Fallacies are common and deceptive mistakes in reasoning. This worksheet will help you uncover and respond to logical fallacies you may encounter.

Complete numbers 1 to 6 and submit your work as a Word document. Before starting, review the Lecture Video – Logical Fallacies, Lecture Video – More Fallacies, and the related handout.

Comprehension

1. What is the fallacy of false dichotomy? And how does it occur in politics to distort or confuse certain ideas? Answer in 6-8 sentences with two direct quotes from the text by Van Cleave. Quotes go in quotation marks with the in-text citation (Van Cleave, 2016, p. ___). (20 points)
2. How can an argument look like a fallacy at first, but in fact be a good argument? Explain this distinction and give an example to illustrate. The beginning parts of my Lecture Video – Logical Fallacies have details to help. (20 points)

Identifying Fallacies

Think about the fallacies we have studied, such as those on the Handout – List of Fallacies, and how they arise in your major or career. Remember that fallacies are bad arguments, so the examples you give will not be arguments you would endorse, but bad arguments you have seen or might expect to encounter.

1. Give an argument concerning your major or career goals that involves a named fallacy from the course. This can be an argument you compose or a real world example with a citation to your source. (15 points)
2. Give a second argument concerning your major or career goals that involves a different named fallacy from the course. This can be an argument you compose or a real world example with a citation to your source (15 points)

Handout – List of Fallacies

This list includes some of the main fallacies from the Logical Fallacies and More Fallacies lessons.

• Composition fallacy — arguing that since each part of the whole has a certain feature, it follows that the whole has that same feature—in cases where there is no good reason to justify this inference
• Division fallacy — arguing that since the whole has a certain feature, it follows that each part of the whole has that same feature—in cases where there is no good reason to justify this inference
• Begging the question — either explicitly or implicitly assuming the truth of the conclusion in one or more premises of an argument
• False dichotomy — asserting that there are only two options to consider when there are in fact more than two options
• Fallacy of equivocation — using the same word or phrase in two different senses in an argument
• Conceptual slippery slope — arguing that, because there is no meaningful difference between things that are close together on a spectrum, there is no meaningful difference between things far apart on the spectrum
• Causal slippery slope — arguing, without good reason, that one event will lead to some further (usually disastrous) event via a series of intermediary causes
• Ad hominem fallacy — responding to or attacking the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself
• Genetic fallacy — responding to the origins of an argument or proposal, rather than the argument or proposal itself
• Straw man fallacy— responding to a weakened or misrepresented version of an opponent’s position, rather than an opponent’s actual view in its strongest form
• Fallacy of appeal to authority — invoking the authority of someone whose expertise is not relevant to the issue being considered

Responding to Fallacies

1. Respond to the argument in number 3. Explain which fallacy is present, what that type of fallacy involves, and how your example argument commits the fallacy. Then, describe what could be done to improve the logical reasoning in the argument and avoid the fallacy. (15 points)
2. Respond to the argument in number 4. Explain which fallacy is present, what that type of fallacy involves, and how your example argument commits the fallacy. Then, describe what could be done to improve the logical reasoning in the argument and avoid the fallacy. (15 points)

Example Solution

Fallacy argument that arises in the field of human resource management:

Straw man fallacy – Some companies offer flexible or unlimited vacation to employees, but that is a terrible idea. It means employees never have to work and get paid to take as many vacations as they want.

Response to the fallacy:

This is a bad argument involving the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy occurs when an argument misrepresents the views of an opponent, rather than accurately portraying them.

This argument involves the straw man fallacy since the notion of flexible or unlimited vacation time is not represented accurately. In reality, these policies mean that a person can schedule as much vacation as they want but still need to fulfill their expected job duties and meet certain other requirements of their position. In the fallacy argument, the policies being critiqued are not presented accurately but are instead mischaracterized in an exaggerated and inaccurate way. This makes them easier to knock down (like a straw man) but does not make for a good argument.

There may in fact be problems that arise with flexible vacation policies, but those problems are not discussed in the argument. To fix the argument, the speaker should define flexible or unlimited vacation policies accurately and then give evidence about the genuine pros and cons of this approach to vacation time.