Persuasive presenters must consider what enhances and undermines their argument. Knowing different styles of reasoning will assist you in putting statements and evidence together in compelling ways, as well as evaluating the quality of arguments you meet. Furthermore, being able to recognize basic logical fallacies might help you be a more critical consumer of persuasive communications.
Consider what fallacies in reasoning are.
A fallacy is a logical error that frequently occurs in incorrect assumptions. Researchers are well aware of all the ways they might go wrong, as well as the fallacies to which they are prone.
What are Fallacies In Reasoning
The answer to the question of what fallacies in reasoning is that errors in logic include attribution bias (the tendency to attribute human behavior to personality traits rather than situational, structural, or contextual factors); spurious correlation (relationships that appear causal but are actually due to chance or a confounding variable); and intentionality fallacy (concluding that the value or meaning of a work or action reveals an actor’s or creator’s motives).
Fallacies are faults in an argument’s logic or reasoning. It’s vital to notice that just because an argument contains a fallacy doesn’t mean it can’t be compelling. In reality, faulty reasoning really works in persuasion. This is because they do not recognize the error. Fallacies are frequently the final resort of uneducated or ill-prepared speakers who find themselves with nothing else to say.
Example:
The ecological fallacy is the inverse of the exception fallacy. It occurs when a collective judgment is based on exceptional examples. This is the type of fallacious reasoning that underpins much sexism and bigotry. The stereotype is of the person who observes a woman make a mistake behind the wheel and believes that “women are bad drivers.” Wrong! Fallacy!
This fallacy highlight some of the pitfalls in both research and daily reasoning. They also emphasize the need of conducting research. We must do empirical research to identify how individuals perform (not just rely on group averages). Similarly, we must investigate if there are any links between particular actions and certain outcomes.
Forms Of Fallacies In Reasoning
Hasty Generalization
The hasty generalization error is related to inductive reasoning and is caused by citing too few examples to justify the generalization. It’s natural to jump to conclusions, especially when you’re short on time, but making well-researched and supported arguments is essential for being an effective and ethical speaker.
False Analogy
The false analogy fallacy relates to inductive reasoning as well and occurs when the settings or conditions are not sufficiently comparable. A common false fallacy is comparing anything to placing a man on the moon: “If we can send a man to the moon, why can’t we figure out a way to make tax law more understandable?” This issue disregards the distinctions in skill sets and motivations between the two examples under consideration.
False Cause
The false cause fallacy is related to causal reasoning and arises when a speaker claims that one event caused or affects another with insufficient evidence. When a faulty cause argument is given after the “effect,”. We call this term, post hoc ergo propter hoc in Latin. It means “after this, therefore because of this”. Blaming bad luck on superstitions is an example of fallacious thinking that attempts to establish a link between a previously occurring “effect” and its preceding “cause.”
False Authority
The false authority fallacy occurs when the individual giving the argument lacks the qualifications to be credible but is believed to be credible because they are respected or revered. Despite the fact that this type of argument is flawed, it is clearly successful. Voters may be convinced to support a candidate because of a famous musician’s endorsement without scrutinizing either the musician’s or the politician’s political opinions to see whether they align with their own.
Bandwagon
Parents and other adults in our life have attempted to dissuade us from falling victim to the bandwagon illusion. When your mother asks in response to your argument that you should get to attend the party since everyone else is, she is correctly pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. In summary, public appeal and frequency of usage are not sufficient grounds to prove a claim. Simply because something is popular does not imply that it is excellent.
Slippery Slope
When a person claims that one action will necessarily lead to a succession of subsequent actions, they are committing the slippery slope fallacy. If we take one step down an ice hill, it becomes tough to go back up and we slide all the way down, despite the fact that we only meant to take one step. In a speech regarding US foreign policy, a slippery slope fallacy can take the form of the following argument: If the US goes to help this country in need, we can expect to interfere whenever there is a crisis in the globe.
Appeal to Tradition
The appeal to tradition fallacy asserts that something should be continuous. Because “that’s how things have always been done.”
This form of the argument that one feels threatened by a possible change. Many individuals are opposed to or apprehensive about change. This is reasonable, but it does not make for a compelling case.
The Ending Note
Now you understand what are fallacies in reasoning. Simply put, the reasoning is the act of making sense of the world around us. We must use reasoning to analyze our experiences, make inferences from facts, and convey new ideas. We frequently reason without being conscious of it, but becoming more aware of how we think can empower us to be better communicative message creators and consumers.
Knowing the many types of fallacies in reasoning allows us to be more critical consumers of persuasive messaging, which is a significant benefit of learning persuasive speaking, which influences personal, political, and professional parts of our life.