Answer discussion question and replay to two of my classmate


My classmate answers to the discussion is attached and choose any two and replay to them ( make sure you tell me which one you replay to)

This is the discussion question:

Greetings, logicians! You have three responsibilities this week. First, here are some of the fallacies you studied:


ambiguity division composition equivocation
non sequitur distorting the facts post hoc ergo propter hoc many questions
hasty generalization slippery slope parade of horrors false analogy
straw man special pleading begging the question false dichotomy
oversimplification red herring tu quoque genetic
poisoning the well appeal to ignorance appeal to authority appeal to fear
death by a thousand qualifications protecting the hypothesis or any other fallacy in the lecture notes or readings!

1. Pick one of these fallacies or any other (try to pick one different from your classmates’) and write a brief example of it and a brief explanation of its fallaciousness. Your sentence should have a false premise, factual error, or logical inconsistency making it invalid or unsound.

Example 1:

The governor was an action movie star, all brawn and no brains. How can we expect him to lead?

–> This is an ad hominem fallacy because it impugns a person’s character (“no brains”) without any evidence while also associating that purported trait with an unrelated attribute (being unable to lead).

2. Create either an unsound or a sound syllogism based on anything you want. An unsound syllogism must be logically invalid, factually untrue, or both. A sound syllogism must be both logically valid and true. After you write your unsound or sound syllogism, state why the conclusion, major/minor premises, facts, etc., are flawed or flawless.

Example 2:

I’m opting to write an unsound syllogism here…

Davis is a sub-par rhythm guitarist.
Davis is an English teacher.
Therefore, all English teachers are sub-par rhythm guitarists.

–> Untrue factually about Davis 🙂 Moreover, opinions can’t be proved. This is also invalid logically, as it commits the fallacy of composition wherein something true of one thing is spuriously applied to all similar things. Therefore, this syllogism is “unsound.”

3. What’s a real world example of a time when you’ve seen ethos, pathos, and logos in effect at the same event or location? Think politics, interviews, the mall… Share your example with the class.