Choose a debate that is currently being had in wider society. This could be a topic in politics, religion, culture, sports, etc. but it must be connected to something that is happening in society right now. It should not be a broad discussion that we’ve been having for decades nor something tied to events that are done and over. Instead, it should be tied to something that is happening right now and is currently before the courts or focuses on events that are occurring as you write. Choose one side of the debate (preferably the side you identify with, though this is not required).
Part 1: Build an argument that commits each of the required informal fallacies, listed below. (The informal fallacies are discussed in Ch 3 of our textbook.) Your argument must commit each fallacy in the process of defending your thesis. The fallacies should not be included in some other way, e.g. by attributing them to an opponent. Highlight each informal fallacy and, using footnotes (one footnote for each informal fallacy), identify each fallacy by name. Each footnote marker should be placed directly following the highlighted fallacy and each footnote should simply include the name of the fallacy and nothing else.
This first part of the writing assignment should be 400-500 words in length, including your footnotes.
Part 2: Rewrite your argument, fixing the fallacies in the way specified for each fallacy (fixes identified in parentheses behind each required informal fallacy). Most of the writing in your second part will be identical to the writing in your first portion; the only parts that will change are the fallacious components. Highlight the changes (using colors that coordinate to your highlighting in the first part, if you used different colored highlighting) and remove the footnotes (as all fallacies should now be removed).
This second part should be 500-600 words in length, including the parts that are identical to the first part.
Required Informal Fallacies for Part 1 (Part 2 changes are identified in parentheses after each fallacy):
1. Appeal to Force or an Indirect Appeal to the People (replace with a relevant argument that removes all appeals to emotion)
2. Ad Hominem Fallacy (replace with a legitimate ad hominem attack)
3. Straw Man (replace with a response that addresses your opponent’s actual position, charitably interpreted)
4. Hasty Generalization or Appeal to Ignorance (replace with a strong inductive argument for your conclusion)
5. False Dichotomy (replace with an argument that is free from problematic assumptions)
Note 1: Each of the two parts should make sense as an independent written piece and must be well-written. They should be offered in support of the same position, on the same topic.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]