[Lecture Three] Introduction to Logic
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 43 minutes
Course summary: This lecture course by Dr. Leonard Peikoff provides a comprehensive introduction and overview of the study of logic. Through exercises provided to the reader and discussion of answers, the course covers definitions, syllogisms, fallacies, and the rules of generalization. It is equivalent to a university level course in logic. Read more »
In this lecture: The study of fallacies continues in this lecture. Dr. Peikoff elaborates on the formal fallacies as well as introducing unique Objectivist perspectives and fallacies.
Study Guide
This material is designed to help you digest the lecture content. You can also download below a PDF study guide for the entire course.
| How does linguistic ambiguity play into the fallacy of equivocation? |
| What does the amphiboly fallacy mean? How is it different from plain ambiguity? |
| Explain how the construction “all S is not P” is erroneous and to be avoided. |
| Give an original example of the accent fallacy. How is it related to excerpt lifting? |
| What does the fallacy of composition consist of? How does a valid process of reasoning sometimes lead to composition? What would be a valid example of this type of reasoning? |
| Why is an enumeration of possible answers to a question an important part of reasoning? |
| How does selecting the wrong alternative answers to a question lead to the fallacy of the false alternative? |
| How is one type of general opposition to logical rigor falsely rely on this fallacy to attack logic? |
| What is the historical reason for the prevalence of the false alternative fallacy? |
| When does the use of humor become the appeal to laughter? |
| What is the difference between the argument from intimidation and an appeal to authority? |
| Why is the fallacy of the stolen concept unique from the Objectivist perspective? |
| Explain the fallacy of cliché thinking using contemporary examples. |
| What is involved in the misuse of the mean fallacy? How can someone selectively use examples to make this always work for a given position? |
| How does this fallacy implicate the Objectivist position on compromise? |
| Why is it essential for a sample of reasoning to commit the neglected aspect fallacy? How is it related to the fallacy of special pleading? |
| Why is neglected aspect so common in economics? |
| How does the non sequitur or irrelevant conclusion fallacy represent a last hope of bad reasoning? |
| Describe how a straw man constitutes the fallacy of extension and contrast it with a reductio ad absurdum. |