Logic fallicies to avoid in email - part II

 My last blog, which was posted on September 15th, featured an overview of logic and how it has influenced presented ideas or opinions in proper (or improper) ways. Listed here are addition fallacies of logic. These arguably appear occur in email far more frequently than most people think. Many email senders inadvertently make these mistakes. Sometimes, these make sense when written in haste, but they can often backfire as well, with poor results for the sender.

1.   Argumentum ad numerum—This is a deduction that, since a majority of people believe something, it is true: Eighty percent of our employees do not believe we have to answer customer emails within twenty-four hours, so our corporate policy should be to reply within one week.
2.     Argumentum ad ignorantiam—This fallacy specifically assumes something is correct because it has not been proven otherwise: My emails are well written, because no one has ever complained about them.
3.     Tu quo que—This is the “you too” argument that counters a mistake or fallacy by claiming the accuser has done the same: You claim my emails are rude in content, but so are yours. Although the statement may be true, it does not make the mistake correct simply by stating that someone else does it.
4.     Begging the question (petitio principii)—This logic abuse uses the same statement in a premise as in its conclusion: Our company’s employee emails are great because we studied the best email tutorials and we write great emails.
5.     Moral equivalence—This argumentative fallacy begins with a statement and concludes with a moral exaggeration: We will win because our side is more caring.
6.     Hasty generalization—This is a theory or conclusion made with a paucity of collaborative information. This has been a very cool summer, so there is no such thing as global climate change.
7.     Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this)— This asserts that because two loosely related items occur simultaneously, each has a direct causal effect on the other: During the last five years, whenever our team has had a lead in the last quarter, we have won. We are now leading starting the last quarter, so we will win.
8.     Fallacy of a complex question—These are forms of wrong dilemmas that only offer one solution: Is it true you’ve stopped spanking your children?


Great news and an announcement!

My book, NetiquetteIQ - A Comprehensive Guide to Improve, Enhance and Add Power to Your Email has gone on sale at the CreateSpace estore:

http://createspace.com/4083121

As a NetiquetteIQ blog reader, you can use the discount code KBQALZA7. This discount is only through the estore. Thank you for your support on the blog and with the book. The book and Kindle version will soon be available on Amazon.

#PaulBabicki

#netiquette

Please visit our website http://netiquetteiq.com

Great news and an announcement!

My book, NetiquetteIQ - A Comprehensive Guide to Improve, Enhance and Add Power to Your Email has gone on sale at the CreateSpace estore:

http://createspace.com/4083121

As a NetiquetteIQ blog reader, you can use the discount code KBQALZA7. This discount is only through the estore. Thank you for your support on the blog and with the book. The book and Kindle version will soon be available on Amazon.

#PaulBabicki

#netiquette

Please visit our website http://netiquetteiq.com
















 
 
 
 
 
 

Logic fallicies to avoid in email - part I

Good Netiquette is most often characterized with less verbose and more effective word usage. Nevertheless, even the simplest statements, paragraphs, or sentences can and should have not only good basics but also good logic, reasoning, and arguments. Even with perfect grammar, tone, content, and structure, poor logic or fallacies can significantly undermine the intent and content of even the simplest of emails.

        The study of logic dates back to ancient Greece and has always been an integral part of reasoning and providing arguments or theories. There are some basic rules of logic that should always be applied to communication. The following identify some of these and provide some brief examples of how each can be misused:

1.   False dilemma—This argument states that a solution must be one of two choices: Either we support the war, or we are unpatriotic.

2.   Ad hominem—Using a personal part or belief of a person to prove an argument: Because English is not his first language, he cannot write good emails.

3.   Straw man (argumentum ad logicum)—This statement generalizes a viewpoint and then belittles it by extending it beyond its original premise: The president vetoed the oil companies’ exemptions; therefore, he is against large corporations.

4.   Red herring (ad misericordiam)—This attempts to evoke pity to aid in a request: This job should be given to me because I have not worked in two years.

5.   Slippery slope (non sequitur)—This fallacy assumes one action or condition will lead to a different condition: If I am not hired for this position, your customers will buy from someone else.

6.   Repetitive argument (argumentum ad nauseam)—This is an assertion made over and over to try to prove a point: As I have told you in my last three emails, you should give my staff a raise to increase productivity.

7.   Argumentum ad antiquitatum—A statement that asserts something must be right because it has traditionally been done the same way: We have never had email complaints, so there’s no need to add disclaimers.

Watch for the forthcoming book by Paul Babicki "NetiquetteIQ, A Comprehensive Guide to Improve, Enhance and Add Power to Your Email". There will also be a product to test one's Netiquette "IQ". The website is at www.netiquetteiq.com. Register for coupons of the IQ test and the book.
#netiquette
#paulbabicki