1. Logical reasoning of landslide:

Because a leads to b, b leads to c, c leads to d, and d leads to e, we come to the conclusion that a leads to e. ..

Example: the butterfly effect.

Exodus: If I don't study hard, the failure rate of China Normal University will increase. If the failure rate of China Normal University rises, it shows that the level of running a school in China Normal University is declining. If the running level of China Normal University is declining, it means that the running level of 2 1 1 of a key university in Hubei Province is declining. If the level of a key 2 1 1 university in Hubei Province is declining, it means that the level of universities in Hubei Province is declining. The decline in the level of colleges and universities in Hubei Province will lead to a decline in the academic level of the whole country. The decline of China's academic level will lead to the decline of China's comprehensive national strength. So we come to the conclusion that if I don't study hard, China's comprehensive national strength will decrease.

Explanation:

(1) Causality is not simply caused by reason, but by the existence of major premise and minor premise. The logic line of landslide logic reasoning only puts forward a minor premise, and its major premise has actually been omitted. With such a long logical line, some major premises of logical reasoning may be contradictory, so this logical reasoning cannot be established.

(2) The reason for the formation of a thing is not single, but often the result of a series of complex factors. Even if every step of landslide logical reasoning is correct, it can only be concluded that this factor is one of the reasons for this result, and it cannot be simply and rudely said that this factor is the reason for this result, let alone that this factor is the key reason for this result. But sophists often make people think that the three are equivalent through superb language skills.

2. Consistency discussion:

Because everyone does this, it is right (moral) to do so.

Example: Because pedestrians run red lights, it is a correct and ethical behavior for pedestrians to run red lights.

Explanation: The key point of this sophistry is that although his argument is really untenable, it is difficult for you to convince everyone that his argument is wrong. The reason is that under normal circumstances, due to the influence of utilitarian moral factors, the choices made by most people will indeed be defined as a "correct" behavior by administrative organs, and then enter the educational system of modern society. Especially in socialist countries that advocate collectivism, this phenomenon is becoming more and more obvious. However, what most people think is right or moral does not absolutely mean that the matter itself is moral or correct. The reason lies in the influence of liberal moral factors and the existence of human incomplete rational characteristics. Therefore, the sheep talk is also a sophistry.

3. The speaker's personal behavior inference:

Exodus: Because this man is mentally retarded, what he said is wrong.

Explanation: Obviously, the speaker's moral level and ability level are related to the correctness of what he said. But this inference turned this "correlation" into "causality", so sophistry appeared. We can assume that if a person is completely mentally retarded, his behavior is completely irrational, and his words are completely random Chinese characters, then the possibility of "what he said is right" also exists. So this sophistry is untenable.

4. Fuzzy reasoning:

Because we are at war, we don't need to do environmental protection.

Explanation: Like the sophistry in the previous article, "being at war" has nothing to do with "needing environmental protection". To take a step back, even from the perspective of relevance, we can only say that "being at war" and "being able to do environmental protection" are related. However, fuzzy reasoning directly says that there is a causal relationship between the two, which is obviously a deliberate confusion of concepts.

5. Inappropriate analogy:

Example: ellipsis.

Explanation: Strictly speaking, any degree of analogy argument belongs to "inappropriate analogy argument". The logic of analogical argument is this: because A is generally accepted and B is similar to A in some respects, B is also established. But we know that in order to be truly "completely suitable", "some aspects" must approach "all relevant aspects" and "similarity" must approach "similarity". But what can really do the above two things, under normal circumstances, are two identical things. In this case, if you can prove that A is established, then your purpose has actually been achieved, and the analogy is meaningless. So generally speaking, all analogies are sophistry.

6. Promote the special to the general

Example: Because the smog in Wuhan is worse than that in Beijing today, the air quality in Wuhan is worse than that in Beijing.

Note: From special to general, it is not impossible. However, from special promotion to general promotion, it is only limited to extending the methods you use to study special phenomena to general problems, rather than simply and rudely extending your research results to general problems. For example, in the above case, you can judge the general air quality by studying the degree of smog. This can be extended from special to general, but it is another matter to extend your research results to general one day.

7. Error cause analysis.

Example: I didn't review before the English exam yesterday, and then I got full marks. Therefore, as long as you don't review before the English exam, you can get full marks. (or, therefore, not reviewing is the reason why I got full marks in the English exam. )

Explanation: Relevance is not equal to causality.

Summary: The core of most sophistry lies in interpreting "correlation" as "causality". A deep understanding of this is actually enough to see through all the sophistry you encounter at this stage.

Remarks: Personally, I don't advise you to use sophistry in the actual debate, but if you really can't think of a good way to fight back, you can try to use a little sophistry appropriately, but you must not be full of sophistry, especially in the argument, try to put sophistry in the questioning and free debate, otherwise, I guarantee that you will lose miserably. You have to think clearly, you are not Ma Weiwei, and you don't have her quick reaction ability. Worldliness is actually easy to be attacked by experienced debaters. If your defense is not fast enough, you are playing with fire and setting yourself on fire. Therefore, the great god Ma Weiwei can play with double sophistry, but you can't. I hope you can only use sophistry as a way to buy yourself time. You can use some humorous sophistry that catches your opponent off guard to enliven the atmosphere of the debate and buy yourself some time to think, but don't take sophistry as the way to win.