This Assignment has two parts. In Part I, you will test your understanding of fallacies by creating an argument with fallacies in it. In Part II, you will identify the fallacies and explain how they operate.
Consider a scenario where someone is using errors in argument. For example, the argument may focus on errors that customers or colleagues make in your field of study. It could be how the public perceives your field, how a newcomer to your field may make errors, or addressing a controversial topic in your field. If you would like to write about your life at home instead of at work, this may be the sort of argument that teenagers give to their parents during a disagreement. It could be a disagreement you have had with friends or family members. You get to choose the situation.
The Assignment should be 1–2 pages and should be composed in first person as the person making the errors. You should be deliberately employing at least four logical fallacies in the argument. The person making the argument likely does not know they are making mistakes. You will be correcting these errors in Part II. However, in Part I, have fun showing how errors in argument make their way into daily life. Some may be exaggerated, but some may be subtle.
In the sections of the paper where you are using a logical fallacy, you should highlight the error in bold. This will demonstrate that the fallacies are deliberately used in your composition.
While the paper will have errors in argument, aim not to have errors in spelling or grammar. The work should still be composed to demonstrate college-level writing, clarity, and organization.
The content for Part II should be at least 2 pages, and it will require a reference page, which is not included in the page requirement.
In Part II, you will analyze the purposely flawed argument that you created in Part I. You will take on the role of a leader in your profession or of someone offering guidance to help a friend or family member understand their errors.
In the scenario for Part II, you have been asked to address the errors with the person voicing the argument in Part I. You should not be harsh with the person who made the mistakes, but you will use leadership, knowledge, and compassion to help make corrections. Offer diplomatic guidance that encourages without chastising the subject. Use your critical thinking and analytical skills to evaluate the Part I arguments, explain how they should be corrected, and offer guidance for improved argumentation in the future.
- Analyze the argument from Part I. Identify and label the logical fallacies used in the argument. Be specific, using and citing sources to support your definitions of each fallacy.
- Using clear argumentation, explain the implications of those fallacies in the workplace or daily life and why the fallacies would be problematic. What could be a consequence of this reasoning? Why do you believe the person making the argument used these tactics?
Offer guidance: How could the person constructing this argument avoid making those mistakes in argumentation? What would have strengthened each of the claims?