This week's discussion centers on the fallacies discussed in Chapter 5 in order to gain a better understanding of how to identify them, why they might be persuasive, and why they might be dangerous when we allow ourselves to accept conclusions based on this fallacious reasoning

This week's discussion centers on the fallacies discussed in Chapter 5 in order to gain a better understanding of how to identify them, why they might be persuasive, and why they might be dangerous when we allow ourselves to accept conclusions based on this fallacious reasoning. It will ask you to first choose two different fallacies and explain your understanding of them, giving an example of each of them; then discuss why you think it is persuasive; and finally discuss the possible dangers of being swayed by them.

Here are step-by-step instructions on what to do:

1) Read Chapter 5, pages 155-178 in the 5th edition of the textbook The Power of Critical Thinking, or just up to the section titled "Persuaders: Rhetorical Moves" (Stop when you reach this section.) Take notes regarding each of the fallacies of "irrelevant premises" and "unacceptable premises".

2) Write your initial post. In your post:

1. Choose one of the fallacies of irrelevant premises and one of the fallacies of unacceptable premises and explain each fallacy: describe it and give your own example of how someone might use this fallacy in their reasoning. You may consider reasoning you've heard in politics, the media including social media, advertisement, or discussions you have with family and friends as you think about your example.
2. Explain why you think the use of this fallacious reasoning could be persuasive in terms of getting people to accept a claim or be taken in by them.
3. Discuss possible dangers presented by allowing ourselves to be taken in by the fallacies you identify. How might they misguide our beliefs and the choices we make based on them? Why as a critical thinker do you think it is important to be able to recognize and avoid making those decisions based on fallacious reasoning?