{"id":502,"date":"2025-05-26T17:02:49","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T17:02:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=502"},"modified":"2025-09-07T13:43:16","modified_gmt":"2025-09-07T13:43:16","slug":"identifying-reasoning-patterns-and-fallacies","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/chapter\/identifying-reasoning-patterns-and-fallacies\/","title":{"raw":"Identifying Reasoning Patterns and Fallacies","rendered":"Identifying Reasoning Patterns and Fallacies"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Chapter Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<p class=\"import-pf\">Students will:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Construct sound arguments.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Identify reasoning patterns.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Test for common reasoning fallacies.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 0pt;\">In the previous chapter, you learned about the meaning and structure of argument and how to select high-quality evidence in order to build strong, valid arguments. In this chapter, we continue our exploration of argument by more broadly considering how arguments function. We do this by examining two interrelated concepts: patterns of reasoning and reasoning fallacies.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This chapter begins by explaining both terms and their relationship. We will next explain five patterns of reasoning and their related fallacies. The chapter will end by introducing you to a few additional fallacies.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Reasoning Patterns and Fallacies<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">When developing arguments in a speech, you can choose from several available approaches or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">patterns of reasoning<\/strong><\/span>. A reasoning pattern is derived from <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">what kind<\/em><\/span> of data or evidence is selected and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">how<\/em><\/span> that data or evidence is used to prove a claim.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Generally, patterns of reasoning reflect the practice of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">inductive reasoning<\/strong><\/span>, a form of reasoning in which a speaker uses a series of examples, instances, or cases to support the likelihood of a conclusion. Inductive arguments are judged based on the strengths (or weaknesses) of the observational data offered in support of a claim. For example, an inductive argument might be based on a series of examples (the most common form of inductive reasoning), analogies, or even signs that collectively suggest the likelihood of a particular conclusion.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Working in concert with reasoning patterns is attention to reasoning fallacies. A reasoning <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">fallacy<\/strong><\/span> refers to a flaw or defect in reasoning that undermines argument validity. A fallacy:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div align=\"left\">\r\n<table class=\"grid\">\r\n<thead>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">NO<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\r\n<td><strong><span style=\"color: #339966;\">YES<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>Does <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">not<\/em><\/span> exist simply because we disagree with an argument.<\/td>\r\n<td>Does occur when a reasoning pattern is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">used incorrectly or ineffectively<\/em><\/span>. This incorrect use is generally due to poor <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">evidence<\/em><\/span> or an implied <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">warrant<\/em><\/span> that is faulty. Recall from chapter 26 that a warrant is a statement that justifies the connection between data (evidence) and claim.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">We will next introduce you to several reasoning patterns and their corresponding reasoning fallacies.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Types of Reasoning Patterns and Related Fallacies<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">This section will introduce you to five patterns of reasoning: reasoning from example, reasoning from analogy, reasoning from cause, reasoning from sign, and reasoning from authority. It will also consider how these patterns are sometimes used ineffectively, resulting in reasoning fallacies.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Example<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">The first type of evidence we discussed in chapter 26 was examples. The effort to prove a claim through examples, also understood as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">inductive reasoning<\/em><\/span>, is called <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasoning from example<\/strong><\/span> or generalization. That chapter\u2019s discussion of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">examples<\/em><\/span> as evidence identified several ways to evaluate reasoning from example.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>If an example passes those tests and there are a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">sufficient number of examples<\/em><\/span> to prove the claim, then you can reasonably conclude that you have presented a valid argument (or at least that <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">this portion<\/em><\/span> of your argument is valid).<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\">If, however, the example(s) <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">violates<\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\"> those conditions, it <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">isn\u2019t representative<\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\"> of the larger situation, or an <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">insufficient<\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\"> number is presented, then a reasoning fallacy has been committed. This reasoning fallacy is known as a <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">hasty generalization<\/strong><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.1 Reasoning from Example: Sample Arguments<\/strong>\r\n\r\nConsider reasoning from example through these two brief arguments:\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example 1<\/em><em class=\"import-i\">:<\/em><\/span> President Donald Trump\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId441\" href=\"https:\/\/www.factcheck.org\/2020\/05\/trump-misleads-on-hydroxychloroquine-again\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">inaccurate claim that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to effectively treat COVID-19<\/span><\/a><\/span> proves that all presidents mislead the public.<\/p>\r\n<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> Is this example representative? Are there a sufficient number of examples to prove the claim that \u201call presidents mislead the public\u201d? Is there enough detail to make this example believable or to prove the president made misleading statements? While one can always ask a variety of questions about an argument, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">this singular, brief example is insufficient to prove that <\/strong><strong class=\"import-bi\"><em>all<\/em><\/strong><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">presidents mislead the public<\/strong><\/span>. This is an example, then, of a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">hasty generalization<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example 2<\/em><em class=\"import-i\">:<\/em><\/span> President Trump\u2019s inaccurate claim that hydroxychloroquine could effectively treat COVID-19, President Obama\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId442\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/world\/obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance-flna8c11485678\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">broken promise<\/span><\/a><\/span> that people could maintain their existing health care plans under the Affordable Care Act, President George W. Bush\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId443\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/W6VX-TRER\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">administration\u2019s inaccurate claims<\/span><\/a><\/span> about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, and President Clinton\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId444\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/YN4T-MV5Y\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">denial of a relationship<\/span><\/a><\/span> with White House intern Monica Lewinsky prove that all recent presidents have misled the country in public statements.<\/p>\r\n<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/em><\/span>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> While certainly one could challenge the lack of detail in explaining the individual situations, overall, this argument is stronger. Rather than presenting only one example, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-bi\"><em>four<\/em><\/strong><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">examples are offered, which would seem to be a sufficient number<\/strong><\/span>. By limiting or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">qualifying the claim to \u201crecent\u201d<\/strong><\/span> presidents instead of making a claim about all presidents, this argument is initially of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">sufficient strength<\/strong><\/span> to avoid being considered a fallacy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Analogy<\/h2>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image263.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">A second common form of argument is to reason from analogy. When using reasoning from analogy, also known as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">analogical reasoning<\/strong><\/span>, you attempt to prove a claim by comparing two situations or cases.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.2 Reasoning from Analogy: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_311\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"256\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-311\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image264.png\" alt=\"Vivek Murthy\" width=\"256\" height=\"320\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Vivek_Murthy,_Surgeon_General_(thumbnail).jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Vivek Murthy, Surgeon General<\/a> by United States Department of Health and Human Services via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">In June 2024 when Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, then<\/span><\/a><span class=\"import-url\">\u2013<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">surgeon general of the United States, advanced the claim<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cIt is time to require a surgeon general\u2019s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,\u201d he supported his argument through analogical reasoning:\r\n<blockquote>Faced with high levels of car-accident-related deaths in the mid- to late 20th century, lawmakers successfully demanded seatbelts, airbags, crash testing and a host of other measures that ultimately made cars safer. This January the F.A.A. grounded about 170 planes when a door plug came off one Boeing 737 Max 9 while the plane was in the air. And the following month, a massive recall of dairy products was conducted because of a listeria contamination that claimed two lives.[footnote]Vivek H. Murthy, \u201cSurgeon General: Why I\u2019m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms,\" <em>New York Times<\/em>, June 17, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/blockquote>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-1.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> In this statement, Dr. Murthy demonstrates the principle of analogical reasoning. He asked readers and, ultimately, Congress to support issuance of a surgeon general\u2019s warning label on social media platforms on the basis that the harms being caused by social media were <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">analogous<\/strong><\/span> to the level of harm that justified actions and regulations to protect safety in other instances. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasonably compared<\/strong><\/span> a new situation (regulation of social media) with past situations where regulations were used to address public problems (seat belts, airline safety, product food safety).<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In testing analogies, speakers and listeners need to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">examine the similarities and differences<\/em><\/span> between the implicated circumstances. In doing so, you might ask,<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-blf\">Are the situations reasonably <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">comparable<\/em><\/span>?<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-bll\">Do the situations possess <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">more similarities than differences<\/em><\/span>?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If you answer yes to these questions, then you should feel comfortable with the analogy. If, however, you find that the answer to both is no, then you have discovered a fallacy known as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">faulty analogy<\/strong><\/span> or faulty comparison.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.3 Faulty Analogy: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\nConsider another example of reasoning from analogy through this brief argument:\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Just as the United States has reduced smoking rates and related health harms through regulation and public health advocacy, it can similarly reduce drug-related harms. Regulation and public health promotion have worked in Canada and Portugal, so surely it will work in the United States.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-1.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The first sentence provides the claim and the initial inspiration for the claim. The second sentence provides the data intended to explain why the policy will be successful. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">What would the warrant be? The United States is similar enough to Canada and Portugal that what has worked there will work in the United States<\/strong><\/span> (\u201cso surely it will work in the United States\u201d). Is this warrant, and hence this analogy, valid? If not, this is an example of a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">faulty analogy<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Cause<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image265.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"118.266666666667px\" height=\"118.266666666667px\" \/>Another popular pattern of reasoning is reasoning from cause. Also known as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">causal reasoning<\/strong><\/span>, reasoning from cause is used when a speaker claims an event is caused by a particular circumstance or action. When a direct link between an action and a consequence is exhibited, then a causal argument can be very effective.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.4 Reasoning from Cause: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAn increasing public health issue is the rise of obesity among children and adolescents. Seeing a potential association between soft drink consumption and increasing levels of adolescent obesity, some communities have raised the cost of sugary drinks. Consider the following causal argument related to this relationship:\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">By placing new taxes on sugary drinks, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId448\" href=\"https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">cities can discourage the purchase of products that contribute to youth obesity<\/span><\/a><\/span>. After new \u2019soda taxes\u2019 raised purchasing costs by an average of 33% in Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland, San Francisco, and Seattle, retailers also saw purchases of such drinks decline by 33%.[footnote]Steven Ross Johnson, \u201cHow \u2018Soda Taxes\u2019 Could Fuel Better Health,\u201d <em>U.S. News &amp; World Report<\/em>, January 5, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-2.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> This is a cause-effect argument that offers data (related to product purchases) to support the claim that <strong>taxation resulted in a particular effect (reduced purchases)<\/strong>. The argument may need additional development to withstand heavy scrutiny, but in this form, it appears to draw a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasonable<\/strong><\/span> cause-effect relationship.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In determining whether a causal argument is valid, consider the following criteria:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-blf\">Does the fact that the effect has occurred after the cause <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">reasonably signify a relationship<\/em><\/span> between the two events?<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-bl0\">Are there important alternative reasons or causes that have been <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">ignored<\/em><\/span>?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nWhen a speaker is guilty of attributing a cause-effect relationship between two items that are not connected, they have created a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">faulty cause<\/strong><\/span> fallacy. When the faulty attribution of cause occurs only <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">after the fact<\/em><\/span> (e.g., in hindsight), the reasoning error is more specifically known as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">post hoc fallacy<\/strong><\/span>.\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n<p class=\"import-ch\"><strong>Box 27.5 Post Hoc Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2542\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"252\"]<img class=\"wp-image-2542\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c.jpg\" alt=\"Mr Met mascot pointing at the camera\" width=\"252\" height=\"350\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/flickr.com\/photos\/61135621@N03\/52005077755\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[Mr. Met]<\/a> by Metropolitan Transportation Authority via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY<\/a>.[\/caption]Consider the following example heard from a discouraged New York Mets fan: \u201cI never watch the Mets on television because they always lose when I do.\u201d If we call back to the Toulmin model (in the previous chapter), we can pinpoint that the reasoning flaw in this causal argument rests in the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">implied warrant<\/em><\/span>: \u201cWhat I do determines whether the Mets win or lose.\u201d\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-2.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/>Analysis:<\/em> There might be a miraculous coincidence between this fan\u2019s viewing habits and their favorite team\u2019s results, but in reality we know there is <strong><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\">no causal connection<\/span><\/strong> between the two. Hence this beleaguered fan has (knowingly, no doubt) created a <strong>faulty cause fallacy<\/strong> of the<strong> post hoc<\/strong> variety.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h3 class=\"import-ch\">Slippery Slope Fallacy<\/h3>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_318\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"400\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-318\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267.png\" alt=\"A yellow street sign with a falling person that says, &quot;Danger. Slippery Slopes. Keep Away&quot;\" width=\"400\" height=\"300\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/18946008@N06\/4485728970\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Slippery Slope<\/a> by Malcolm via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-NC<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Relatedly, speakers sometimes attempt to use causal reasoning to argue that a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">single event or action will lead to a chain reaction of cause-and-effect events<\/em><\/span>, typically ending with a catastrophic outcome. To effectively make such an argument, the speaker would need a significant amount of evidence to support the idea that one cause-and-effect sequence will lead to another, then to another, and to another. When speakers advance such arguments without providing necessary support, they commit a fallacy known as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">slippery slope<\/strong><\/span>. They suggest that if a first step is taken, then we will slide all the way down the slope to the very bottom.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.6 Slippery Slope Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn more closely considering how a slippery slope fallacy operates, consider this brief argument about the expanded use of artificial intelligence in the workplace:\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If we start relying on AI to perform basic tasks, next we will use it for more complex jobs. Quickly, we will be unable to do the work ourselves, and AI will replace almost all human workers, leading to mass unemployment and poverty.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-2.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/>Analysis:<\/em><\/span> This argument advocates we not make any use of AI because if we do, we will <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">slide down a slope<\/strong><\/span> toward employee obsolescence and economic chaos. What is provided, however, are <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">only asserted assumptions<\/strong><\/span> about what a basic use of AI might lead to\u2014total reliance and mass elimination of jobs. Although that outcome is possible in a dystopian future, nothing is provided to suggest that it is likely or imminent, hence it reflects the fallacy of a slippery slope.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Sign<\/h2>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image268.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"111.4px\" height=\"111.4px\" \/><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from sign<\/strong><\/span> relies on circumstantial evidence, or signs, to demonstrate a claim.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">For instance, a driver might notice a dashboard warning light indicator and say, \u201cThere must be something wrong with my car. The check engine light is on.\u201d They have made a sign argument:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-blf\">Their <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">claim<\/em><\/span> (\u201cThere must be something wrong with my car\u201d) is based on<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-bl0\">sign <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">data<\/em><\/span> (\u201cThe check engine light is on\u201d).<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-3.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-bll\">The implied <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">warrant<\/em><\/span> to the argument is that \u201cvehicle warning lights signal a possible problem.\u201d The warning light indicates to the driver that the car should be checked by a mechanic.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">Note, however, that the engine light is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">not the cause<\/em><\/span> of the problem, nor is it the problem itself; it is only a sign, or indicator, of it.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">It is important to note, however, that it is possible to commit the mistake of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">misreading a sign<\/em><\/span>. This happens when one assumes that a certain sign is a reliable indicator of something else when it is not.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.7 Misreading Signs: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_322\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"174\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-322\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image269.png\" alt=\"Trayvon Martin wearing a hoodie\" width=\"174\" height=\"224\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Trayvon_martin_blue.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Trayvon Martin<\/a> by Eoliver naacp via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA<\/a>. Adapted by the author.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn the wake of the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, there was a national debate over the meaning of his clothing\u2014a hoodie\u2014and if it could be reasonably interpreted by George Zimmerman, who killed Martin, as a sign of Martin being a threat or a gang member. The <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId453\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">hoodie became a prominent part of national discussion<\/span><\/a><\/span>, an exhibit in the criminal trial, and part of an exhibition on post\u2013Civil War Reconstruction at the National Museum of African American History and Culture.[footnote]Manuel Roig-Franzia, \u201cWhat Became of Trayvon Martin\u2019s Hoodie?,\u201d <em>Washington Post<\/em>, March 17, 2022, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/<\/a>. Others debated if the sign caused George Zimmerman\u2019s actions, transforming the sign into evidence in a causal argument. For instance, Geraldo Rivera stated on Fox News, \u201cI think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin\u2019s death as George Zimmerman was.\u201d Further, in an interview, then\u2013Fox News host Bill O\u2019Reilly said, \u201cThe reason Trayvon Martin died was because he looked a certain way and it wasn\u2019t based on skin color. If Trayvon Martin had been wearing a jacket\u2026and a tie\u2026I don\u2019t think George Zimmerman would have any problem. But he was wearing a hood and he looked a certain way. And that way is how \u2018gangstas\u2019 look.\u201d Erik Wemple, \u201cFox News\u2019s Bill O\u2019Reilly Blames Trayvon Martin\u2019s Death on Hoodie,\u201d <em>Washington Post<\/em>, September 16, 2013, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/erik-wemple\/wp\/2013\/09\/16\/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-blames-trayvon-martins-death-on-hoodie\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/erik-wemple\/wp\/2013\/09\/16\/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-blames-trayvon-martins-death-on-hoodie\/<\/a>.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-3.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em>Analysis:<\/em> Making faulty associations between circumstances (<strong>Martin\u2019s sweatshirt<\/strong>) and an outcome (<strong>Zimmerman\u2019s assumption of Martin\u2019s intent to harm him<\/strong>) is what we mean by <strong>\u201cmisreading signs.\"<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Thus, in considering a sign argument, you should scrutinize the connection being made between the claim and the data.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-blf\">If the sign evidence is an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">accurate referent or indicator<\/em><\/span> and\/or if you can expect that the events <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">reasonably occur together<\/em><\/span> (but one does not cause the other), then you have a <span class=\"import-u\">valid basis<\/span> for a sign argument.<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-bl0\">If the sign is an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">unreliable indicator<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">or referent<\/em><\/span> and\/or if you <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">cannot reasonably associate events to occur together<\/em><\/span>, then you are in danger of <span class=\"import-u\">misreading a sign<\/span>.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Authority<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image270.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"101.133333333333px\" height=\"101.133333333333px\" \/>A final reasoning pattern is reasoning from authority. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from authority<\/strong><\/span> occurs when a speaker supports a claim with the testimony or credibility of a qualified source. The use of authority is common in argumentation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.8 Appeal to Authority: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_324\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"162\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-324\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image271.png\" alt=\"Gerald Seib\" width=\"162\" height=\"177\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/csis_er\/36586495556\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[Gerald Seib]<\/a> by Center for Strategic and International Studies via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-NC-SA<\/a>.[\/caption]In a <a class=\"rId456\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b?mod=Searchresults_pos2&amp;page=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">June 2024 essay in <em>The Wall Street Journal<\/em><\/a>, Gerald F. Seib argued the perils of mounting debt to the continued prosperity of the \u201cAmerican Empire.\u201d Seib based his argument on the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">authority of scholars<\/strong><\/span> who had studied the impact of debt on past civilizations:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>He quoted historian Niall Ferguson on lessons offered by Habsburg Spain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>He drew on the analysis of J. H. Cullum Clark, director of the George W. Bush Institute-Southern Methodist University Economic Growth Initiative, in his study of the spending of the Roman Empire.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>He recounted the lessons of Yale historian Paul Kennedy\u2019s well-known <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The Rise and Fall of Great Powers<\/em><\/span>.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<img class=\"alignleft\" style=\"orphans: 1; text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-4.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em>Analysis:<\/em> In each case, Seib used the <strong><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\">subject authority<\/span> of public intellectuals<\/strong> as support for his argument on the threat posed by growing debt.[footnote]Gerald Seib, \u201cWill Debt Sink the American Empire?,\u201d <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>, June 21, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In the last chapter\u2019s discussions of testimony, we considered several ways to evaluate reasoning from authority. The use of authority must pass those tests for the argument to be valid:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>The source is a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">qualified authority<\/em><\/span> due to their subject expertise, societal position, or special circumstances.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The source has <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">firsthand knowledge<\/em><\/span> of the issue <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">without undue bias<\/em><\/span>.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The source\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">assumptions<\/em><\/span> match your own.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">When a source of authority does not pass these tests, then basing a conclusion on evidence from that source can produce an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">appeal to authority<\/strong><\/span> fallacy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.9 Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2544\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"204\"]<img class=\"wp-image-2544\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640.jpg\" alt=\"cartoon doctor holding a large pill\" width=\"204\" height=\"250\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/illustrations\/cardiologist-clinic-doctor-7804725\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Julien Tromeur via Pixabay, <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/service\/license-summary\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pixabay Content License<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nWhen Dr. Robert Jarvik promoted the popular cholesterol drug Lipitor in a national television campaign, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId457\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">parent company Pfizer and Dr. Jarvik were questioned<\/span><\/a><\/span> over the use of Jarvik\u2019s authority. In the commercial, Jarvik is accurately credited as the inventor of the artificial heart and is ostensibly shown rowing across a body of water. Jarvik goes on to speak about the wonder of the heart and the risks associated with excess cholesterol while verbally and visually offering an argument from authority:\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Claim<\/em><\/span>: \u201cWhen diet and exercise aren\u2019t enough, adding Lipitor significantly lowers cholesterol.\u201d<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Data<\/em><\/span>: Jarvik\u2019s endorsement of the drug, and his performance of the physical activity of rowing.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Warrant<\/em><\/span>: [Implied] If Dr. Jarvik, a heart expert, trusts the drug, I should too.<\/p>\r\n<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image273.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"111.4px\" height=\"111.4px\" \/>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em>Analysis:<\/em> The argument would seem to be a reasonable one at the surface\u2014a nationally renowned doctor who has studied the heart endorses a drug as improving health. However, Dr. Jarvik is a medical researcher rather than a cardiologist, and he is <strong>not licensed to practice medicine or prescribe medication<\/strong>. Furthermore, it turns out Jarvik <strong>doesn\u2019t row<\/strong>, and the commercial <strong>featured a body double<\/strong> to simulate his physical activity. On the whole, the commercial reflects an <strong>appeal to authority<\/strong> fallacy for how it used Jarvik, something that eventually caught the attention of Congress and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId460\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">resulted in Pfizer ending the campaign<\/span><\/a><\/span>.[footnote]Stephanie Saul, \u201cDrug Ads Raise Question for Heart Pioneer,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>, February 7, 2008, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html<\/a>; Alice Park, \u201cThe Problem with Jarvik\u2019s Prescription,\u201d <em>Time<\/em>, February 26, 2008, https:\/\/time.com\/archive\/6932454\/the-problem-with-jarviks-prescription\/, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">A sharp understanding of reasoning patterns can help you participate more effectively in the civic realm. Using a <em>variety of reasoning patterns<\/em> can enhance your ability to convince an audience to accept your thesis.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>For example, suppose you discover that your entire speech is based on sign argument. That means you have relied extensively on circumstantial evidence, and it is likely there is a lot of statistical data throughout the speech.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>It might be helpful to balance the speech by including reasoning from authority through the use of testimony\u2014to add a human dimension and gain source credibility\u2014as well as an example or two to which an audience can relate (reasoning from example or reasoning from analogy).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nSuch balancing creates stronger arguments by broadening the speech\u2019s overall appeal to your community.\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.10 Reasoning Patterns and Associated Reasoning Fallacies<\/strong>\r\n<table>\r\n<thead>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-tch\"><strong>Reasoning Pattern<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-tch\"><strong>Reasoning Fallacy<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from example:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, one or more examples are used to demonstrate a claim.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Hasty generalization:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when the example(s) used to support a claim are not representative or insufficient in number.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from analogy:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, there is an effort to prove a claim by comparing two situations or cases.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Faulty analogy:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when an argument rests upon comparing two cases that possess more differences than similarities and are not reasonably comparable.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\" style=\"height: 68.4pt;\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\" rowspan=\"2\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from cause:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, a speaker claims an event is caused by a particular circumstance or action.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Faculty cause or post hoc:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when there is a faulty attribution of cause and effect.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\" style=\"height: 68.35pt;\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Slippery slope:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when a speaker seeks to use causal reasoning to argue that a single event or action will lead to a chain reaction of cause-and-effect events but fails to provide the necessary support for each step or action in the chain.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from sign:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, circumstantial evidence, or signs, are used to demonstrate a claim. It occurs when a sign reliably indicates a connection between data and claim.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\">While not a formal fallacy type, one can \u201cmisread signs\u201d when they make a faulty association between circumstances (signs) and an outcome without the sign serving as an accurate indicator of the claim.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from authority:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, a speaker supports a claim with the testimony or credibility of a qualified source. The source should have clear expertise and firsthand experience and possess a minimum of bias.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\r\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Appeal to authority:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when an authority is used as the basis for an argument but has been removed from its area of expertise or is perceived to have excessive bias.<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Additional Common Fallacies<\/h2>\r\n<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image274.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"108.8px\" height=\"108.8px\" \/>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Although you can find many more examples of fallacy types in argumentation and logic courses, we limit our further consideration of the topic to five additional common fallacies: appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, begging the question, ad hominem attack, and false dilemma.[footnote]Scholar Douglas Walton, in particular, is known for his work on argument fallacies. His books on the subject include <em>Ad Hominem Arguments<\/em> (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998); <em>Argument from Ignorance<\/em> (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995); <em>Slippery Slope Arguments<\/em> (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); and <em>Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic in Argumentation<\/em> (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991).[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Appeal to Popularity<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image275.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"93.4285564304462px\" height=\"93.4285564304462px\" \/><\/em><\/span>Do you remember your parent asking, \u201cIf everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?\u201d This was their way of introducing you to the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">appeal to popularity<\/strong><\/span> fallacy, even if they didn\u2019t identify it as such. The basic idea is that popularity alone doesn\u2019t make for a good argument.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> The success of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Barbie<\/em><\/span> as the top-grossing movie of 2023 proves that it was the best film from that year.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The only basis this argument offers for being \u201cbest\u201d is popularity. That might be one relevant piece of data. Basing the claim only on popularity, however, commits a fallacy, because it equates popularity with being the best.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Appeal to Common Practice<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image276.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102px\" height=\"102px\" \/><\/strong><\/span>This fallacy is also called an \u201cis\/ought\u201d fallacy because the speaker suggests that just because something <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">is<\/em><\/span> a certain way, it <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">ought<\/em><\/span> to be that way. Whereas an appeal to popularity relies on people\u2019s positive feelings about, or approval of, a statement or activity, an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">appeal to common practice<\/strong><\/span> relies on the commonality or tradition of the belief or activity as justification for its validity.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> I know many professors look down on using ChatGPT to help write essays, but most students use it, so it must be OK.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The only justification offered for the action (use of ChatGPT) is its asserted status as a common habit of students. However, as explored in chapter 5\u2019s discussion of ethics, original work and the ability to understand the principles of speechmaking are important expectations for learning and operating professionally.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Begging the Question<\/h2>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image277.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"99.4px\" height=\"99.4px\" \/><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">When <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">begging the question<\/strong><\/span>, the speaker fails to provide evidence for their claim and, instead, restates the claim in place of additional data. This fallacy is also known as circular reasoning.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> Reading is fundamental to a good education because an educated person needs to be able to read.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> In this example the claim (reading is fundamental to a good education) and data (an educated person needs to be able to read) are nearly identical, with no offer of proof or independent support beyond a slight restatement of the claim.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Ad Hominem Attack<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image278.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"110\" height=\"110\" \/>An <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">ad hominem<\/strong><\/span> fallacy occurs when the person, rather than the argument, is attacked. Certainly, on occasion, character is an issue in an argument, and in those cases questioning a person\u2019s character is not a basis for deeming an argument fallacious. However, when the substance of a disagreement is ignored in favor of a blatant attack, an ad hominem fallacy has been committed.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.11 Ad Hominem Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong>\r\n\r\nConsider this exchange between two congressional representatives during contempt proceedings against Attorney General Merrick Garland in May 2024.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_333\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"180\"]<img class=\"wp-image-333\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image279.png\" alt=\"Marjorie Taylor Greene\" width=\"180\" height=\"229\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene_117th_Congress_portrait.jpeg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Marjorie Taylor Greene<\/a> by House Creative Services via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> \u201cI don\u2019t think you know what you\u2019re here for.\u2026I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you\u2019re reading\u201d\u2014Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett during a House oversight meeting on May 16, 2024.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_334\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"180\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-334\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image280.png\" alt=\"Jasmine Crockett\" width=\"180\" height=\"240\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Congresswoman_Jasmine_Crockett_-_118th_Congress_(cropped).png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Jasmine Crockett<\/a> by United States Congress via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Response<\/em><\/span>: \u201cI\u2019m just curious\u2026if someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody\u2019s bleach blonde, bad built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?\u201d\u2014Jasmine Crockett, in response to the suggestion that Marjorie Taylor Greene\u2019s comment was not about personal characteristics and appearance.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> In these examples, Greene and Crockett trade <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">physical insults<\/strong><\/span> rather than discuss the substance of their differing views. Such comments do not advance argumentation, and they distract from argumentation by engaging in <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">personal attacks<\/strong><\/span>.[footnote]Haley Talbot, Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju, and Melanie Zanona, \u201cCrockett Slams Greene as \u2018Racist\u2019 Following Contentious House Committee Meeting,\u201d <em>CNN<\/em>, May 17, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2024\/05\/17\/politics\/crockett-greene-contentious-committee-meeting\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2024\/05\/17\/politics\/crockett-greene-contentious-committee-meeting\/index.html<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">False Dilemma<\/h2>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image281.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"116.533333333333px\" height=\"116.533333333333px\" \/><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">You have probably heard a variation of the phrase \u201cYou\u2019re either with us or against us.\u201d <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId470\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/8VUJ-RTC5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">This familiar ultimatum<\/span><\/a><\/span>, like all <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">false dilemmas<\/strong><\/span>, eliminates alternative options by suggesting there are only two conclusions available when additional possibilities exist. It is possible to side \u201cwith us\u201d but be \u201cagainst\u201d particular ideas or tactics.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> We must either ban all cars immediately to stop pollution or accept that the planet will be destroyed by climate change.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The statement suggests only two possible outcomes\u2014banning cars or planetary destruction\u2014while ignoring other potential solutions related to electric vehicles, emissions regulations, promoting public transportation, or taking other actions that would protect the environment.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 27.12 Additional Common Reasoning Fallacies<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Appeal to popularity:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the validity of the claim is based on its popularity alone without any more specific offering of proof<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Appeal to common practice:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the validity of the claim is based on the commonality or tradition of a belief or activity without any more specific offering of justification<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Begging the question:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the data is little more than a restatement of the claim with no additional offer of independent proof<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Ad hominem attack:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself, is attacked and character is not relevant to the validity of the argument<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">False dilemma:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when it is suggested that there are only two conclusions available when, in reality, other possibilities or options exist<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Understanding reasoning fallacies will make you a more skilled student of argument and a more effective participant in public discussions. If you can identify faulty reasoning, you should also be able to avoid it. Likewise, you can identify and explain reasoning flaws in other speakers\u2019 messages about public issues.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Summary<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">The ability to produce multifaceted arguments that call on diverse reasoning types is a vital skill for public speaking and civic participation. In this chapter you have learned a range of reasoning patterns that will improve your ability to make valid arguments and to critically analyze public discourse presented by others.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>In inductive reasoning, a series of examples or instances are used to support the likelihood or probability of a generalized conclusion.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>A pattern of reasoning reflects what kind of data or evidence is used in an argument and how that data or evidence is used to prove a claim. Prominent patterns of reasoning are reasoning from example, reasoning from analogy, reasoning from cause, reasoning from sign, and reasoning from authority. Effective speeches use a variety of reasoning patterns in urging acceptance of the thesis.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>A reasoning fallacy is a flaw or defect in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument. There are many different reasoning fallacies, some of which are associated with the faulty use of particular reasoning patterns. Among the most common reasoning, fallacies are hasty generalization, faulty analogy, faulty cause or post hoc fallacy, slippery slope, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, begging the question, ad hominem attack, and false dilemma.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--key-takeaways\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Key Terms<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n\r\nad hominem\r\nanalogical reasoning\r\nappeal to authority\r\nappeal to common practice\r\nappeal to popularity\r\nbegging the question\r\ncausal reasoning\r\nfallacy\r\nfalse dilemma\r\nfaulty analogy\r\nfaulty cause\r\nhasty generalization\r\ninductive reasoning\r\npatterns of reasoning\r\npost hoc\r\nreasoning from analogy\r\nreasoning from authority\r\nreasoning from cause\r\nreasoning from example\r\nreasoning from sign\r\nslippery slope\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Review Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>What are the five common reasoning patterns?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What is a reasoning fallacy?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What fallacy or faulty reasoning is associated with each of the reasoning patterns?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Discussion Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>Test your ability to identify reasoning patterns and reasoning fallacies by analyzing an editorial from <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Wall Street Journal<\/em><\/span> or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">New York Times<\/em><\/span>. Remember that to do so, it is first necessary to identify the thesis, the subclaims, the data, and the warrants in the discourse. Second, identify what types of data (i.e., examples, statistics, testimony) are used and what types of reasoning patterns are employed. Third, assess the reasoning for potential fallacies. Finally, based on your analysis, create an overall assessment of the editorial\u2014is it a good argument?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>As you watch television or read a magazine, think about the appeals made in the advertisements. Are the advertisements arguments? Do some of them present a claim and data? Do they employ fallacies?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Chapter Objectives<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p class=\"import-pf\">Students will:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Construct sound arguments.<\/li>\n<li>Identify reasoning patterns.<\/li>\n<li>Test for common reasoning fallacies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 0pt;\">In the previous chapter, you learned about the meaning and structure of argument and how to select high-quality evidence in order to build strong, valid arguments. In this chapter, we continue our exploration of argument by more broadly considering how arguments function. We do this by examining two interrelated concepts: patterns of reasoning and reasoning fallacies.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This chapter begins by explaining both terms and their relationship. We will next explain five patterns of reasoning and their related fallacies. The chapter will end by introducing you to a few additional fallacies.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Reasoning Patterns and Fallacies<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">When developing arguments in a speech, you can choose from several available approaches or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">patterns of reasoning<\/strong><\/span>. A reasoning pattern is derived from <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">what kind<\/em><\/span> of data or evidence is selected and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">how<\/em><\/span> that data or evidence is used to prove a claim.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Generally, patterns of reasoning reflect the practice of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">inductive reasoning<\/strong><\/span>, a form of reasoning in which a speaker uses a series of examples, instances, or cases to support the likelihood of a conclusion. Inductive arguments are judged based on the strengths (or weaknesses) of the observational data offered in support of a claim. For example, an inductive argument might be based on a series of examples (the most common form of inductive reasoning), analogies, or even signs that collectively suggest the likelihood of a particular conclusion.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Working in concert with reasoning patterns is attention to reasoning fallacies. A reasoning <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">fallacy<\/strong><\/span> refers to a flaw or defect in reasoning that undermines argument validity. A fallacy:<\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\">\n<table class=\"grid\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">NO<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong><span style=\"color: #339966;\">YES<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Does <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">not<\/em><\/span> exist simply because we disagree with an argument.<\/td>\n<td>Does occur when a reasoning pattern is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">used incorrectly or ineffectively<\/em><\/span>. This incorrect use is generally due to poor <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">evidence<\/em><\/span> or an implied <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">warrant<\/em><\/span> that is faulty. Recall from chapter 26 that a warrant is a statement that justifies the connection between data (evidence) and claim.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">We will next introduce you to several reasoning patterns and their corresponding reasoning fallacies.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Types of Reasoning Patterns and Related Fallacies<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">This section will introduce you to five patterns of reasoning: reasoning from example, reasoning from analogy, reasoning from cause, reasoning from sign, and reasoning from authority. It will also consider how these patterns are sometimes used ineffectively, resulting in reasoning fallacies.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Example<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">The first type of evidence we discussed in chapter 26 was examples. The effort to prove a claim through examples, also understood as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">inductive reasoning<\/em><\/span>, is called <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasoning from example<\/strong><\/span> or generalization. That chapter\u2019s discussion of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">examples<\/em><\/span> as evidence identified several ways to evaluate reasoning from example.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>If an example passes those tests and there are a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">sufficient number of examples<\/em><\/span> to prove the claim, then you can reasonably conclude that you have presented a valid argument (or at least that <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">this portion<\/em><\/span> of your argument is valid).<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\">If, however, the example(s) <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">violates<\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\"> those conditions, it <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">isn\u2019t representative<\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\"> of the larger situation, or an <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">insufficient<\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\"> number is presented, then a reasoning fallacy has been committed. This reasoning fallacy is known as a <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">hasty generalization<\/strong><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.1 Reasoning from Example: Sample Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Consider reasoning from example through these two brief arguments:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example 1<\/em><em class=\"import-i\">:<\/em><\/span> President Donald Trump\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId441\" href=\"https:\/\/www.factcheck.org\/2020\/05\/trump-misleads-on-hydroxychloroquine-again\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">inaccurate claim that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to effectively treat COVID-19<\/span><\/a><\/span> proves that all presidents mislead the public.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-nocaption alignright\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> Is this example representative? Are there a sufficient number of examples to prove the claim that \u201call presidents mislead the public\u201d? Is there enough detail to make this example believable or to prove the president made misleading statements? While one can always ask a variety of questions about an argument, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">this singular, brief example is insufficient to prove that <\/strong><strong class=\"import-bi\"><em>all<\/em><\/strong><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">presidents mislead the public<\/strong><\/span>. This is an example, then, of a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">hasty generalization<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example 2<\/em><em class=\"import-i\">:<\/em><\/span> President Trump\u2019s inaccurate claim that hydroxychloroquine could effectively treat COVID-19, President Obama\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId442\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/world\/obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance-flna8c11485678\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">broken promise<\/span><\/a><\/span> that people could maintain their existing health care plans under the Affordable Care Act, President George W. Bush\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId443\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/W6VX-TRER\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">administration\u2019s inaccurate claims<\/span><\/a><\/span> about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, and President Clinton\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId444\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/YN4T-MV5Y\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">denial of a relationship<\/span><\/a><\/span> with White House intern Monica Lewinsky prove that all recent presidents have misled the country in public statements.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> While certainly one could challenge the lack of detail in explaining the individual situations, overall, this argument is stronger. Rather than presenting only one example, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-bi\"><em>four<\/em><\/strong><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">examples are offered, which would seem to be a sufficient number<\/strong><\/span>. By limiting or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">qualifying the claim to \u201crecent\u201d<\/strong><\/span> presidents instead of making a claim about all presidents, this argument is initially of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">sufficient strength<\/strong><\/span> to avoid being considered a fallacy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Analogy<\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image263.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">A second common form of argument is to reason from analogy. When using reasoning from analogy, also known as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">analogical reasoning<\/strong><\/span>, you attempt to prove a claim by comparing two situations or cases.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.2 Reasoning from Analogy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_311\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-311\" style=\"width: 256px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-311\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image264.png\" alt=\"Vivek Murthy\" width=\"256\" height=\"320\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image264.png 256w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image264-240x300.png 240w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image264-65x81.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image264-225x281.png 225w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-311\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Vivek_Murthy,_Surgeon_General_(thumbnail).jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Vivek Murthy, Surgeon General<\/a> by United States Department of Health and Human Services via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">In June 2024 when Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, then<\/span><\/a><span class=\"import-url\">\u2013<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">surgeon general of the United States, advanced the claim<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cIt is time to require a surgeon general\u2019s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,\u201d he supported his argument through analogical reasoning:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Faced with high levels of car-accident-related deaths in the mid- to late 20th century, lawmakers successfully demanded seatbelts, airbags, crash testing and a host of other measures that ultimately made cars safer. This January the F.A.A. grounded about 170 planes when a door plug came off one Boeing 737 Max 9 while the plane was in the air. And the following month, a massive recall of dairy products was conducted because of a listeria contamination that claimed two lives.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Vivek H. Murthy, \u201cSurgeon General: Why I\u2019m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms,&quot; New York Times, June 17, 2024, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html.\" id=\"return-footnote-502-1\" href=\"#footnote-502-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-1.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> In this statement, Dr. Murthy demonstrates the principle of analogical reasoning. He asked readers and, ultimately, Congress to support issuance of a surgeon general\u2019s warning label on social media platforms on the basis that the harms being caused by social media were <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">analogous<\/strong><\/span> to the level of harm that justified actions and regulations to protect safety in other instances. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasonably compared<\/strong><\/span> a new situation (regulation of social media) with past situations where regulations were used to address public problems (seat belts, airline safety, product food safety).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In testing analogies, speakers and listeners need to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">examine the similarities and differences<\/em><\/span> between the implicated circumstances. In doing so, you might ask,<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-blf\">Are the situations reasonably <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">comparable<\/em><\/span>?<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-bll\">Do the situations possess <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">more similarities than differences<\/em><\/span>?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If you answer yes to these questions, then you should feel comfortable with the analogy. If, however, you find that the answer to both is no, then you have discovered a fallacy known as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">faulty analogy<\/strong><\/span> or faulty comparison.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.3 Faulty Analogy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Consider another example of reasoning from analogy through this brief argument:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Just as the United States has reduced smoking rates and related health harms through regulation and public health advocacy, it can similarly reduce drug-related harms. Regulation and public health promotion have worked in Canada and Portugal, so surely it will work in the United States.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-1.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The first sentence provides the claim and the initial inspiration for the claim. The second sentence provides the data intended to explain why the policy will be successful. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">What would the warrant be? The United States is similar enough to Canada and Portugal that what has worked there will work in the United States<\/strong><\/span> (\u201cso surely it will work in the United States\u201d). Is this warrant, and hence this analogy, valid? If not, this is an example of a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">faulty analogy<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Cause<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image265.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"118.266666666667px\" height=\"118.266666666667px\" \/>Another popular pattern of reasoning is reasoning from cause. Also known as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">causal reasoning<\/strong><\/span>, reasoning from cause is used when a speaker claims an event is caused by a particular circumstance or action. When a direct link between an action and a consequence is exhibited, then a causal argument can be very effective.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.4 Reasoning from Cause: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>An increasing public health issue is the rise of obesity among children and adolescents. Seeing a potential association between soft drink consumption and increasing levels of adolescent obesity, some communities have raised the cost of sugary drinks. Consider the following causal argument related to this relationship:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">By placing new taxes on sugary drinks, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId448\" href=\"https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">cities can discourage the purchase of products that contribute to youth obesity<\/span><\/a><\/span>. After new \u2019soda taxes\u2019 raised purchasing costs by an average of 33% in Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland, San Francisco, and Seattle, retailers also saw purchases of such drinks decline by 33%.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Steven Ross Johnson, \u201cHow \u2018Soda Taxes\u2019 Could Fuel Better Health,\u201d U.S. News &amp; World Report, January 5, 2024, https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health.\" id=\"return-footnote-502-2\" href=\"#footnote-502-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-2.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> This is a cause-effect argument that offers data (related to product purchases) to support the claim that <strong>taxation resulted in a particular effect (reduced purchases)<\/strong>. The argument may need additional development to withstand heavy scrutiny, but in this form, it appears to draw a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasonable<\/strong><\/span> cause-effect relationship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In determining whether a causal argument is valid, consider the following criteria:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-blf\">Does the fact that the effect has occurred after the cause <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">reasonably signify a relationship<\/em><\/span> between the two events?<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-bl0\">Are there important alternative reasons or causes that have been <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">ignored<\/em><\/span>?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>When a speaker is guilty of attributing a cause-effect relationship between two items that are not connected, they have created a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">faulty cause<\/strong><\/span> fallacy. When the faulty attribution of cause occurs only <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">after the fact<\/em><\/span> (e.g., in hindsight), the reasoning error is more specifically known as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">post hoc fallacy<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p class=\"import-ch\"><strong>Box 27.5 Post Hoc Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_2542\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2542\" style=\"width: 252px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"wp-image-2542\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c.jpg\" alt=\"Mr Met mascot pointing at the camera\" width=\"252\" height=\"350\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c.jpg 577w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c-216x300.jpg 216w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c-65x90.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c-225x312.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/52005077755_c1311a1060_c-350x485.jpg 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-2542\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/flickr.com\/photos\/61135621@N03\/52005077755\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[Mr. Met]<\/a> by Metropolitan Transportation Authority via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Consider the following example heard from a discouraged New York Mets fan: \u201cI never watch the Mets on television because they always lose when I do.\u201d If we call back to the Toulmin model (in the previous chapter), we can pinpoint that the reasoning flaw in this causal argument rests in the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">implied warrant<\/em><\/span>: \u201cWhat I do determines whether the Mets win or lose.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-2.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/>Analysis:<\/em> There might be a miraculous coincidence between this fan\u2019s viewing habits and their favorite team\u2019s results, but in reality we know there is <strong><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\">no causal connection<\/span><\/strong> between the two. Hence this beleaguered fan has (knowingly, no doubt) created a <strong>faulty cause fallacy<\/strong> of the<strong> post hoc<\/strong> variety.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h3 class=\"import-ch\">Slippery Slope Fallacy<\/h3>\n<figure id=\"attachment_318\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-318\" style=\"width: 400px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-318\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267.png\" alt=\"A yellow street sign with a falling person that says, &quot;Danger. Slippery Slopes. Keep Away&quot;\" width=\"400\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267.png 400w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267-300x225.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267-65x49.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267-225x169.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image267-350x263.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-318\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/18946008@N06\/4485728970\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Slippery Slope<\/a> by Malcolm via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-NC<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Relatedly, speakers sometimes attempt to use causal reasoning to argue that a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">single event or action will lead to a chain reaction of cause-and-effect events<\/em><\/span>, typically ending with a catastrophic outcome. To effectively make such an argument, the speaker would need a significant amount of evidence to support the idea that one cause-and-effect sequence will lead to another, then to another, and to another. When speakers advance such arguments without providing necessary support, they commit a fallacy known as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">slippery slope<\/strong><\/span>. They suggest that if a first step is taken, then we will slide all the way down the slope to the very bottom.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.6 Slippery Slope Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In more closely considering how a slippery slope fallacy operates, consider this brief argument about the expanded use of artificial intelligence in the workplace:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If we start relying on AI to perform basic tasks, next we will use it for more complex jobs. Quickly, we will be unable to do the work ourselves, and AI will replace almost all human workers, leading to mass unemployment and poverty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-2.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/>Analysis:<\/em><\/span> This argument advocates we not make any use of AI because if we do, we will <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">slide down a slope<\/strong><\/span> toward employee obsolescence and economic chaos. What is provided, however, are <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">only asserted assumptions<\/strong><\/span> about what a basic use of AI might lead to\u2014total reliance and mass elimination of jobs. Although that outcome is possible in a dystopian future, nothing is provided to suggest that it is likely or imminent, hence it reflects the fallacy of a slippery slope.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Sign<\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image268.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"111.4px\" height=\"111.4px\" \/><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from sign<\/strong><\/span> relies on circumstantial evidence, or signs, to demonstrate a claim.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">For instance, a driver might notice a dashboard warning light indicator and say, \u201cThere must be something wrong with my car. The check engine light is on.\u201d They have made a sign argument:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-blf\">Their <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">claim<\/em><\/span> (\u201cThere must be something wrong with my car\u201d) is based on<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-bl0\">sign <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">data<\/em><\/span> (\u201cThe check engine light is on\u201d).<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-3.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/li>\n<li class=\"import-bll\">The implied <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">warrant<\/em><\/span> to the argument is that \u201cvehicle warning lights signal a possible problem.\u201d The warning light indicates to the driver that the car should be checked by a mechanic.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">Note, however, that the engine light is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">not the cause<\/em><\/span> of the problem, nor is it the problem itself; it is only a sign, or indicator, of it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">It is important to note, however, that it is possible to commit the mistake of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">misreading a sign<\/em><\/span>. This happens when one assumes that a certain sign is a reliable indicator of something else when it is not.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.7 Misreading Signs: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_322\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-322\" style=\"width: 174px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-322\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image269.png\" alt=\"Trayvon Martin wearing a hoodie\" width=\"174\" height=\"224\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image269.png 174w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image269-65x84.png 65w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-322\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Trayvon_martin_blue.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Trayvon Martin<\/a> by Eoliver naacp via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA<\/a>. Adapted by the author.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>In the wake of the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, there was a national debate over the meaning of his clothing\u2014a hoodie\u2014and if it could be reasonably interpreted by George Zimmerman, who killed Martin, as a sign of Martin being a threat or a gang member. The <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId453\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">hoodie became a prominent part of national discussion<\/span><\/a><\/span>, an exhibit in the criminal trial, and part of an exhibition on post\u2013Civil War Reconstruction at the National Museum of African American History and Culture.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Manuel Roig-Franzia, \u201cWhat Became of Trayvon Martin\u2019s Hoodie?,\u201d Washington Post, March 17, 2022, https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/. Others debated if the sign caused George Zimmerman\u2019s actions, transforming the sign into evidence in a causal argument. For instance, Geraldo Rivera stated on Fox News, \u201cI think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin\u2019s death as George Zimmerman was.\u201d Further, in an interview, then\u2013Fox News host Bill O\u2019Reilly said, \u201cThe reason Trayvon Martin died was because he looked a certain way and it wasn\u2019t based on skin color. If Trayvon Martin had been wearing a jacket\u2026and a tie\u2026I don\u2019t think George Zimmerman would have any problem. But he was wearing a hood and he looked a certain way. And that way is how \u2018gangstas\u2019 look.\u201d Erik Wemple, \u201cFox News\u2019s Bill O\u2019Reilly Blames Trayvon Martin\u2019s Death on Hoodie,\u201d Washington Post, September 16, 2013, https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/erik-wemple\/wp\/2013\/09\/16\/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-blames-trayvon-martins-death-on-hoodie\/.\" id=\"return-footnote-502-3\" href=\"#footnote-502-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-nocaption alignright\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image262-3.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.133333333333px\" height=\"113.133333333333px\" \/><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em>Analysis:<\/em> Making faulty associations between circumstances (<strong>Martin\u2019s sweatshirt<\/strong>) and an outcome (<strong>Zimmerman\u2019s assumption of Martin\u2019s intent to harm him<\/strong>) is what we mean by <strong>\u201cmisreading signs.&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Thus, in considering a sign argument, you should scrutinize the connection being made between the claim and the data.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-blf\">If the sign evidence is an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">accurate referent or indicator<\/em><\/span> and\/or if you can expect that the events <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">reasonably occur together<\/em><\/span> (but one does not cause the other), then you have a <span class=\"import-u\">valid basis<\/span> for a sign argument.<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-bl0\">If the sign is an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">unreliable indicator<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">or referent<\/em><\/span> and\/or if you <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">cannot reasonably associate events to occur together<\/em><\/span>, then you are in danger of <span class=\"import-u\">misreading a sign<\/span>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Reasoning from Authority<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image270.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"101.133333333333px\" height=\"101.133333333333px\" \/>A final reasoning pattern is reasoning from authority. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from authority<\/strong><\/span> occurs when a speaker supports a claim with the testimony or credibility of a qualified source. The use of authority is common in argumentation.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.8 Appeal to Authority: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_324\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-324\" style=\"width: 162px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-324\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image271.png\" alt=\"Gerald Seib\" width=\"162\" height=\"177\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image271.png 162w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image271-65x71.png 65w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-324\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/csis_er\/36586495556\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[Gerald Seib]<\/a> by Center for Strategic and International Studies via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-NC-SA<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>In a <a class=\"rId456\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b?mod=Searchresults_pos2&amp;page=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">June 2024 essay in <em>The Wall Street Journal<\/em><\/a>, Gerald F. Seib argued the perils of mounting debt to the continued prosperity of the \u201cAmerican Empire.\u201d Seib based his argument on the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">authority of scholars<\/strong><\/span> who had studied the impact of debt on past civilizations:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>He quoted historian Niall Ferguson on lessons offered by Habsburg Spain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire.<\/li>\n<li>He drew on the analysis of J. H. Cullum Clark, director of the George W. Bush Institute-Southern Methodist University Economic Growth Initiative, in his study of the spending of the Roman Empire.<\/li>\n<li>He recounted the lessons of Yale historian Paul Kennedy\u2019s well-known <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The Rise and Fall of Great Powers<\/em><\/span>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"wp-nocaption alignleft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" style=\"orphans: 1; text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image261-4.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102.8px\" height=\"102.8px\" \/><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em>Analysis:<\/em> In each case, Seib used the <strong><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\">subject authority<\/span> of public intellectuals<\/strong> as support for his argument on the threat posed by growing debt.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Gerald Seib, \u201cWill Debt Sink the American Empire?,\u201d Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2024, https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b.\" id=\"return-footnote-502-4\" href=\"#footnote-502-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In the last chapter\u2019s discussions of testimony, we considered several ways to evaluate reasoning from authority. The use of authority must pass those tests for the argument to be valid:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The source is a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">qualified authority<\/em><\/span> due to their subject expertise, societal position, or special circumstances.<\/li>\n<li>The source has <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">firsthand knowledge<\/em><\/span> of the issue <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">without undue bias<\/em><\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>The source\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">assumptions<\/em><\/span> match your own.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">When a source of authority does not pass these tests, then basing a conclusion on evidence from that source can produce an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">appeal to authority<\/strong><\/span> fallacy.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.9 Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_2544\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2544\" style=\"width: 204px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"wp-image-2544\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640.jpg\" alt=\"cartoon doctor holding a large pill\" width=\"204\" height=\"250\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640.jpg 523w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640-245x300.jpg 245w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640-65x80.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640-225x275.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/cardiologist-7804725_640-350x428.jpg 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-2544\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/illustrations\/cardiologist-clinic-doctor-7804725\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Julien Tromeur via Pixabay, <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/service\/license-summary\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pixabay Content License<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>When Dr. Robert Jarvik promoted the popular cholesterol drug Lipitor in a national television campaign, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId457\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">parent company Pfizer and Dr. Jarvik were questioned<\/span><\/a><\/span> over the use of Jarvik\u2019s authority. In the commercial, Jarvik is accurately credited as the inventor of the artificial heart and is ostensibly shown rowing across a body of water. Jarvik goes on to speak about the wonder of the heart and the risks associated with excess cholesterol while verbally and visually offering an argument from authority:<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Claim<\/em><\/span>: \u201cWhen diet and exercise aren\u2019t enough, adding Lipitor significantly lowers cholesterol.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Data<\/em><\/span>: Jarvik\u2019s endorsement of the drug, and his performance of the physical activity of rowing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Warrant<\/em><\/span>: [Implied] If Dr. Jarvik, a heart expert, trusts the drug, I should too.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-nocaption alignright\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image273.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"111.4px\" height=\"111.4px\" \/><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><em>Analysis:<\/em> The argument would seem to be a reasonable one at the surface\u2014a nationally renowned doctor who has studied the heart endorses a drug as improving health. However, Dr. Jarvik is a medical researcher rather than a cardiologist, and he is <strong>not licensed to practice medicine or prescribe medication<\/strong>. Furthermore, it turns out Jarvik <strong>doesn\u2019t row<\/strong>, and the commercial <strong>featured a body double<\/strong> to simulate his physical activity. On the whole, the commercial reflects an <strong>appeal to authority<\/strong> fallacy for how it used Jarvik, something that eventually caught the attention of Congress and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId460\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">resulted in Pfizer ending the campaign<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Stephanie Saul, \u201cDrug Ads Raise Question for Heart Pioneer,\u201d New York Times, February 7, 2008, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html; Alice Park, \u201cThe Problem with Jarvik\u2019s Prescription,\u201d Time, February 26, 2008, https:\/\/time.com\/archive\/6932454\/the-problem-with-jarviks-prescription\/, archived at https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R.\" id=\"return-footnote-502-5\" href=\"#footnote-502-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">A sharp understanding of reasoning patterns can help you participate more effectively in the civic realm. Using a <em>variety of reasoning patterns<\/em> can enhance your ability to convince an audience to accept your thesis.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>For example, suppose you discover that your entire speech is based on sign argument. That means you have relied extensively on circumstantial evidence, and it is likely there is a lot of statistical data throughout the speech.<\/li>\n<li>It might be helpful to balance the speech by including reasoning from authority through the use of testimony\u2014to add a human dimension and gain source credibility\u2014as well as an example or two to which an audience can relate (reasoning from example or reasoning from analogy).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Such balancing creates stronger arguments by broadening the speech\u2019s overall appeal to your community.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Box 27.10 Reasoning Patterns and Associated Reasoning Fallacies<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-tch\"><strong>Reasoning Pattern<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-tch\"><strong>Reasoning Fallacy<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from example:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, one or more examples are used to demonstrate a claim.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Hasty generalization:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when the example(s) used to support a claim are not representative or insufficient in number.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from analogy:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, there is an effort to prove a claim by comparing two situations or cases.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Faulty analogy:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when an argument rests upon comparing two cases that possess more differences than similarities and are not reasonably comparable.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\" style=\"height: 68.4pt;\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\" rowspan=\"2\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from cause:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, a speaker claims an event is caused by a particular circumstance or action.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Faculty cause or post hoc:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when there is a faulty attribution of cause and effect.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\" style=\"height: 68.35pt;\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Slippery slope:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when a speaker seeks to use causal reasoning to argue that a single event or action will lead to a chain reaction of cause-and-effect events but fails to provide the necessary support for each step or action in the chain.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from sign:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, circumstantial evidence, or signs, are used to demonstrate a claim. It occurs when a sign reliably indicates a connection between data and claim.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\">While not a formal fallacy type, one can \u201cmisread signs\u201d when they make a faulty association between circumstances (signs) and an outcome without the sign serving as an accurate indicator of the claim.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Reasoning from authority:<\/strong><\/span> In this pattern, a speaker supports a claim with the testimony or credibility of a qualified source. The source should have clear expertise and firsthand experience and possess a minimum of bias.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">\n<p class=\"import-td\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Appeal to authority:<\/strong><\/span> This fallacy occurs when an authority is used as the basis for an argument but has been removed from its area of expertise or is perceived to have excessive bias.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Additional Common Fallacies<\/h2>\n<div class=\"wp-nocaption alignright\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image274.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"108.8px\" height=\"108.8px\" \/><\/div>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Although you can find many more examples of fallacy types in argumentation and logic courses, we limit our further consideration of the topic to five additional common fallacies: appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, begging the question, ad hominem attack, and false dilemma.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Scholar Douglas Walton, in particular, is known for his work on argument fallacies. His books on the subject include Ad Hominem Arguments (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998); Argument from Ignorance (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995); Slippery Slope Arguments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); and Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic in Argumentation (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991).\" id=\"return-footnote-502-6\" href=\"#footnote-502-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Appeal to Popularity<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image275.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"93.4285564304462px\" height=\"93.4285564304462px\" \/><\/em><\/span>Do you remember your parent asking, \u201cIf everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?\u201d This was their way of introducing you to the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">appeal to popularity<\/strong><\/span> fallacy, even if they didn\u2019t identify it as such. The basic idea is that popularity alone doesn\u2019t make for a good argument.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> The success of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Barbie<\/em><\/span> as the top-grossing movie of 2023 proves that it was the best film from that year.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The only basis this argument offers for being \u201cbest\u201d is popularity. That might be one relevant piece of data. Basing the claim only on popularity, however, commits a fallacy, because it equates popularity with being the best.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Appeal to Common Practice<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image276.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"102px\" height=\"102px\" \/><\/strong><\/span>This fallacy is also called an \u201cis\/ought\u201d fallacy because the speaker suggests that just because something <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">is<\/em><\/span> a certain way, it <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">ought<\/em><\/span> to be that way. Whereas an appeal to popularity relies on people\u2019s positive feelings about, or approval of, a statement or activity, an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">appeal to common practice<\/strong><\/span> relies on the commonality or tradition of the belief or activity as justification for its validity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> I know many professors look down on using ChatGPT to help write essays, but most students use it, so it must be OK.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The only justification offered for the action (use of ChatGPT) is its asserted status as a common habit of students. However, as explored in chapter 5\u2019s discussion of ethics, original work and the ability to understand the principles of speechmaking are important expectations for learning and operating professionally.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Begging the Question<\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image277.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"99.4px\" height=\"99.4px\" \/><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">When <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">begging the question<\/strong><\/span>, the speaker fails to provide evidence for their claim and, instead, restates the claim in place of additional data. This fallacy is also known as circular reasoning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> Reading is fundamental to a good education because an educated person needs to be able to read.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> In this example the claim (reading is fundamental to a good education) and data (an educated person needs to be able to read) are nearly identical, with no offer of proof or independent support beyond a slight restatement of the claim.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Ad Hominem Attack<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image278.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"110\" height=\"110\" \/>An <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">ad hominem<\/strong><\/span> fallacy occurs when the person, rather than the argument, is attacked. Certainly, on occasion, character is an issue in an argument, and in those cases questioning a person\u2019s character is not a basis for deeming an argument fallacious. However, when the substance of a disagreement is ignored in favor of a blatant attack, an ad hominem fallacy has been committed.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.11 Ad Hominem Fallacy: Sample Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Consider this exchange between two congressional representatives during contempt proceedings against Attorney General Merrick Garland in May 2024.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_333\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-333\" style=\"width: 180px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"wp-image-333\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image279.png\" alt=\"Marjorie Taylor Greene\" width=\"180\" height=\"229\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image279.png 256w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image279-236x300.png 236w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image279-65x83.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image279-225x286.png 225w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-333\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene_117th_Congress_portrait.jpeg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Marjorie Taylor Greene<\/a> by House Creative Services via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> \u201cI don\u2019t think you know what you\u2019re here for.\u2026I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you\u2019re reading\u201d\u2014Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett during a House oversight meeting on May 16, 2024.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_334\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-334\" style=\"width: 180px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-334\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image280.png\" alt=\"Jasmine Crockett\" width=\"180\" height=\"240\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image280.png 180w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image280-65x87.png 65w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-334\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Congresswoman_Jasmine_Crockett_-_118th_Congress_(cropped).png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Jasmine Crockett<\/a> by United States Congress via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Response<\/em><\/span>: \u201cI\u2019m just curious\u2026if someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody\u2019s bleach blonde, bad built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?\u201d\u2014Jasmine Crockett, in response to the suggestion that Marjorie Taylor Greene\u2019s comment was not about personal characteristics and appearance.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> In these examples, Greene and Crockett trade <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">physical insults<\/strong><\/span> rather than discuss the substance of their differing views. Such comments do not advance argumentation, and they distract from argumentation by engaging in <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">personal attacks<\/strong><\/span>.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Haley Talbot, Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju, and Melanie Zanona, \u201cCrockett Slams Greene as \u2018Racist\u2019 Following Contentious House Committee Meeting,\u201d CNN, May 17, 2024, https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2024\/05\/17\/politics\/crockett-greene-contentious-committee-meeting\/index.html.\" id=\"return-footnote-502-7\" href=\"#footnote-502-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">False Dilemma<\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image281.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"116.533333333333px\" height=\"116.533333333333px\" \/><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">You have probably heard a variation of the phrase \u201cYou\u2019re either with us or against us.\u201d <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId470\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/8VUJ-RTC5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">This familiar ultimatum<\/span><\/a><\/span>, like all <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">false dilemmas<\/strong><\/span>, eliminates alternative options by suggesting there are only two conclusions available when additional possibilities exist. It is possible to side \u201cwith us\u201d but be \u201cagainst\u201d particular ideas or tactics.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Example:<\/em><\/span> We must either ban all cars immediately to stop pollution or accept that the planet will be destroyed by climate change.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Analysis:<\/em><\/span> The statement suggests only two possible outcomes\u2014banning cars or planetary destruction\u2014while ignoring other potential solutions related to electric vehicles, emissions regulations, promoting public transportation, or taking other actions that would protect the environment.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 27.12 Additional Common Reasoning Fallacies<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Appeal to popularity:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the validity of the claim is based on its popularity alone without any more specific offering of proof<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Appeal to common practice:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the validity of the claim is based on the commonality or tradition of a belief or activity without any more specific offering of justification<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Begging the question:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the data is little more than a restatement of the claim with no additional offer of independent proof<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Ad hominem attack:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself, is attacked and character is not relevant to the validity of the argument<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">False dilemma:<\/strong><\/span> occurs when it is suggested that there are only two conclusions available when, in reality, other possibilities or options exist<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Understanding reasoning fallacies will make you a more skilled student of argument and a more effective participant in public discussions. If you can identify faulty reasoning, you should also be able to avoid it. Likewise, you can identify and explain reasoning flaws in other speakers\u2019 messages about public issues.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Summary<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p class=\"import-paft\">The ability to produce multifaceted arguments that call on diverse reasoning types is a vital skill for public speaking and civic participation. In this chapter you have learned a range of reasoning patterns that will improve your ability to make valid arguments and to critically analyze public discourse presented by others.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In inductive reasoning, a series of examples or instances are used to support the likelihood or probability of a generalized conclusion.<\/li>\n<li>A pattern of reasoning reflects what kind of data or evidence is used in an argument and how that data or evidence is used to prove a claim. Prominent patterns of reasoning are reasoning from example, reasoning from analogy, reasoning from cause, reasoning from sign, and reasoning from authority. Effective speeches use a variety of reasoning patterns in urging acceptance of the thesis.<\/li>\n<li>A reasoning fallacy is a flaw or defect in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument. There are many different reasoning fallacies, some of which are associated with the faulty use of particular reasoning patterns. Among the most common reasoning, fallacies are hasty generalization, faulty analogy, faulty cause or post hoc fallacy, slippery slope, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, begging the question, ad hominem attack, and false dilemma.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--key-takeaways\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Key Terms<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p>ad hominem<br \/>\nanalogical reasoning<br \/>\nappeal to authority<br \/>\nappeal to common practice<br \/>\nappeal to popularity<br \/>\nbegging the question<br \/>\ncausal reasoning<br \/>\nfallacy<br \/>\nfalse dilemma<br \/>\nfaulty analogy<br \/>\nfaulty cause<br \/>\nhasty generalization<br \/>\ninductive reasoning<br \/>\npatterns of reasoning<br \/>\npost hoc<br \/>\nreasoning from analogy<br \/>\nreasoning from authority<br \/>\nreasoning from cause<br \/>\nreasoning from example<br \/>\nreasoning from sign<br \/>\nslippery slope<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Review Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>What are the five common reasoning patterns?<\/li>\n<li>What is a reasoning fallacy?<\/li>\n<li>What fallacy or faulty reasoning is associated with each of the reasoning patterns?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Discussion Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>Test your ability to identify reasoning patterns and reasoning fallacies by analyzing an editorial from <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Wall Street Journal<\/em><\/span> or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">New York Times<\/em><\/span>. Remember that to do so, it is first necessary to identify the thesis, the subclaims, the data, and the warrants in the discourse. Second, identify what types of data (i.e., examples, statistics, testimony) are used and what types of reasoning patterns are employed. Third, assess the reasoning for potential fallacies. Finally, based on your analysis, create an overall assessment of the editorial\u2014is it a good argument?<\/li>\n<li>As you watch television or read a magazine, think about the appeals made in the advertisements. Are the advertisements arguments? Do some of them present a claim and data? Do they employ fallacies?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-502-1\">Vivek H. Murthy, \u201cSurgeon General: Why I\u2019m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms,\" <em>New York Times<\/em>, June 17, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/health\/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-label.html<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-502-2\">Steven Ross Johnson, \u201cHow \u2018Soda Taxes\u2019 Could Fuel Better Health,\u201d <em>U.S. News &amp; World Report<\/em>, January 5, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/health-news\/articles\/2024-01-05\/how-soda-taxes-could-fuel-better-health<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-502-3\">Manuel Roig-Franzia, \u201cWhat Became of Trayvon Martin\u2019s Hoodie?,\u201d <em>Washington Post<\/em>, March 17, 2022, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/2022\/03\/17\/trayvon-hoodie-in-smithsonian\/<\/a>. Others debated if the sign caused George Zimmerman\u2019s actions, transforming the sign into evidence in a causal argument. For instance, Geraldo Rivera stated on Fox News, \u201cI think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin\u2019s death as George Zimmerman was.\u201d Further, in an interview, then\u2013Fox News host Bill O\u2019Reilly said, \u201cThe reason Trayvon Martin died was because he looked a certain way and it wasn\u2019t based on skin color. If Trayvon Martin had been wearing a jacket\u2026and a tie\u2026I don\u2019t think George Zimmerman would have any problem. But he was wearing a hood and he looked a certain way. And that way is how \u2018gangstas\u2019 look.\u201d Erik Wemple, \u201cFox News\u2019s Bill O\u2019Reilly Blames Trayvon Martin\u2019s Death on Hoodie,\u201d <em>Washington Post<\/em>, September 16, 2013, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/erik-wemple\/wp\/2013\/09\/16\/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-blames-trayvon-martins-death-on-hoodie\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/erik-wemple\/wp\/2013\/09\/16\/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-blames-trayvon-martins-death-on-hoodie\/<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-502-4\">Gerald Seib, \u201cWill Debt Sink the American Empire?,\u201d <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>, June 21, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/will-debt-sink-the-american-empire-8459096b<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-502-5\">Stephanie Saul, \u201cDrug Ads Raise Question for Heart Pioneer,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>, February 7, 2008, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/07\/business\/media\/07jarvik.html<\/a>; Alice Park, \u201cThe Problem with Jarvik\u2019s Prescription,\u201d <em>Time<\/em>, February 26, 2008, https:\/\/time.com\/archive\/6932454\/the-problem-with-jarviks-prescription\/, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/LZU7-FA6R<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-502-6\">Scholar Douglas Walton, in particular, is known for his work on argument fallacies. His books on the subject include <em>Ad Hominem Arguments<\/em> (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998); <em>Argument from Ignorance<\/em> (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995); <em>Slippery Slope Arguments<\/em> (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); and <em>Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic in Argumentation<\/em> (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991). <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-502-7\">Haley Talbot, Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju, and Melanie Zanona, \u201cCrockett Slams Greene as \u2018Racist\u2019 Following Contentious House Committee Meeting,\u201d <em>CNN<\/em>, May 17, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2024\/05\/17\/politics\/crockett-greene-contentious-committee-meeting\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2024\/05\/17\/politics\/crockett-greene-contentious-committee-meeting\/index.html<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-502-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":27,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/502"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":67,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/502\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3292,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/502\/revisions\/3292"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/502\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=502"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=502"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}