Accent: The way you emphasize a word makes the conclusion seem more true
|
“Extreme deep howling sound that sounded something like whoooooaaahhhh..” because they have never heard an animal like this before
|
Hasty Generalization: A conclusion is drawn from too small a sample of evidence
|
“It seemed clear to us that they were calling back and forth to one another” they really did not have any evidence to conclude that they were calling back and forth just that they heard the same noise from different areas
|
Cum Hoc : two things that happened at the same time must have a casual relationship
|
“It seemed clear to us that they were calling back and forth to one another” they really did not have any evidence to conclude that they were calling back and forth just that they heard the same noise from different areas
|
Appeal to authority: Using an authority to affirm a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to assure the conclusion
|
“Between the two of us we have about 60 years of night fishing and hunting in this area and this was a first”
“I've spent the good part of my life gill net fishing at night on this river ..”
In both quotes he is making himself the “expert” although there is nothing that could possibly qualify him, it just means he has experience out in the wilderness
|
Bandwagon:a popular idea is correct
|
“ we were just sitting in the truck for about 2-3 minutes …” this is a stretch but what if one of the men is only saying this because the other said so? Would this make the argument a bandwagon because its more popular than believing in a different animal
|
Wishful thinking: something is true because I want it to be
|
“.. and his wasn’t anyone of those things” he is implying it is one thing because he wants it to be an animal that he has no idea about even though it could've been an animal he has seen and knows
|
No comments:
Post a Comment