phi103 week 4 discussion 1 RESPONSE r b

Read the fallacies presented by your classmate and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. Respond in a way that furthers the discussion. For example, you might comment on any of the following types of questions: Have ever seen or fallen for similar fallacies in your own life? Are any of the cases presented also instances of some other type of fallacy? Is there a sense in which the reasoning might not be fallacious in some cases? What can people do to avoid falling for such fallacies in the future? 6 sentences or more.

Week 4- discussion 1:
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem is the fallacy that an argument isnâ€t valid because of who is stating it.
For example:
“You canâ€t believe what your gynecologist said, heâ€s a man! What does he know about a womanâ€s body?”
The fallacy comes in because people assume that someone who isnâ€t a woman canâ€t possibly know how to treat one. A more correct way for someone to make this claim might be:
“Your doctor should only be trusted if he has proven himself to be a capable care-giver, and shown that he is taking your thoughts and feelings into consideration.”
Hasty Generalization
A Hasty Generalization is a fallacy that occurs when an assumption is made about something or someone based on too little information or data.
For example:
“I have had 3 different babysitters from the local college take excellent care of my children. Therefore, all babysitters from the college must be excellent.”
The fallacy comes in when too small of a demographic has been used to make the assumption. If there are only 4 or 5 babysitters from the college then the assumption could be very believable and considered valid, but if there are 100 babysitters who attend the college, but I have only used 3, then my claim is invalid. The claim might be better stated this way:
“I have had 3 different babysitters from the local college take excellent care of my children. I know that the college does thorough background checks of all the babysitters and they require intensive training classes for them. Therefore, itâ€s probably safe to assume that any of the babysitters might be just as good.”
Appeal to Ignorance
An appeal to ignorance is a fallacy that consists of an argument where the claim is true because it has not been proven to be false, or the opposite, that a claim is false because it has not been proven to be true.
For example:
“You canâ€t prove that God isnâ€t real. Therefore, He must be.”
The fallacy is present because a statement or claim has been made about something that hasnâ€t been proven but is still believed. If the claim has no valid premises to support it than it cannot be considered valid. A better way to make this claim might be:
“I believe that God is real. I have read much documentation from scholarly sources that support much of what was written about him in the Bible, so I believe that the Bible is true. Therefore, I believe that God is real.”
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount! Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

The post phi103 week 4 discussion 1 RESPONSE r b appeared first on Quality Nursing Writers.


"Is this question part of your assignment? We Can Help!"

Essay Writing Service