Logical Fallacies in the Crucible

Handout One: The Crucible and Logical Fallacies (Definitions) Fallacies or Pseudo proofs These are arguments which authors pose that are unsubstantiated—they are fake arguments—watch for these in our advertisements. Fallacies in Logic Begging the question: no support is offered by the arguer who merely restates the argument repeatedly (in one form or another, paraphrasing the same argument) as though that were proof. Red herring: provides irrelevant and misleading support that pulls the audience away from the real argument. Non- sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the evidence and the warrant. Sort of false appearances Straw man: attributes an argument to an opponent that the opponent never made and then refuting it in a devastating way. Stacked evidence: stacking evidence to represent only one side of an issue that clearly has two sides gives a distorted impression of the issue. Either-or: Some arguments are oversimplified as either-or arguments. Post hoc: faulty cause—if you wear Nike shoes you will be as good at basketball as Lebron James. Hasty generalizations: jumping to a conclusion based on too few examples. Fallacies that affect ethos Ad hominem: attacks a person’s character traits rather than their ideas. Guilt by association: assumes that you can attack a person’s character by examining the character of their associates. Using authority instead of evidence: because the College Board says that question number 5 is d, then the answer must bed, even if it appears to be an asinine answer. “Do it because I said so.” Emotional Appeal Bandwagon Appeal: if everyone thinks it is good then it must be good. Slippery slope---scare tactic that if we allow one thing to happen, we will be immediately sliding down a slippery slope to the most extreme, worse outcome Creating false-needs marketers and advertisers convince you that you need something that you do not really need or want (Webkinz, iphones, pretty much everything you own) Handout Two—Logical Fallacies in The Crucible Directions: Find examples of three different types of logical fallacies in the play. Write down the type of logical fallacy represented, give a quote from the play which represents the logical fallacy, and then explain how the fallacy was used (the effect it had on the audience or characters in the play) Type of Logical Fallacy Example from the Text Explanation of how this logical fallacy was used Handout Three: Characters and Response to their Logical Fallacies Directions: From the play select one character who fits each of the three following categories. Explain how this character fits that category and provide an example to explain why they fit this category and then answer the question at the end. Chart Logical Fallacies and Position Use logical fallacies to persuade others Is susceptible to logical fallacies-is persuaded by another character to believe or do something as the result of faulty logic? Argues against or fights against the use of logical fallacies by other characters in the play Character who fits this category Why they fit this category with examples from the play? Handout Four: Logical Fallacies in The Crucible 1. How has Miller analyzed the use of logical fallacies in the play? 2. Why do you think the logical fallacies were so successful in the play? 3. What would have been an effective way to combat logical fallacies? 4. Think of a logical fallacy that has been used in the contemporary world. What is the fallacy, who uses it, and how has it been effective? Compare this to the logical fallacies in the Salem Witch Trials and The Crucible. How are the fallacies similar or different in their effect?