Logical fallacies can often be overlooked or even go unnoticed. In fact prior to this assignment I was unaware such errors could take place. While these logical fallacies may often go past us in our works, the significance in being able to identify and correct these errors of reasoning significantly helps one construct a more logically sound argument.
One of the first logical fallacies I found present in my “Week 4 Short Essay” is known as unwarranted generalization. When arguing for a philosopher king in our now modern world I asserted, “Many other forms of leadership such as a democracy or military dictatorship do just the opposite. They allow chaos, corruption, and manipulation of power to occur. This consequently affects its society as a whole. For this reason, having a philosopher king would best serve our society”. 2) Unwarranted generalization is when one draws a conclusion based on too little data. This can be done by stereotyping a group without further …show more content…
Often these statements are biased and based off of a small population sample. 3) In this case I’ve generalized the leadership of both democracy and military dictatorship—placing both in a narrow category in order to make it seem as if they only allow “chaos, corruption and manipulation of power to occur”. However this statement was based off of my own bias beliefs on how I feel regarding the two forms of leadership; I fail to provide sufficient evidence that would further conclude these claims as valid. Ultimately the lack of evidence to support my claims along with the subjective data used, results in this error of reasoning. 4) Rather than trying to make an argument sound good, I could have written with more intellectual honesty by remaining neutral—creating a valid and logical argument while
One of the first logical fallacies I found present in my “Week 4 Short Essay” is known as unwarranted generalization. When arguing for a philosopher king in our now modern world I asserted, “Many other forms of leadership such as a democracy or military dictatorship do just the opposite. They allow chaos, corruption, and manipulation of power to occur. This consequently affects its society as a whole. For this reason, having a philosopher king would best serve our society”. 2) Unwarranted generalization is when one draws a conclusion based on too little data. This can be done by stereotyping a group without further …show more content…
Often these statements are biased and based off of a small population sample. 3) In this case I’ve generalized the leadership of both democracy and military dictatorship—placing both in a narrow category in order to make it seem as if they only allow “chaos, corruption and manipulation of power to occur”. However this statement was based off of my own bias beliefs on how I feel regarding the two forms of leadership; I fail to provide sufficient evidence that would further conclude these claims as valid. Ultimately the lack of evidence to support my claims along with the subjective data used, results in this error of reasoning. 4) Rather than trying to make an argument sound good, I could have written with more intellectual honesty by remaining neutral—creating a valid and logical argument while