Some Informal
Argumentative Fallacies
Fallacy
|
Evidence
|
Purpose
|
Wishful
Thinking:
Something is true because I want it to be.
|
The faction of people who would be interested in reading this book,
are people who are at least curious about mysteries.
Al
|
To trigger peoples curiosity. So they will read the book.
|
Appeal
to Ignorance:
Something is true because there is no
evidence for it.
|
Pg.16, 21,28 ect.
There is no actual cited information in this book. There are pictures
with footnotes about the pictures but these are still unreliable.
|
So whoever is reading it does not have to take time to question the
creditability of the book.
|
Appeal
to Misleading Authority (w/ Appeal to Celebrity & Appeal to Tradition):
Using an authority to affirm
a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to
assure the conclusion
|
Pg. 94, 26, 102
There are many pictures of High ranking military service members, old
white dudes and pictures of men with glasses scattered throughout the book.
|
To show people that there were smart people actually involved in
these events. Thus making it more creditable.
|
Anecdotal
Fallacy/
Misleading
Vividness:
A Hasty Generalization that
relies on the availability heuristic (we generalize from vivid stories more
readily).
|
Pg.1, 35, 67, 115
This book is made up of four different stories about events that may
or may not have happed.
|
To show the reader that there are many events that they may not know
about so they will start questioning reality.
|
Perelman’s Rhetoric
of Argument
Premises
|
Evidence
|
Purpose
|
Loci-Quality:
The rear and unique is better
|
There are four bizarre stories in this book.
|
No one wants to read about a man eating a donut.
|
Presumption-The Normal:
Based on a reference group or experience
|
Each event is told by about a different person and their experience
|
This shows that there re many stories that have not been told.
|
Values-Abstract:
Not concrete: “truth” “justice”
|
There is no hard evidence to back up any of these stories.
|
|
Premise modifier
|
Evidence
|
Purpose
|
Presence-Repetition:
Say it again. And again. And
again.
|
There are four stories.
|
|
Presence-Amplification:
Divide whole into parts.
|
Each story is unrelated
|
To make the book more diverse.
|
Interpretation-Specific Choices:
Choose between alternatives.
|
The author has a choice to leave out all the information or to tell a
story that is streamlined into something interesting.
|
So the story is constant with the theme of the book.
|
Argument
Types
|
Evidence
|
Purpose
|
Establishing the Structure of Reality
Illustration-Presence:
Event strikes the imagination in connection with
the rule
|
This is pretty much a story built on imagination.
|
To add elements to the story to make it more
believable.
|
Establishing the Structure of Reality
Example-Exception:
Argument separating event/s and rules/realities.
|
There are four different stories.
|
So that the book as a whole seems more believable.
|
For this one since we aren't reading the book or getting the summary info from it, I probably would've cited actual quotes so we could compare and contrast the Fallacy. But good job with connecting how the fallacy was used.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to see more of your own thoughts as well as either direct quotes or reasonable summaries. From what you have stated, the author seems to work off of the reader's curiosity. Is this effective? What does the author do specifically to draw the reader in? Why does he use these techniques over others, and what does that say about the audience and author by extension?
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Amanda and David for both you fallacy post and your argument post. Both blog posts lack textual evidence/quotes and that doesn't really allow the audience to understand what you're trying to get across since we don't know what you're reading. Nonetheless, the work you did on the fallacy blogpost was very well put together. And the work you did for Perelman's arguments was also done in a good, well-organized manner.
ReplyDelete