LEO Topic

The topic I choose to focus on was Logic.

The following post is based on information from the LEO website: http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html

This topic introduces a number of rhetorical devices, and explains how using some of these devices does not support logical argument.

The first category, feelings, discusses devices used to create emotional reactions from audiences.

Appeal to Force: If the audience does not agree, there will be some negative consequence.

Appeal to Pity: The audience is drawn to feel bad about someones situation, and as a result, agree with them.

Appeal to Gallery: The fears or interests of certain audience groups are played upon by using emotionally charged language.

Appeal to Authority: Some authority figure is used as evidence in supporting something, regardless of the validity or reliability of their claims.

Old is Better: The writer argues that the traditional way of doing something is always best, without considering the new ideas.

New is Better: The writer argues that something new must be better and improved without analyzing if it really is.

The second category, distraction from the argument, discusses devices used to break the argument away from logic.

Attacking the Speaker: The opposing representative is defamed, suggesting that they are not credible and therefore their arguments cannot be legitimate.

Irrelevant Material: Irrelevant material is introduced to distract the audience, then an unrelated conclusion is drawn to support the author's position.

Shifting the Burden of Proof: The writer demands that an opposing position defends some part of their argument before accepting it, rather than trying to disprove it.

Straw Man: The writer improperly restates the oppositions position then attacks it, claiming an opposing argument is saying something that it does not, or focuses only on a specific point of the argument.

The third category discusses devices of misinformation, which are used when the author is unable to create well formed arguments and reasons.

From Ignorance: The author argues that something must be true because it has not been proven false.

False Cause: The writer incorrectly claims that something was the cause of an event, when in reality it was not the actual cause.

Questionable Premises: The writer does not provide adequate support of his argument or makes value judgements based on unproven assumptions.

Ambiguity of Terms/Equivocation: Some term is used in an argument in such a way that it has different meanings each time it is used, while the author assumes the meanings are the same.

Simplifying: The author restates the oppositions argument in an oversimplified form, leaving out important information.

Presuppositions: An argument is based on some unproven assumption.

Hiding Information/Half Truth: An arguments conditions are not fully exposed, possibly making it sound better than it really is.

The fourth category discusses generalizations: using broad, sweeping claims that may not be true and could easily be disproved.

Popularity: If a large group of people believe in it, then it must be true.

Exception: A general rule is applied to some case where it is not appropriate.

Particular Experiences: The author claims something is universally true based on a personal experience.

Property in the Whole: The argument claims that a whole must contain the same properties of each of its parts.

Property in the Parts: The argument claims that the parts of a whole must have the same properties of the whole.

False Alternative: The author assumes only certain alternatives exist when more may exist.

The final category covers irrelevant connections: failing to create structurally sound arguments.

Consecutive Relation: The writer assumes that because two events happen one after another, they must have caused one another.

Slippery Slope: The author assumes that if some event occurs, it will certainly lead to some undesirable events.

Two Wrongs Make a Right: The writer defends some argu\ment based on the fact someone else has done the same thing.

Wrong Analogy: An analogy is used in such a way that it becomes disconnected from the original idea.

Circular Reasoning: The argument is defended by using the original conclusion as the premises for why the argument is true.

Affirmation of the Consequent: The writer proves the converse of the argument, using the conclusion as the assumption and deriving the desired premises.

Denial of the Antecedent: The author denies the if part of the statement, then negates the then part of the statement, even the the conclusion may still occur when the if part is false.