Short Essay ENG 1C Logical Fallacies Tu Quoque Fallacy PDF

Preview

Summary

A SHORT ESSAY ON LOGICAL FALLACIES: INCLUDES: DEFINITIONS, MEANINGS, AND EXAMPLES...

Description

English 1C 11 October 2018

What is a fallacy? A fallacy is an incorrect or misleading statement based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning. The statement is usually too much of a generalization or it is considered too opinion-based. Fallacies are found in all types of writing, specifically persuasive and argumentative pieces of literature. Fallacies usually do not sound credible or logical if they are written simply, but at times they can be persuasive if the writer subtly integrates into his or her argument. It becomes harder to identify fallacies when there is a strong balance of argument and counter arguments which can conceal the fallacy when the writer is very well versed about his or her opinion or beliefs. Fallacies can be seen as inductive or deductive structures of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is when you take a specific observation and make a general conclusion about a certain subject. For example, “this dog has fleas, therefore all dogs have fleas.” Deductive reasoning is the general statement that defines a precise observation. Coinciding with the inductive example, an example of deductive reasoning is “all dogs have fleas, therefore this dog has fleas.” Inductive and Deductive statements, which are the main points of a fallacy, are inverse relationship to each other. Many fallacies of all types follow this type of broad logic. The specific fallacy that generally appeals to hypocrisy is the Tu Quoque fallacy. The Tu Quoque fallacy is a Latin based phrase and translates into “You Also” or “You Too”. It works by pointing out the invalidity of someone’s argument because of their inconsistencies in facts or behavior. Therefore, the person is attacked for what he or she is arguing against. The Tu Quoque

fallacy usually identifies with questioning authoritative commands. For example, when a parent says to his or her child “don’t do drugs”, but the kid responds, “Mom (or Dad), didn’t you use to do drugs when you were my age? Why can’t I do drugs if you did them too?” This idea that the child is questioning his parent’s credibility because they “did it too,” is the most commonly seen form of the Tu Quoque fallacy. The kid is turning the argument back against the authority. The You Also fallacy does not discredit a person’s credibility in their argument, rather, it points out the flaws in someone’s argument. These “flaws” are what causes the recipient to question the motives of the authoritative person due to the fact that their past or present behavior is debatable. This leads to the idea that using the Tu Quoque fallacy can identify the speaker as hypocritical or being a hypocrite because they are stating one thing but did another, or “not practicing what they preach”. A person’s credibility is weakened, but not discredited, when they negate their own argument by their own actions. This is because in some cases, the message is given for a positive outcome. Since the parent’s struggled with drugs, they may not want their kid to get hooked on drugs either because of their experience. The Tu Quoque fallacy is related to the Ad Hominem fallacy. An Ad Hominem is an attack on the other person rather than the subject matter at hand. This is similar because the You Also fallacy attacks the flaws in an argument, but it is different because it does not directly attack a person’s character....