Study Guide for English Conversation 3 Final Exam
The differences between can/should/allowed to and must/have to.
Page 28, read about American education 1840-1918.
Page 29, study “have got to.”
There will be an essay questions about the second project. I will ask how arguing against yourself changed/improved your conclusions. I will also ask how arguing against yourself (being devil’s advocate) can help you as a teacher.
Study these 생각의 오류, logical fallacies.
Ad HominemThis translates as “against the man.” In an ad hominem attack, instead of focusing on the argument, the person using ad hominem attacks his opponent personally. This is, fundamentally, a distraction.
Basically, the ad hominem fallacy says “you are wrong because I don’t like you.” Basically all political campaigns are filled with ad hominem.
Examples:
“You only like potatoes because you’re stupid.”
“If the French don’t like hockey, hockey must be good!”
“That was Moon Jae-in’s idea, so it must be wrong.”
Argument From Authority
This is the opposite of an ad hominem fallacy. With an argument from authority, the person committing the fallacy says “it must be true because ~ said so.” This is a bad way to make an argument because in history, we can see that humans make lots and lots of errors. The authority can be a person, a book, an ideal, etc.
Examples:
“Park Ji-sung says Hyundai cars are the best, so it must be true.”
“According to the textbook, all Mongolians eat ants. Textbooks never lie.”
“I’m an expert. You just have to trust me.”
Argument From Ignorance or Non-Testable Hypothesis
This idea says that if we don’t have perfect knowledge, my opinion must be correct.
Examples:
“We don’t know about the planets near that star, so we should assume they are purple.”
“We can’t know about God for sure, so he is obviously a man with a beard.”
“Nobody can predict the weather next month, so it will definitely snow.”
Band WagonAnything that’s popular must be true, according to this fallacy.
Fallacy Example:
“Come on, everybody is doing it. It must be good.”
Begging the Question or Circular ArgumentThis fallacy is about starting with a conclusion and simply saying it’s true. In other words, begging the question is simply repeating the conclusion over and over again.
Fallacy Ex: “Gay marriage is just plain wrong.”Fallacy Ex: “Drugs are just plain bad.”Fallacy Ex: “I can’t believe people eat dog. That’s just plain gross. Why? Because it’s a dog, of course. How could someone eat a dog?”
Either/Or or Black/White, False Dilemma, or Excluded Middle FallacyThis fallacy is about making an unnecessary dichotomy. It ignores middle options and attempts to force people to choose between two extremes.
Fallacy Ex: “You either support President Park or you support Kim Jong-eun.”
Fallacy Ex: “You don’t support the Israeli occupation of Palestine? You must hate Jews and be a racist.”
Emotional AppealsThis is an attempt to distract from logic by using people’s emotions. The most common versions basically say “You have to agree, because if you don’t something terrible will happen.”
Fallacy Example: “How could you support Obama? If he wins, he will starve all the children and make us communists!”
Moral Equivalency The implication that two moral issues carry the same weight or are essentially similar.
Ex: Equating the treatment of animals with the treatment of human beings. Ex: Equating acts of war with murder.Ex: Equating gay marriage with legalizing pedophilia. Ex: Equating being a wage slave with actual slavery.Ex: Equating all acts of war with terrorism.
Straw ManOne side of the argument is presented as so extreme that no one will agree with it.
Fallacy Ex:
“All environmentalists are terrorists who want to destroy factories.”
“If you surrender your freedoms, the terrorists have already won. You don’t want that, do you?”
Ben Garrido's Author Page 