Help me choose a recent (2020-2023) news or journal article or a journal article cited in Brafman & Brafman (2008), and identify any of the 14 fallacies in reasoning as committed by the authors and explain how you would challenge them.

 

PDF for Brafman & Brafman (2008): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://eddierockerz.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/sway-the-irresistible-pull-of-irrational-behavior-pdfdrive-.pdf

 

Different kinds of Fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy: This fallacy involves attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing their reasons or the substance of their argument. It is problematic because it diverts attention away from the actual issue being discussed and undermines constructive dialogue.
2. Narrative Fallacy: Assuming that creating a compelling story to explain a set of facts equates to a genuine understanding of the links between those facts. This is problematic because storytelling may oversimplify complex issues, leading to erroneous conclusions.
3. Slippery Slope Fallacy: Making the assumption that taking a proposed step will lead to an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events. This fallacy is problematic because it often exaggerates potential consequences and ignores the possibility of safeguards or mitigations.
4. Searching for Perfect Solution Fallacy: Falsely assuming that if part of a problem remains after trying a solution, the solution should not be adopted. This can be problematic because it sets an unrealistic standard for problem-solving and may prevent practical improvements.
5. Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum): Attempting to justify a claim by appealing to the sentiments of a large group of people. This fallacy is problematic because popularity does not necessarily indicate the validity or truth of an argument.
6. Appeal to Questionable Authority Fallacy: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority figure who lacks expertise on the issue at hand. This can be problematic because it relies on the authority's status rather than the strength of the argument.
7. Appeal to Emotion Fallacy: Using emotionally charged language to distract from relevant reasons and evidence. This fallacy can hinder rational discussion by relying on emotional manipulation rather than logical arguments.
8. Straw Person Fallacy: Distorting an opponent's point of view to make it easier to attack, essentially attacking a position that doesn't accurately represent the opponent's argument. This is problematic because it misrepresents the opponent's views and avoids engaging with their actual arguments.
9. Either-Or (or False Dilemma) Fallacy: Assuming that only two alternatives exist when there are more than two options. This is problematic because it oversimplifies complex issues and limits the range of possible solutions or perspectives.
10. Explaining by Naming Fallacy: Falsely assuming that providing a name for an event or behaviour constitutes an adequate explanation. This can be problematic because it may obscure the need for a deeper understanding of causality.
11. The Planning Fallacy: Underestimating the time needed to complete a task despite prior experiences of underestimation. This fallacy is problematic because it can lead to unrealistic planning and scheduling.
12. Red Herring Fallacy: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue and shift the focus of an argument. This is problematic because it avoids addressing the core argument and can confuse the discussion.
13. Begging the Question Fallacy: An argument in which the reasoning assumes the conclusion. This is problematic because it does not provide valid evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion, essentially circular reasoning.