Blog 7: Logical Fallacies 11/27/16

I had no idea that logic could be so innacurate until this week's plethora of fallacies. Reflecting, I remember both using them and having them used against me. Ad hominem and Strawman are the most prominent in my memory. Ad hominem, or a personal attack irrelevant of the argument at hand, provides the user with a fall sense of logic and lays a cracked foundation for further points. It is a last resprt, something to lean on when there is no support left. Telling someone they failed a math class in an argument about world politics would be an example. Strawman, or citing a misinterpreted or false claim and striking it down as if it were an original of the other, is used more insightfully than Ad hominem yet probably more prevalent in "proper" argument. I did not know Strawman is any counter argument citing what an opposing side would say. I have used this technique countless times, without ever realizing this logic is a fallacy. If someone is building a case against the fast food industry, and I say they are against a capitalistic society, I am using Strawman. The fallacy my group and I used in our project was circular reasoning, where the end stage of the argument is already being used for the beginning stage, creating a loop. This logic is easy to spot becauase all points made are essentially derived from the same claim. Circular reasoning is weak because it includes no outside reasoning and promotes the idea of a lazy arguer who doesn't feel like incorporating new information into their claim. A store brand being the simple choice for consumers would count as a circular reason, ending with the claim that the choice is simple. Being aware of these fallacies can promote new, concrete forms of logic that can only continue to improve my writing. It can also help me break down points that don't have good foundations, making me a better critic and all around writer.