Logical Fallacies Non Sequitur. Does not follow. One’s conclusions cannot be logically drawn form the premises or information presented. Ex: “The pedestrian had no idea which way to go, so I ran over him.” “Bungee-jumping is dangerous. Therefore, there should be a law against it.” The first example gives a poor conclusion for the premise. The second example gives a conclusion that does not logically follow the information given: aren’t other, better conclusions possible? Hasty Generalization. Conclusions are not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Ex: If you pick one bad apple off a tree, you cannot assume that all the apples on the tree are bad. Similarly, if you date one person on campus who turns out to be jerk, you cannot immediately assume that all people of that gender on campus are jerks. In both cases, you must have enough evidence to support your conclusion. Try more apples; have dates with other people. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this. Just because B happened after A, one cannot assume that A caused B to happen. Ex: “I forgot to bring my umbrella with me to school, so, of course, now we are having torrential downpours.” “Bob was abused as a child. That is why, at forty-five years old, Bob knocked off the 7-11 and shot the clerk.” Genetic Fallacy. Arguing that something’s origins determine its character, nature, or worth—usually an error in causal relationships. Ex: “If the car was made in Detroit, it will probably fall apart after 30,000 miles.” Stereotypes are also often a form of genetic fallacy. Begging the Question. Loading the conclusion in the claim. Ex: “Pornography should be banned because it corrupts our youth” is fine; however, “Filthy and corrupting pornography should be banned” begs the question. You must first prove that pornography is filthy and corrupting before you can state that it is. The first example here sets up a claim to be proven; the second example assumes a truth or...