Fallacies

In Chapter 11, the Epstein handbook talked about a very important topic that I find myself to run into a lot when I write argument type-based papers: fallacies. In my high school class, I was always told to stay away from fallacies because it can make your paper less credible. Obviously you are stating a flaw in a problem that you are trying to fix can mislead other people to think the other way. But I believe that if a crucial fallacy is presented in your paper with a logical solution that can solve the conflict that I can be very beneficial towards your side.

In the Epstein book, the author writes that there are three types of fallacies: structural, content, and violations of the principle of rational discussions. The first fallacy structural presents an argument that is flawed from its very own reasoning. For example, if John had to pick up Steven then Steven has to pick up John presents a misunderstanding in the statement. Next, a content fallacy presents itself with a possibility of not being true. For instance, when ever my mom comes home she calls the house around 5. When the phone rang at 5 I knew my mom was home. This argument is most likely to be true, but is not necessarily true. Finally, violations of the principle of rational discussions talks about why you shouldn’t present an error in a problem that you are trying to solve.