FALLACACY ANALYSIS ESSAY & (PLEASE USE REAL VARIFIABLE SOURC…

I HAVE ALL YOU NEED IN PDF DOCS THAT I WILL PROVIDE PLEASE LOOK OVER IT ALL CAREFULLY, AND NO AI. THE PROFESSOR USES CERTAIN SITES TO CATCH ANY AND ALL PLAGIARISM AND HAS A VERY STRICT POLICY PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THAT. THANK YOU!

JUST IN CASE HERE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS: Discussion Topic: Fallacy Analysis EssayFallacy Analysis Essay

Due: Sunday of Week 6 by 11:59 PM

Format: Word document (.docx) or PDF uploaded to Canvas

Length: 1,0001,400 words

Value: 100 points

Overview

In Unit 1, you examined your own thinkingtracing where your beliefs come from and how bias shapes your reasoning. In Unit 2, you turn outward. You’ll analyze how others argue, identifying the logical fallacies that make arguments persuasive even when they shouldn’t be.

For this essay, you’ll select a real argument from public discoursea political speech, advertisement, op-ed, social media post, podcast segment, or any other persuasive textand analyze the logical fallacies it employs. Your goal isn’t simply to point at fallacies and name them. It’s to explain how those fallacies function: why they’re persuasive, what makes them problematic, and what a stronger version of the argument might look like.

What You’ll Do

Step 1: Select an argument to analyze.

Choose a real persuasive text that contains at least two identifiable logical fallacies. The argument should be:

• Authentic: Something actually published or broadcast, not a made-up example. Include a link or citation so I can access the original.
• Substantive enough to analyze: A single tweet might not give you enough material. A speech excerpt, op-ed, advertisement, or extended social media thread usually works better.
• Interesting to you: You’ll spend significant time with this text. Choose something you actually want to think aboutwhether because you agree with it, disagree with it, or find it genuinely puzzling.

Good sources include political advertisements, opinion columns from major newspapers, segments from news commentary shows, advocacy organization messaging, viral social media arguments, podcast monologues, and public speeches. Avoid satire or content that’s intentionally using fallacies for comedic effectthe analysis works best when the arguer is genuinely trying to persuade.

Step 2: Identify and analyze the fallacies.

Your analysis should:

• Name the specific fallacies you’ve identified, using the terminology from this unit (ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, etc.).
• Quote or describe the specific moments in the text where each fallacy occurs. Don’t just assert that a fallacy existsshow exactly where and how it appears.
• Explain why each example qualifies as that fallacy. What makes this ad hominem rather than legitimate criticism of credibility? What makes this a false dilemma rather than a genuine binary choice? Demonstrate your understanding of the fallacy’s definition by applying it precisely.
• Analyze how the fallacy functions persuasively. Why might this fallacy work on an audience? What emotions does it trigger? What shortcuts in reasoning does it exploit? This is where you move beyond identification to genuine analysis.

Step 3: Distinguish fallacies from legitimate rhetorical appeals.

Not every emotional appeal is a fallacy. Not every attack on a source is ad hominem. Part of your analysis should demonstrate that you understand the difference between fallacious reasoning and legitimate persuasion. If your chosen text includes both, acknowledge that complexity. If you initially thought something was a fallacy but realized it wasn’t upon closer examination, that’s worth discussingit shows sophisticated thinking.

Step 4: Consider what a stronger argument would look like.

Your essay should include a sectionit doesn’t need to be longthat considers how the arguer could have made their case without relying on fallacies. What evidence would strengthen their position? What concessions might make their argument more credible? This isn’t about whether you agree with their conclusion; it’s about imagining a more logically sound version of their reasoning.

Essay Structure

There’s no single required structure, but here’s a framework that works well:

Introduction: Introduce the argument you’re analyzing. Provide necessary contextwho made this argument, when, to whom, and why it matters. State your thesis: what fallacies does this argument employ, and what does analyzing them reveal?

Body paragraphs: Each major fallacy you identify should get substantial treatment. Quote or describe the specific moment, name and define the fallacy, explain why this example fits the definition, and analyze how the fallacy functions persuasively. You might organize by fallacy (one section per fallacy) or chronologically through the argumentwhatever serves clarity.

Distinguishing fallacies from legitimate appeals: Address the gray areas. What in this argument is legitimately persuasive? Where did you have to think carefully about whether something crossed the line?

Imagining a stronger argument: How could this case be made more soundly? What would you want to see instead of the fallacies you identified?

Conclusion: What does this analysis reveal about how arguments work in public discourse? What should audiences watch for? Avoid simply restating your thesispush toward insight.

Evaluation Criteria

Grading RubricCriterionPointsDescriptionFallacy Identification25You correctly identify at least two logical fallacies, using appropriate terminology and demonstrating understanding of each fallacy’s definition.Textual Evidence20You quote or describe specific moments from the source text that demonstrate each fallacy. Analysis is grounded in concrete evidence, not general assertions.Analysis Depth25You go beyond identification to explain how and why the fallacies function persuasively. You demonstrate understanding of the psychological and rhetorical mechanisms at work.Nuance and Distinction15You distinguish between fallacious reasoning and legitimate rhetorical appeals. You acknowledge complexity and gray areas rather than oversimplifying.Constructive Alternative10You consider how the argument could be made more soundly, demonstrating ability to think constructively about argumentation.Writing Quality5The essay is clearly organized, effectively structured, and carefully edited. Writing serves communication rather than obscuring it.

Finding Your Argument: Some Starting Points

If you’re not sure where to look, try these sources:

• Political advertisements: Search YouTube for recent campaign ads. These are often rich with fallacies because they’re designed to persuade quickly.
• Opinion sections: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and other major newspapers publish op-eds daily. Look for ones making strong claims.
• News commentary: Cable news opinion shows, podcast political commentary, and YouTube political channels often employ fallacious reasoning.
• Advocacy organizations: Websites for political advocacy groups, industry associations, and activist organizations often feature persuasive content worth analyzing.
• Social media: Viral tweets, Facebook posts, or Reddit arguments can work if they’re substantive enough. Screenshots are acceptable as citations.

Avoid arguments that are obviously satirical, intentionally absurd, or from clearly unreliable sources (random anonymous comments, obvious troll accounts). The analysis is most interesting when applied to arguments that are genuinely trying to persuade.

On Using AI

AI can help you understand fallacy definitions, check whether your identification is accurate, and refine your analysis. Useful approaches include:

• Asking AI to explain the difference between two fallacies you’re confusing
• Describing an argument and asking AI whether your fallacy identification seems correct
• Sharing a draft paragraph and asking AI whether your explanation of how a fallacy functions is clear

However, your analysis must be your own. If you paste an argument into AI and ask it to identify the fallacies for you, you’re not developing the analytical skills this assignment is designed to build. The goal is for you to become someone who can spot fallacies in real time, in your own lifeand that only happens through practice.

Also be aware: AI sometimes misidentifies fallacies or sees them where they don’t exist. If you use AI to check your work, apply your own critical thinking to the AI’s response. You are responsible for the accuracy of your analysis.

Timeline

Week 4: Learn the fallacies. Start browsing for potential arguments to analyze. Your Weekly Reflection will ask you to identify a fallacy you’ve encountereduse this as practice.

Week 5: Deepen your understanding of persuasion and context. Select your argument if you haven’t already. Begin drafting your analysis.

Week 6: Revise, refine, and polish. Your Weekly Reflection will ask you to share a draft excerpt for peer feedback. Use that feedback to strengthen your essay before the Sunday deadline.

Submission

Upload your essay as a Word document (.docx) or PDF to the assignment submission area by Sunday of Week 6 at 11:59 PM. Include a link to your source argument or, if it’s not available online, include a copy (screenshot, transcript, or attached file) so I can access the original.

Late submissions lose 10% per day. If you need an extension, contact me before the deadline.

Why This Matters

We’re surrounded by arguments designed to persuade usin advertisements, political messaging, news commentary, social media, and everyday conversation. Most of these arguments contain logical fallacies, and most of us fall for them more often than we’d like to admit. The ability to identify fallacies doesn’t make you immune to persuasion, but it does give you a chance to pause, recognize when your buttons are being pushed, and decide whether an argument actually deserves your agreement.

This skill transfers directly to your life beyond this course. You’ll evaluate arguments from politicians, advertisers, employers, colleagues, friends, and family. You’ll recognize when you’re being manipulatedand, just as importantly, when you’re manipulating yourself. Critical thinking isn’t about being contrarian or cynical. It’s about engaging with arguments on their merits rather than their emotional pull.