations
- “It seemed clear to us they were calling back to one another..”
- The entire piece: elaborate
TRANSITION
Conclusion:
Thesis- The authors attempt of convincing their audience that big foot is real was not successful because of the fallacies used including repeating the accent, appealing to misleading authority, and using hasty generalizations.
Clincher- Apparently suspicious moaning in the woods means something other than what most of us would imagine. 
Bigfoot Outline
Hannah Presley
Bigfoot Analysis Outline
Intro:
-Attention Getter: May 26, 1999 was a wonderful day for Lamoille County Vermont. It was the day that the residents of this county would be blessed with the birth of a beautiful baby girl named Hannah, aka me. But this wonderful point in time would not last long. Twenty years later members of the county would be struck with fear as a woman’s encounter with Bigfoot hit a bit too close to home.
-Preview: My name is Hannah Presley and I will be using the charts and practice that Vrooman has provided us to evaluate the credibility of a Class A Bigfoot report that a woman had from her front porch. I will be looking into multiple fallacies, premises, and arguments based on and establishing the structure of reality in the report and explaining how it has potential on the surface but with more investigation you can see the missing pieces and cracks in the argument that lead to its ultimate decline in credibility.
Body:
-Fallacies
- Accident: A sweeping generalization of a fact or a rule, presented as if it has no exception.
- Pg 1: “excellent vision- 20/15, so I was not mistaken.”
- She has great vision, and people with great vision never see anything wrong, right? I have good vision and have mistaken things plenty of times.
- Pg 2: She knows what bears look like because they frequently come through her yard. This wasn’t a bear because the arm/leg ratio was not right for it to be a regular bear.
- This is a good point. However, it could have been a deformed bear or a person in an odd outfit.
- Wishful Thinking: Something is true because I want it to be.
- Pg 2: “At that point she came to the realization that what she had seen was a Bigfoot.”
- She had no other explanation so I think she wanted it to be Bigfoot therefore it had to be Bigfoot.
- Slippery Slope: A series of steps in a casual chain and the support/probabilities for each is omitted in an argument that A basically causes Z.
- Pg 2: The witness was on a walk and hit a hollow tree with a stick. She heard knocks being returned to her in the distance and this happened multiple times. She also saw something throwing rocks at a tree trying to knock down pine cones and she and her husband went back the next day to find the trees bare and no pine cones on the ground.
- This sounds like kids playing to me and I wouldn’t think much of it, but in her mind all of these add up to that it was Bigfoot because she had seen the figure earlier.
-P-OT Chart
- Presumptions, The Normal: Based on a reference group or experience.
- Pg 1: “It was not a bear. We have a bear here by the deck, so I know what bears look like standing up to the reach feeder.
- She is familiar with bears and this didn’t match up with what she’s seen before.
- Pg 1: “That looks like a chimp!”
- She has to have seen a chimp before to be able to compare the humanoid figure with a chimp figure.
- Succession, Pragmatic: Evaluation of an act through consequences.
- Pg 1: Her chihuahua refused to walk where the Bigfoot had crossed in their yard. This was the same chihuahua that had gone after a bear a couple weeks ago.
- She’s equating a chihuahua’s moodiness with Bigfoot’s scent in the grass. I have two chihuahuas and there are some days they’re ready to go after deer in my yard and other days that they could care less. Also it’s typical behavior of chihuahuas to just stand there and not move when you set them on the ground.
- Illustration, Import: Event calls attention to rule’s possible applications.
- Pg 2: She went to her neighbor’s house and asked if he had anyone staying with him or saw anyone out walking that morning. He hadn’t.
- If no one was staying with him and he didn’t see anyone out walking then another thing it could be was Bigfoot. However, I think it’s interesting that this is the one time in the report that she thought that it could have been a human. Everything else was always linked back to it being Bigfoot.
- Facts/Truths Supposed: Agreed upon reality. Probable data.
- Pg 3: “Two of those sightings have been on/near their road, one being a face to face encounter by a local hunter a few miles from their home.”
- The hunter’s report has to be credible for this one to be. The way they talk about I assume that everyone thought he was legit. This makes it a greater possibility that the figure was a Bigfoot because there was already a credible citing nearby.
Conclusion:
When I first read through the article it seemed like it had a lot of potential to be real. However, every time that I read through it I started seeing the evidence more through a logical lense and I began to see the flaws in the argument. On the surface it seems like this could have been real, but the more I thought about it every piece of evidence had a logical explanation that could have happened instead of it being Bigfoot. This report really had potential but luckily I had the chart to guide me and help me decipher that most of the arguments were in fact not so logical after all.
References:
Sheppard, J. (2019, August 9). Report # 63218 (Class A). Retrieved February 29,
2020, from The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization website:
https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=63218
Vrooman, S., Dr. (2015, February). Some Informal Argumentative Fallacies
[Chart]. Retrieved from http://faculty.tlu.edu/svrooman/fallacies1.htm
Vrooman, S. S., Dr. (2013). Perelman's Rhetoric of Argument [Chart]. Retrieved
from http://faculty.tlu.edu/svrooman/perelman.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)