TED. (2015, December 8). The ethical dilemma of self-driving cars / Patrick Lin

TED. (2015, December 8). The ethical dilemma of self-driving cars / Patrick Lin [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixIoDYVfKA0
Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Identify at least one specific rhetorical device and one specific logical fallacy in the way this topic is presented. Be sure to define the rhetorical device and fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of each device and fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument
Rhetorical devices
“—Euphemisms: seek to mute the disagreeable aspects of something or to emphasize its agreeable aspects
—Dysphemisms: seek to emphasize the disagreeable aspects of something
—Weaselers: seek to protect a claim by weakening it
—Downplayers: seek to tone down the importance of something
—Stereotypes: a cultural belief about a social group’s attributes, usually simplified or exaggeratedpage 167
—Innuendo: using the power of suggestion to disparage someone or something
—Loaded questions: questions that depend on unwarranted assumptions
—Ridicule and sarcasm: widely used to put something in a bad light
—Hyperbole: overdone exaggeration
—Rhetorical definitions and explanations: definitions and explanations used to express or influence attitudes or affect behavior by invoking images with emotional associations
—Rhetorical analogies: analogies used to express or influence attitudes or affect behavior by invoking images with emotional associations
—Proof surrogates suggest there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually saying what the evidence or authority
—Repetition: hearing or reading a claim over and over can sometimes mistakenly encourage the belief that it is true”
.
logical fallacies
“Hasty generalization—generalizing from too few cases or from samples that are too small
Generalizing from exceptional cases—generalizing from cases that are exceptional or from samples that are biased (skewed)
Accident—applying a general statement to a possibly exceptional case
Weak analogy—offering an argument based on debatable similarities between two or more things
Mistaken appeal to authority—attempting to support a claim by citing a source that is not really an authority
Mistaken appeal to popularity—treating an issue that cannot be settled by public opinion as if it could
Bandwagon fallacy—thinking we should do something simply because most people are doing it
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc—thinking that a temporal succession between two variables, in and of itself, establishes a cause-and-effect connection between them
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc—thinking that simultaneity between two variables, in and of itself, establishes a cause-and-effect connection between the
Slippery slope—offering an argument resting on an unsupported warning that something will progress by degrees to an undesirable outcome
Untestable explanation—an argument based on an untestable explanation
“Argumentum ad hominem—attempting to dismiss a source’s position by discussing the source rather than the position
Straw man—attempting to dismiss a source’s position by misrepresenting it
False dilemma—attempting to establish a point by pretending it is the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
Misplacing the burden of proof—attempting to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of an issue
Begging the question—attempting to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question. Offering a claim as evidence of its own truth.
Appeal to emotion—attempting to “support” a contention by playing on our emotions rather than by producing a real argument
Irrelevant conclusion—relevance fallacies that do not fit into the previous categories”