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.
|
The mother's claim is not fallacious at all, she's merely warning her son of a possible danger. A danger that can be medically substantiated: See Energy-Drink Habit Sends Man to ER with Heart Problems shar.es/aa5fU6 via @LiveScience
The son however responds with several notable fallacies: Weak analogy. Non sequitur, a whole school of red herrings and an irrelevant goal or function. (A fallacy of distraction that irrelevantly critiques an idea for failing to do something it never intended to do) There's zero connection between the mother's warning about energy drinks to the son's aspiration for marriage. |
answered on Friday, Nov 30, 2018 11:52:39 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
|
I think the mother has committed the fallacy of converse accident and the son petitio principii
|
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 05:10:01 AM by lun |
Comments |
|