Everyday we are confronted by persuasion and manipulation and we might not even notice it. We see the use of persuasive and manipulative arguments in common daily occurrences such as television ads, newspaper articles, and casual conversation. The arguments can seem similar, but they have a key difference. Strong logic separates persuasion and manipulation because persuasive arguments use strong logic, meaning is has proper form and no fallacies. In this paper, I will relate the difference between persuasion and manipulation to having an argument based in strong logic and how this can influence whether or not you accept the conclusion. Persuasion is the act of causing people to do or believe something. In a persuasive argument the use of sound
…show more content…
Some of what I believed before is correct on what can produce a superior argument. I understood a strong argument needs true premises and cannot have flaws in logic. Now I also understand even though the premises appear true, it can be fallacies which have flaws in logic and form a poor argument. I also used to believe that an argument needed to incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos. As I have learned more about arguments these are important aspects, but they can also lead to fallacies and bias.For example the use of pathos in an argument creates a fallacy, “If I do not get a B in this class, I will lose my golf scholarship. I just cannot lose my scholarship because I love golf and need free tuition. Therefore even though my work merits a C, you should give me a B in this course” (Rainbolt). This is an appeal to pity fallacy and uses emotional strings to convince someone to agree with the conclusion even though it is unsound. In addition, I have learned what makes a sound argument. There should be proper form with true premises that lead to the conclusion. The form can either be inductive or deductive, but a deductive argument is stronger because the conclusion is always true. In the beginning of the semester I had little knowledge of what made a powerful argument, now I have a greater understanding of the components that form the sound
Some of what I believed before is correct on what can produce a superior argument. I understood a strong argument needs true premises and cannot have flaws in logic. Now I also understand even though the premises appear true, it can be fallacies which have flaws in logic and form a poor argument. I also used to believe that an argument needed to incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos. As I have learned more about arguments these are important aspects, but they can also lead to fallacies and bias.For example the use of pathos in an argument creates a fallacy, “If I do not get a B in this class, I will lose my golf scholarship. I just cannot lose my scholarship because I love golf and need free tuition. Therefore even though my work merits a C, you should give me a B in this course” (Rainbolt). This is an appeal to pity fallacy and uses emotional strings to convince someone to agree with the conclusion even though it is unsound. In addition, I have learned what makes a sound argument. There should be proper form with true premises that lead to the conclusion. The form can either be inductive or deductive, but a deductive argument is stronger because the conclusion is always true. In the beginning of the semester I had little knowledge of what made a powerful argument, now I have a greater understanding of the components that form the sound