English Composition

English Composition Study Guide • Possibly valid analogy: I wrote an article for that magazine and was paid well for it. You will be paid well too. • Possibly invalid analogy: I always talk police officers out of writing me speeding tickets. If you argue, you will not receive a ticket either. Authority: An authority on a subject is a source that is knowledgeable and trusted. Information that comes from an authority on a subject does not need to be validated by the writer. An army general could be considered an authority on military strategy. An authority’s strength is based on the reputation and respect it has earned. Unfortunately, that reputation and respect can change depending on the audience or subject. A cardiologist may be an expert on heart attacks but might not be the best source for information on brain tumors. This type of fallacy is called Ad Hominem, which means “against the man”. This fallacy discredits the one who argues rather than the argument. • Valid argument from an authority: The teaching assistant, who had recently finished grading the exams, told me I had received the highest score. • Invalid argument from an authority: A friend of mine heard from her doctor that skipping breakfast is a safe way to lose weight. Deduction: Deduction begins with the assumption that a piece of information is beyond dispute, then it applies that assumption of a particular case. Syllogism is the process of making a deduction. A syllogism is a three-step process: major premise, minor premise, and conclusion. For example, I know that Interstate 95 runs through Maine and New Hampshire. I am in Maine driving south on Interstate 95. Therefore, I will reach New Hampshire if I stay on this road. Deduction offers a solid conclusion, but if one premise can be questioned, then the conclusion must be questioned as well. This type of fallacy is known as Dicto Simpliciter, which means an unqualified generalization. • Unqualified generalization: One person of a particular ethnic group recently committed a crime. The accused of a different crime is a member of that same group. Therefore, the accused is guilty. It is important that each premise be unquestionably true. Induction: Induction seeks to validate evidence by collecting many sources of similar information. Induction involves collecting data and studying that data for results and conclusions. If one wants to prove that girls prefer the color pink, he or she might poll girls for their opinion, test their preference of pink versus other colors, study the incidence of pink items sold for girls, and read books on color preference. Induction uses multiple examples, but the problem becomes how much data is enough? Without a sufficient sample, the writer could make a hasty generalization. Other fallacies that can come from induction are Post Hoc Propter Hoc, which means "after this, because of this" or Ad Misericordiam, which means "on account of sympathy". • Example of a hasty generalization: The last student who used this textbook failed the test. The textbook is not a good one to use for this subject. • Example of Post Hoc Propter Hoc: The last time I wore a red shirt to the baseball game, my team won. If I wear the same shirt to every game, we will never lose. • Example of Ad Misericordiam: The accused mother seemed devastated by her child’s death. She could not have been so sad if she was guilty.

©2018

Achieve

Page 53

of 84