Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
I think the fallacy that best describes the situation as a whole is retrogressive causation . The tire salesman, in an effort to get you to have better tires, goes about it by destroying your tires. But, in the end section of the scenario, where the tire salesman uses the excuse of "but your tires don't work" to deflect from the fact that he was the one who destroyed them, that would be an example of rationalization . |
answered on Wednesday, Mar 27, 2024 02:08:51 PM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
There's no fallacy here. This is extortion. |
||||||||||||||
answered on Wednesday, Mar 27, 2024 11:50:35 AM by Mchasewalker | |||||||||||||||
Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories |
|||||||||||||||
Comments |
|||||||||||||||
|