Arthur Miller’s The Crucible Logical Fallacy Assignment



Arthur Miller’s The Crucible Logical Fallacy Assignment

Letitia Hughes- Barren County High School, AP Language and Composition

There are a number of claims that many of the characters in the play make in their attempts to persuade each other to think one way or another about the probability of witches in Salem and the likelihood that someone is or is not telling the truth.

You will be given an envelope with a type of logical fallacy on it. Using the fallacy definitions in your Patterns book, gain an understanding of your fallacy, then as we read the third act of the play find examples of the logical fallacies made by any of the characters in the play.

As you read, record any examples you see of the fallacy on your envelope onto index cards. Be sure to record the act and page number of each fallacy so that you can easily access it again. Once the class reading of play is completed, you will work with other members of your group who have the same fallacy envelope to develop a class power point on fallacies in The Crucible.

Requirements of Class Power Point:

Step I. Definition Slides:

Slide 1: Define your fallacy in a succinct manner so that the power point could also be used as a review of fallacy terms closer to the exam date.

*Include a background or picture that we can associate with the fallacy term.

Slide 2: A universal example not tied to The Crucible that demonstrates your fallacy.

Include citations of original sources. You may also link video clips that demonstrate your fallacy.

Step 2: Fallacies as demonstrated in The Crucible

Slides 3 and on… Exact quotes from The Crucible

Set up your fallacy in the following format for each example slide:

Each example slide(s) must contain all of these….

1. Type of fallacy committed

2. Character committing fallacy

3. Statement of fallacy (Quote the passage from the play with Act and page number)

4. Explain the problem with the argument

Fallacy List:

Begging the Question Appeal to Doubtful Authority

Argument from Analogy Misleading Statistics

Personal Attack/Ad Hominem Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Hasty or Sweeping Generalization Non Sequitur

False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy) Scare Tactics/Fear

Equivocation

Red Herring

You Also (Tu Quoque)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download