RWS 305 San Diego State University PETA Fallacies and Website Evaluation Paper Logical Fallacies: Review the Logical Fallacies handout. In one paragraph,

RWS 305 San Diego State University PETA Fallacies and Website Evaluation Paper Logical Fallacies:

Review the Logical Fallacies handout. In one paragraph, explain what logical fallacies are and discuss why you might want to look for them when you do a website evaluation and framing analysis. Give a couple of independent examples of logical fallacies that you might see in the “real world.”

Website Evaluation:
Review the Web Evaluation Criteria handout, and do a preliminary website evaluation for each of your selected Project 3 websites. Write a short paragraph for each one, reflecting your evaluation based on the six criteria highlighted in the handout. You can consider this to be a rough draft for the evaluation paragraph for each website.

My selected project 3 websites:

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/21-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals/

https://www.aspca.org/

https://www.peta.org/ WEB EVALUATION CRITERIA
I. Authority
?
?
?
?
?
?
Is there an author? Is the page signed?
Is the author qualified? An expert?
Who is the sponsor?
Is the sponsor of the page reputable? How reputable?
Is there a link to information about the author or sponsor?
If no signature or indication of sponsorship is given, is there any other way to determine
who is responsible? (Look at the domain and other clues in the URL. ex: http//www.fbi.gov)
Rationale
1. Anyone can publish anything on the web.
2. Authors and sponsors are frequently not indicated.
3. Even if a page is signed, qualifications aren’t normally given.
II. Accuracy
? Is the information reliable and error-free?
? Are there any obvious indicators or signs of error?
? Is there an editor or someone who verifies or checks the information?
Rationale
1. Anyone can publish anything on the web.
2. Unlike traditional print resources, web pages rarely have editors or factcheckers.
3. Currently, no standards exist to ensure accuracy on web pages.
III. Coverage
?
?
?
?
What topics are covered?
What does this page offer that is not found elsewhere?
What is the intrinsic value?
How in-depth is the material?
Rationale
1. Web coverage often differs from print coverage.
2. Frequently, it’s difficult to determine the extent of coverage.
IV. Objectivity
? Does the information show a minimum of bias?
? Is the page designed to sway opinion?
? Is there any advertising on the page?
Rationale
1. Frequently the goals of the sponsors/authors aren’t clearly stated.
2. Often the web serves as a public forum, where groups and individuals
broadcast their beliefs and opinions.
G:INSTRUCTHandoutsHandout ReorganizationGeneralWebEvaluationCriteria.doc
Rev 7/26/2007
V. Currency
? Is the page dated?
? If so, when was the last update?
? How current are the links? Have some expired or moved?
Rationale
1. The web is such a dynamic resource that information is quickly outdated and links can
move overnight or quickly expire.
2. Publication or revision updates are not always provided.
3. If a date is provided, it may have various meanings. For example, a date may indicate
when the material was first written, when it was placed on the web, or when it was
last revised. Always look for a word of phrase that explains the date given.
VI. Navigation
?
?
?
?
?
Does the page take a long time to load?
Does the page have an easy to understand organizational scheme?
Are the links clearly visible?
Are the links intuitive?
Are there software or browser requirements that limit access to critical information?
Rationale
1. Form and content go hand in hand; if you can’t read the screen easily, you will have
difficulty understanding the page.
2. When a website is poorly organized or difficult to navigate, it is hard to appreciate
the site’s content.
3. If the site is frequently unavailable, this may indicate future problems.
4. Why trust a website that confuses or makes special demands of its
users?
Bibliography
Alexander, Jan and Marsha Tate. Evaluating web resources. 6 March 1997. Online. Available:
http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/webevaluation/webeval.htm. 26 July
2002.
Beck, Susan E. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Why it’s a Good Idea to Evaluate Web
Resources. 7 July 1997. Online. Available: http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html. 26
July 2002.
Grassian, Esther. Thinking Critically About World Wide Web Resources. June 1995. Online.
Available: http://library.ucla.edu/college/help/critical . 26 July 2002.
G:INSTRUCTHandoutsHandout ReorganizationGeneralWebEvaluationCriteria.doc
Rev 7/26/2007
G:INSTRUCTHandoutsHandout ReorganizationGeneralWebEvaluationCriteria.doc
Rev 7/26/2007
Logical Fallacies
The point of an argument is to give reasons in support of some conclusion. An
argument commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not, in fact, support the
conclusion. Logical fallacies can also be described as errors in reasoning, either
unintentional or intended to distract the audience from the real issue.
False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Reduces an issue to only two alternatives, emphasizing desirability of preferred option
and obscuring the value of the alternative. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the
“or” operator.
Examples:
? You’re either for me or against me.
? America: love it or leave it.
? Either build a fence along the border between the U.S. and Mexico, or Texas will
secede from the Union.
Slippery Slope
Exaggerates future consequences of an action, usually with the intention of frightening
readers. In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of
increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an
illegitimate use of the “if-then” operator.
Examples:
? If we pass laws against fully automatic weapons, then it won’t be long before we
pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and
finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully
automatic weapons.
? You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon
you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to
crime to support your earnings.
Complex Question
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The
reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable
while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the “and” operator.
Examples:
? You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise
their children according to their own beliefs.
?
?
Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?
Have you stopped using illegal sales practices? (This asks two questions: Did
you use illegal practices, and did you stop?)
Faulty Emotional Appeal (Appeal to Pity)
Excessively uses emotions to distract readers from facts.
Examples:
? I’m positive that my work will meet your requirements. I really need the job since
my grandmother is sick.
? I should receive an ‘A’ in this class. After all, I worked really hard, and if I don’t
get an ‘A’ I won’t get the fellowship that I want.
Prejudicial Language
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the
proposition.
Examples:
? Right-thinking Americans will agree with me that capital punishment should be
abolished.
? A reasonable person would agree that English should be the official language of
the United States.
? Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here, the use
of “claims” implies that what Turner says is false.)
? The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. (Compare
this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Capitol Hill.)
Bandwagon Appeal
Urges people to follow the same path everyone else is taking. “Everybody else is doing
it, so you should too!”
Examples:
? Polls suggest that the Democrats will win back the House in 2016, so you may as
well vote for them.
? Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish
claims?
Attacking the Person (ad hominem or “against the man”)
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This
takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality, political beliefs, or
values may be attacked. A person may also be attacked by association or by the
company he keeps.
Examples:
? You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just following a fad.
? Don’t listen to what Senator Feinstein says about tax hikes because she won’t be
hurt by the increase.
? We should disregard Senator McCain’s argument because he received campaign
contributions from big businesses.
? You say I shouldn’t drink, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year, so
you don’t know what I’m going through.
Appeal to False Authority
Claims that the author, other authority figure, or respected document (e.g., Bill of
Rights) or group (e.g., FBI, National Science Foundation) is sufficient warrant for
believing a claim; when this appeal is used, the “authority” is usually irrelevant or
insufficient to the claim being made. A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is
hearsay, which depends on second or third hand sources. Appeals to anonymous
sources also fall into this category.
Examples:
? Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot
Tub.
? Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight money policy s the best
cure for a recession, so that’s obviously what we need to do. (Although Galbraith
is an expert, not all economists agree on this point.)
? We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we will
begin bombing Russia in five minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a
microphone test.)
? My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada will declare war on
Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in fact, the reporter said that Canada would
not declare war.)
? Experts agree that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to prepare for it.
Style Over Substance
The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is taken to affect the
likelihood that the conclusion is true.
Examples:
? Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on his forehead.
? Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
? Why don’t you take the advice of that nicely dressed young man?
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a conclusion from insufficient evidence.
Examples:
? Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians are thieves. (Of
course, we shouldn’t judge all Australians on the basis of one example.)
? I asked several of my friends what they thought of the new spending restraints
and they all agreed it is a good idea. The new restraints are therefore generally
popular.
? The Chargers will probably win this game because they’ve won nine out of their
last ten. (Eight of the Chargers’ wins came over last place teams, and today they
are playing the first place team.)
Sweeping Generalization
Essentially the inverse of a Hasty Generalization. A sweeping generalization is applying
a general rule to a specific instance (without proper evidence), and a hasty
generalization is applying a specific rule to a general situation (without proper
evidence). For example:
You get what you pay for. Therefore, it is better to spend $200 on that t-shirt at that
boutique shop than buy the same one at Marshall’s for $29.
This is an example of the sweeping generalization. Generally “you get what you pay for”
might be a good rule, but it certainly does not apply to all situations, and attempting to
make it fit to all situations without proper consideration (or evidence) is fallacious.
False Analogy
Inaccurate or inconsequential comparisons between objects, individuals, or concepts.
Examples:
? Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit on the head in order to make
them work, so must employees.
? Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to
the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and
business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different
criteria.)
Post Hoc (Doubtful Cause)
Erroneously assumes that because one event or action follows another, the first
necessarily causes the second.
Examples:
? Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon after, the welfare rolls
increased. Therefore, the increased immigration caused the increased welfare
rolls.
? I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold disappeared.
? If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths.
And fish deaths have indeed increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Non Sequitur
Does not follow: An argument in which claims, reasons, or warrants fail to connect
logically; one point does not follow from another. Similar to post hoc.
Examples:
? Drivers of gas-guzzling SUVs are supporting terrorism.
? Joe gets a chain letter that threatens him with dire consequences if he
breaks the chain. He laughs at it and throws it in the garbage. On his way
to work he slips and breaks his leg. When he gets back from the hospital
he sends out 200 copies of the chain letter, hoping to avoid further
accidents.
Begging the Question
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply
restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise
is a consequence of the conclusion. Also known as circular reasoning; assuming as true
the very claim that is being disputed or defended.
Examples:
? Since I’m not lying, it follows that I’m telling the truth.
? We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists. What the Bible says
must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that
God exists in order to believe that God wrote the Bible.)
Straw Man
The author attacks an argument that is different from, and usually weaker than, the
opposition’s best argument.
Examples:
? We should reinstate the draft. People don’t want to enter the military because
they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more
important things than convenience.
?
Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I
disagree entirely. I can’t understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like
that.
Appeal to Tradition (Dogmatism)
Asserts or assumes that a particular position is the only one conceivably acceptable;
often based on tradition or assumed values of a community (e.g., “this is how we’ve
always done it”).
Examples:
? Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it
seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?
? Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for
over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has
got to be good.
Ad Populum (Appeal to the People)
Concludes a claim to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “If
many believe so, it is so.” In ethics this argument is stated, “If many find it acceptable, it
is acceptable.”
Examples:
? Since most people in the world eat meat, it is obviously ethical to eat meat.
? It’s ridiculous to claim that Hussein would not have attacked the United States if
we hadn’t attacked Iraq first. Everyone knows that he was stockpiling nuclear
weapons to obliterate us.
? Since most of the world believes in God, God must exist.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment