College Writing

College Writing Study Guide

6.2 Logic – An Introduction to Making Sense As you proceed to read the authors’ arguments, you should be aware of logical fallacies. Logical falla- cies are poor argumentative tactics, and in addition to avoiding them in your own writing, noticing logical fallacies in others’ work allows you to easily spot weaknesses or holes in their arguments. Primarily, logical fallacies are the results of good argumentative tactics taken to the extreme. • Over-generalization is inductive reasoning without adequate support. It is okay to draw a broad conclusion from a speci�ic data set, but if that data set isn’t inclusive enough, you will have an over-generalized and false conclusion. • The reverse of inductive reasoning – drawing a general conclusion from speci�ic examples – is deductive reasoning , which applies a general principle to a speci�ic situation. However, al- ways ensure that there aren’t any exte nuating circumstances in the speci�ic situation. • In our outline of �igurative language, we discussed the bene�its of similes and metaphors, which compare two unlike things. These kinds of analogies can effectively convey your point, but you should ensure t hat there is a signi�icant relationship between the two things you’re comparing. • Superstitions often rely on post-hoc fallacies , which incorrectly conclude that one thing cau- ses another. While it’s good to trace causes and effects, be sure that there is a direct relation- ship between the cause and effect. • Wrongly assuming that there are only two options in a complex situation is an either/or fal- lacy . Playing Elbow’s Three Games should allow you to think beyond simple binaries. • Begging the question ignores that there is room for debate in a statement, and adding nuance to your arguments will prevent you from falling into this argumentative trap. • Straw Man arguments set up a weak argument as the representative for the opposition. This is a mistake many develop ing writers make in their refutations. Once again, Elbow’s Three Games will provide the proper pre-writing thinking to avoid this fallacy. • Ad Hominem Arguments attack the person instead of the argument. These kinds of argu- ments substitute personal attacks for arguing the merits of another person’s point of view. While it’s good to evaluate someone’s ethos, it’s possible that even people we don’t like can make good points. 6.3 Parts of the Analysis and Response The Analysis and Response prompt will provide two texts with two contrary points of view about a single controversial issue . The �irst step of the Analysis and Response process is to read the two texts. Use the SQ3R, SOAPSTONE, or Elbow’s Three Games methods – whichever works best for you – to ensure that you have a complete, critical understanding of the texts.

©2020

Achieve

Page 38 of 42