rhetorical+appeals+&+argument+fallacies

The Art of Rhetoric: Aristotle’s Persuasive Appeals Rhetoric: Appeals: how the writer/ speaker tries to convince the audience.
 * Dictionary: the art of speaking and writing effectively.
 * Aristotle: the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion

Logos Ethos Pathos
 * An appeal to logic or reason
 * Academic papers, corporate informational documents are logos-driven
 * The reader must ask whether or not the logic follows. Are the statistics skewed or unrepresentative?
 * An appeal based on the character or reputation of the author, speaker, or source (where do you see it?)
 * Effectively, “I’m a great guy, so you should believe what I’m saying.”
 * Ethos does not concern with the veracity (truth) of the argument, just the credibility of its source.
 * Reader needs to consider whether or not the source is credible.
 * Appeal based on emotion
 * Most advertising is pathos-driven
 * Attempts to persuade by stirring the emotions of the audience
 * Love, pity, sorrow, fear, greed, lust, etc.
 * Does not concern the veracity of the argument
 * The reader needs to consider, “Is the writer simply ‘playing me’?”

Argument Fallacies (There are many, many, many. This is a subset.)
 * Hasty generalization – a conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
 * Stereotypes – a hasty generalization about a group.
 * False analogy
 * An analogy shows similarities between two things
 * A false analogy is clearly off base: If we can send a spacecraft to Pluto, we should be able to find a cure for the common cold.
 * Post hoc fallacy
 * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: comes after this, therefore caused by this
 * Assumes that one thing that follows another was caused by the first
 * Either . . . or fallacy
 * The assumption is that there are only two options and that one is satisfactory.
 * Leaving out a critical part of a controversial proposal
 * Non sequitir (Latin: it does not follow)
 * When a missing claim is an assertion that few would agree with, the writer is guilty of making a non sequitir.
 * Untrue premise
 * If one of the premises is not true, the conclusion does not logically follow.
 * Conclusion does not follow
 * All premises of the argument may be true, but the conclusion cannot be logically drawn from them.
 * Straw Man fallacy
 * Setting up an imaginary or unrealistic opponent who is so weak he can be knocked down by the argument.
 * An oversimplification or outright distortion of the opposing view
 * Misleading Quotation
 * Deliberately misleading a reader with the use of ellipses ( . . . )
 * Using a piece of a work to skew the meaning
 * Unfair Emotional appeals
 * Biased language – diction that chooses words with loaded meaning
 * Ad hominem – (Latin: to the man) – arguing as if the opponent is bad, rather than the opponent’s argument
 * Bandwagon – everyone does this; therefore, it’s a good idea
 * Red herring – bringing in an irrelevant issue
 * Using a piece of a work to skew the meaning
 * Unfair Emotional appeals
 * Biased language – diction that chooses words with loaded meaning
 * Ad hominem – (Latin: to the man) – arguing as if the opponent is bad, rather than the opponent’s argument
 * Bandwagon – everyone does this; therefore, it’s a good idea
 * Red herring – bringing in an irrelevant issue
 * Red herring – bringing in an irrelevant issue