In this assignment, you will compose three original examples of informal fallacy arguments. This assignment allows you to examine common fallacies in everyday reasoning.
Start by reading the article “Fallacies of Logic: Argumentation Cons” found in the Argosy University
Online Library.
Shapiro, I. D. (2007). Fallacies of logic: Argumentation cons. et Cetera, 64(1), 75–86. Retrieved from
Using the types of arguments listed in this article or in the module readings, respond to the following:
Draft two original fallacies. Do not identify the fallacies, allow your peers to determine what fallacy your
example represents.
Next, using the Internet, respond to the following:
Research a third informal fallacy not already covered in the readings.
Identify and define the fallacy. For example, appeal to tradition, false dichotomy, etc.
Explain why this type of fallacy is a bad way of reasoning.
Construct an original fallacy argument of that type.
Provide a citation for your source. Ensure that you apply APA standards to the citation of sources.
Support your statements with examples and scholarly references.
Write your initial response in 200–300 words.


If feminists take over the world, the male species is endangered. This argument falls into
the thin entering wedge con. It proposes that since feminists have been alluded to trying to
shift the balance of power between men and women to the feminine side, should they win,
they are most likely going to cause a decline in the male position in the society. This
argument borders on incidences in the past where the woman has scored a victory over a man
usually shows how the man was shamed by the woman for losing. The pride and position that
the victorious feminist acquires lead her to channel the victory in ensuring the man feels
inadequate and weak(Glick et al 2000) .
This fallacy is however faulty. This is because as much as feminists fight for the rights of
women and insist on gender equality, them achieving that doctrine does not mean that they
will lead to the declination of the male status in the society. In fact, several outcomes could
develop from this situation irrespective of the con mentioned above. In fact, if feminists were
to achieve their goals, they would open the door for implementation of universal human
rights and fight subordinating and physically harmful tribal practices, for instance, genital
mutilation, all over the world (Judith 2012).
To a person who is emotionally invested in this issue, the argument would pass as correct
since it triggers a bias in their discernment of the statement. However, being critical while
indulging in the debate would draw out the conclusive statement as being speculative and
over-generalized (Shapiro 2007).


Lorber, J. (2010). The Variety of Feminisms and their Contribution to Gender Equality.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … & Annetje, B.
(2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across
cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 763.
Shapiro, I. D. (2007). Fallacies of logic: argumentation cons. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 64(1), 75-86.

Order Your Original Paper here.