BAD ARGUMENTS – FALLACIES
1. Fundamentals of Argument Construction and Evaluation
• Definition of Argument:
An argument consists of a claim (conclusion) supported by reasons (premises).
Evaluate arguments using the ARS criteria:
o Acceptability – Are the premises believable or true?
o Relevance – Are the premises connected logically to the conclusion?
o Sufficiency – Do they give enough support to justify accepting the conclusion?
• Informal vs Formal Logic:
Formal logic deals with deductive validity; informal logic assesses everyday reasoning
(persuasive speech, media, political discourse).
• Purpose:
To improve critical thinking and identify reasoning errors common in social, political, and
personal contexts.
2. The Causes of Fallacious Reasoning
• Psychological factors: Biases, emotions, self-interest, wishful thinking.
• Social factors: Persuasion tactics, advertising, peer pressure, ideology.
• Linguistic factors: Ambiguity, vagueness, manipulative language.
• Cognitive factors: Lack of logic training, failure to distinguish between correlation and
causation.
3. What Is Wrong with Bad Arguments? (Typology of Fallacies)
Johnson & Blair’s system categorizes fallacies by the type of reasoning defect:
Type Description Example
Premises not logically connected to Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Appeal to
Relevance Fallacies
conclusion Emotion
Acceptability Premises not credible or worthy of
Begging the Question, False Dilemma
Fallacies belief
Evidence too weak to support
Sufficiency Fallacies Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc
conclusion
Violations of fair debate or dialogue
Dialectical Fallacies Straw Person, Ignoring Objections
norms
ADVANCED ARGUMENTATION
1. Constructing Arguments
Steps:
1. Identify your conclusion – the main point you want to prove.
2. Provide supporting reasons – each relevant and acceptable.
3. Ensure logical connection – use indicators (“because,” “therefore”).
4. Apply ARS criteria for strength.
• Good arguments use reliable evidence, clear definitions, and logical organization.
2. Dialectical Character of Arguments
• Argumentation is dialogical: a process of engagement between parties.
• A good arguer must:
o Anticipate objections.
o Respond to criticism.
o Respect opponent’s reasoning norms (avoid straw person, distortion, evasion).
• Manifest Rationality (Johnson): Rational arguers must show fairness, responsiveness, and
clarity.
3. Steps to Construct Arguments
1. State the issue clearly.
2. Identify your stance (thesis).
3. List premises (reasons).
4. Test for ARS – are they acceptable, relevant, sufficient?
5. Anticipate counterarguments and respond.
6. Present in clear, persuasive form (essay, debate, dialogue).
EXTENDED ARGUMENTS
1. Analyzing Extended Arguments
• Extended arguments are chains or networks of reasoning.
• Break them into sub-arguments:
o Premises → sub-conclusion → main conclusion.
• Examine each link for ARS soundness.
2. Analyzing Longer Arguments
• Use argument maps to visualize the structure.
• Look for:
o Implicit premises (unstated assumptions).
o Repetition or circular reasoning.
o Shifts in topic or definition.
3. Evaluation and Critique of Arguments
When evaluating:
• Test for ARS.
• Identify fallacies.
• Assess context (purpose, audience, medium).
• Distinguish between logical and rhetorical strength:
o Logical = reasoning quality.
o Rhetorical = persuasive impact.
Quick Revision Summary
Concept Key Point
ARS Criteria Acceptability, Relevance, Sufficiency
Types of Fallacies Relevance, Acceptability, Sufficiency, Dialectical
Good Argument Logical, well-supported, fair, responsive
Bad Argument Biased, irrelevant, unsupported, manipulative
Dialectical Norms Respectful engagement, accurate representation, rational response
Extended Argument Analysis Identify structure, test sub-arguments, critique logic