A Fallacy Analysis of the Arguments on the First U.S. Presidential Debate Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

This research studies the fallacy in the arguments on the first 2016 U.S. presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This research is aimed to find out the fallacies occurred in the debate, the dominant fallacy made by each candidate, and the similarities and differences in each candidate’s fallacy. The topic on fallacy is chosen because fallacies are persuasive, yet misleading arguments which might contribute on influencing the people’s vote. In analyzing the data, the writer used the theory of arguments by Bierman and Assali (1996) and the theory of fallacy by Inch and Warnick (2011). From the total of 22 arguments, four of which are sound arguments. There is a total of 25 fallacies falling into six types which occurred. The most frequently occurred fallacy type is the “straw person” while the “audience-based” category becomes the dominant fallacy category. Furthermore, the writer found that Clinton made all of the sound arguments while Trump made all of the “hasty generalization” and the “ad populum” fallacy.

Logical Flaws In Indonesian Students’ Argumentative Essays

<p>Writing argumentative essays becomes a challenge for both teachers and students as it relates to various aspects. One of them is on the teaching and learning of critical thinking skills comprising the awareness to avoid logical flaws. The real reflection of critical thinking can be traced through students’ ability to express their thought in the form of arguments which have no logical flaws. Good arguments must be supported by convincing claims and careful choice of wordings which is free from fallacious statements. This paper identifies the fallacious statements or logical flaws occurring in the argumentative writing of the students of an Islamic University in Indonesia. The findings show the faulty reasoning found in terms of the discussion on the topics, the flawed relations with the audience, and the relations with the characters involved in the arguments. The types of the logical flaws also concern the claims expressed. On claims of fact, the fallacies found include hasty generalization, irrelevancy, slippery slope, oversimplification and begging the question. Regarding pathos, the fallacy type covers ad populum, appeal to emotion premises and red herring. Meanwhile, the ethos fallacy occurs in straw man only. On claims of value, more faulty reasoning is found compared to the discussion on the topics which are considered less familiar. In the logos fallacy for instance, the whole types of fallacy are found. The pathos found involves appeal to emotion premises and red herring, while the ethos fallacy occurs in appeal to authority and ad hominem. On claims of policy, the similar tendency of ethos is also found while the pathos existing is in the form of appeal to emotion premises. Therefore, it is recommended that the students develop their critical thinking skills which involve constructing logical and flawless reasoning.</p><strong>Keywords: </strong><em>logical flaws, critical thinking, logos, ethos, pathos</em>

Quran and Sunnah Perspective on Informal Logical Fallacies

This research is aimed at providing critical appraisal of some informal logical fallacies from the Quran and Sunnah. The fallacies are defined adequately, analyzed logically, understood conceptually, and then criticized from Islamic perspective based on the Quran and Sunnah. First some fallacies of relevance are undertaken. Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument Directed at the Person) according to Islamic perspective is valid in respect to transmitted knowledge (uloom naqliah); on the other hand, this fallacy is invalid in respect to rational knowledge (uloom aqliyah) in inclusion of empirical knowledge (uloom tajribiyah). Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People) fallacy according to Islamic perspective is accepted as a valid fallacy if what someone, elite, or majority hold is against the evidences and facts. However, in terms of keeping law and order in a society, Islam encourages the concept of Shura (consultation and group decision) and jamaah (unity and group) to make it possible that among many good options, Muslims would be able to follow any one with majority agreement to get over any disagreement or conflict. Among fallacies of presumption, some fallacies were undertaken as follows. Secundum quid (Fallacy of Hasty Generalization) is accepted fallacy according to Islamic perspective. The Islamic spirit is against hasty generalizations. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) is an accepted fallacy according to Islamic perspective. Islam emphasizes on evidence and proof in accepting or negating any fact. This is primary. However, proper authorities should be consulted on matters, this is what the Quran and Sunnah encourages.

Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations

Manipulation of quotation, shown to be a common tactic of argumentation in this paper, is associated with fallacies like wrenching from context, hasty generalization, equivocation, accent, the straw man fallacy, and ad hominem arguments. Several examples are presented from everyday speech, legislative debates and trials. Analysis using dialog models explains the critical defects of argumentation illustrated in each of the examples. In the formal dialog system CB, a proponent and respondent take turns in making moves in an orderly goal-directed sequence of argumentation in which the proponent tries to persuade the respondent to become committed to a conclusion by asking questions and offering arguments. Analyzing quotation by using the notion of commitment in dialog, it is shown (a) how an arguer’s previous assertions can be brought to light in the course of a dialog to deal with problems arising from misquotation, (b) how the profile of dialog model allows a critic to analyse the fundamental effects misquotation brings about in a dialog, and (c) how the critic can use such an analysis to correct the problem.