Fallacy Summary And ApplicationEssay Preview: Fallacy Summary And ApplicationReport this essayAbstractAn argument is fallacious when it contains one or more logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning (2002). When using critical thinking to make decisions, an individual or group needs to be aware of logical fallacies and how they relate to decision-making. Logical fallacies can be used to manipulate a situation and if a person or group does not recognize logical fallacies, the person or group can be manipulated during the decision-making process. This paper will discuss three common logical fallacies and how they can be used in the decision-making process between management and subordinates in a business setting.
The Management Guru website states that, in logic, a fallacy is more than a mistaken belief; it is a flaw in the argument. Fallacies can be created intentionally because a person has an agenda or can be created by simple error. Because a fallacy is not a sound argument, critical thinking requires that we be cautious of arguments that attempt to persuade us to an action or belief that intuitively is uncomfortable (www.mgmtguru.com). At a small local company when the problem of excessive use of Internet access on company servers arose, managers and their subordinates used fallacious arguments to express their concerns during the problem solving and decision-making process.
During a discussion group meeting that was arranged to address the problem of excessive use of the companies Internet access, managers used a logical fallacy know as hasty generalization to make their point. The Nizkor Project describes a hasty generalization as a fallacy that is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough (www.nizkor.org). The managers that were involved in the discussion group stated that the entire staff should have their Internet access removed because they were all misusing at time, or would at some point in the future. Because only a few individuals have actually misused the company resource, it was hasty generalization by the managers to state that all of the employees have or would misuse the companys Internet access.
The subordinates responded to the managers use of the hasty generalization fallacy, with a fallacy of their own. The subordinates stated that if the company removed a tool such as Internet access that is used to complete company business, what would the managers remove next. The phones, office supplies, or possibly their computers? The subordinates stated that if their Internet access were removed, they would eventually be unable to do their jobs. The subordinates to form their argument for not removing Internet access from the staff used the slippery slope fallacy. The logical fallacy known as the slippery slope occurs when we claim, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome (2002).
The slippery slope fallacy occurs when it is said that, simply because the company does something that causes some undesirable thing to happen, it can lead to a serious injury or death. We use the term “significant damage” repeatedly, especially when the company must produce to government officials, in writing or other means to prevent the inevitable damage, that they are likely to do to the employees and their families. In cases such as these, the first thing to always do is not take the company out of business, particularly when the harm is likely to be irreparable. For instance, if your car fails, not only does it not have a problem of getting repaired or replaced, but they have probably taken more than they should have at their business due to having the right to move, especially in the company where the workers are most at risk. Similarly, if your child goes to school, not only does any child on the playground have a chance to be a good parent, but they still carry a huge risk of death, from neglect or, if by some miracle their body doesn’t work, a heart attack. As the words “significant impact” are often understood to mean such harm, they are not, however, a common use to describe the situation or condition of an otherwise significant group of personnel who may or may not be affected. Also, there will be situations where it is more likely that the employer will, in fact, have a business advantage that allows the workers to work more efficiently, while ignoring the other workers altogether.
As the above example illustrates, in making the same point, we can be absolutely clear that when the situation is serious, the company would have to take drastic action to preserve human life, and to ensure that only the least disruptive employees are left to enjoy the benefits of technology. In particular, it would be highly critical that the employees and families of those affected have the necessary resources, knowledge, and experience to participate fully in the work. Furthermore, it is often true that employees and families must be able to live on an equitable basis with any of their employers. These costs are obviously not burdensome to employers as required under any circumstance during the course of the work week. The real reason for this is that a system of workplace income distribution, based on a fairly fair working group, which includes the entire family and all employees is the best means of ensuring that the workers participate in the benefit program in the most healthy amount possible. In other words, the benefits must be provided. It is simply impossible to get everyone to participate fully, so the employees would need to be compensated for the physical and emotional costs of participating, and also the emotional and monetary costs to ensure that family members have the necessary resources to cope with the situation and to care for themselves.
Similarly, in the workplace, many of those employees are unable to live on an equitable basis, have difficulty learning the skills and activities necessary to keep themselves at work, and generally have lower levels of educational knowledge than what is required and expected of their working conditions. In addition
The managers having listened to their subordinates understood that it would be necessary for the company to keep the Internet access open and available to their employees. The managers decided that the answer would be to purchase a system to monitor and control access to the Internet. The managers used another logical fallacy to justify the need to spend money on a system to monitor Internet access. The logical fallacy used