fallacious

简明释义

英[fəˈleɪʃəs]美[fəˈleɪʃəs]

adj. 谬误的；骗人的；靠不住的；不合理的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.This is a fairly fallacious argument.

这是一个相当靠不住的论调。

2.The earlier belief that the Sun moves round the Earth was fallacious.

人们以前认为太阳绕着地球转，这种看法是错误的。

3.Numerous examples might be cited to support fallacious claims, but they most often lack a relevance to the issue under discussion.

年夜概有良多例子支撑错误的主张，但它们常常缺少和正在讨论的题目的相干性。

4.Nothing is so fallacious as fact, except figures.

除了数字外，没有一样东西是像事实那样靠不住的。

5.A model of fallacy is a pattern of fallacious argument, not the pure formal structure in strict syntax.

谬误模式是谬误论证的型式，并不是严格的语法学意义上的纯形式结构。

6.The argument is fallacious , for it is based on a set of factual flaws.

除了数字外，没有一样东西是像事实那样靠不住的。

7.Numerous examples might be cited to support fallacious claims, they most often lack a relevance to the issue under discussion.

可能有例子支持错误的主张，但经常缺少和正在讨论的问题的相关性。

8.I say this is fallacious, not because no man ever ACTS from a sense of duty, but because duty has no hold on him unless he desires to be dutiful.

我之所以说这是异想天开，不是因为从来没有人表现的很有责任，而是因为如果不是一个人渴望表现的有责任心，则责任一词对他毫无意义。

9.His argument was based on a fallacious 谬误的 assumption that all politicians are corrupt.

他的论点基于一个谬误的假设，即所有政治家都是腐败的。

10.The study's conclusion was deemed fallacious 错误的 because it relied on insufficient data.

该研究的结论被认为是错误的，因为它依赖于不足的数据。

11.Many people fall for fallacious 谬误的 reasoning when it comes to conspiracy theories.

在阴谋论方面，许多人容易上当受骗，接受谬误的推理。

12.The lawyer pointed out the fallacious 不合理的 logic in the opposing counsel's argument.

律师指出了对方辩护律师论点中的不合理的逻辑。

13.Using a fallacious 错误的 analogy can weaken your argument significantly.

使用错误的类比会显著削弱你的论点。

作文

In today's world, where information is abundant and easily accessible, it is crucial to develop critical thinking skills. Many individuals often fall prey to misleading arguments and erroneous reasoning. Such arguments are often termed as fallacious (谬误的) because they appear convincing at first glance but ultimately lack sound logic. Understanding the nature of fallacious (谬误的) reasoning can help us navigate through various discussions, especially in fields like politics, advertising, and social media. To illustrate this point, consider the common logical fallacy known as 'ad hominem.' This type of argument attacks the person making a claim rather than addressing the claim itself. For example, during a debate about climate change, one might say, "You can't trust her opinion on environmental issues because she drives a gas-guzzling SUV." This statement is fallacious (谬误的) because it diverts attention from the actual argument about climate change and instead focuses on the individual's character. Recognizing such fallacious (谬误的) tactics is essential for maintaining a rational discourse. Another prevalent form of fallacious (谬误的) reasoning is the 'straw man' fallacy. In this scenario, an individual misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. For instance, if someone advocates for reducing meat consumption for health and environmental reasons, a fallacious (谬误的) response might be, "So you want everyone to be vegetarian and give up their favorite foods?" This oversimplification distorts the original argument, making it easier to refute. By identifying such fallacious (谬误的) reasoning, we can better engage in constructive dialogue and avoid unnecessary conflicts. Moreover, the appeal to authority is another common fallacious (谬误的) argument that can mislead people. While it is reasonable to consider expert opinions, blindly accepting a claim solely based on who made it is problematic. For instance, if a celebrity endorses a particular diet plan, some may argue that it must be effective simply because a famous person supports it. This reasoning is fallacious (谬误的) because popularity does not equate to validity. It is essential to evaluate the evidence and reasoning behind claims rather than relying on authority alone. In conclusion, becoming aware of fallacious (谬误的) reasoning enhances our critical thinking abilities and helps us discern truth from deception. By recognizing common fallacies such as ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to authority, we can engage in more meaningful discussions and make informed decisions. In an age where misinformation spreads rapidly, developing the ability to identify fallacious (谬误的) arguments is not just beneficial but necessary for intellectual growth and societal progress. We must strive to think critically, question assumptions, and seek clarity in our conversations to foster a more informed and rational society.

在当今信息丰富且易于获取的世界中，发展批判性思维技能至关重要。许多人常常容易受到误导性论点和错误推理的影响。这类论点通常被称为fallacious（谬误的），因为它们乍一看似乎令人信服，但最终缺乏合理的逻辑。理解fallacious（谬误的）推理的性质可以帮助我们在各种讨论中导航，尤其是在政治、广告和社交媒体等领域。 为了说明这一点，考虑一种常见的逻辑谬误，称为“人身攻击”。这种类型的论点攻击提出主张的人，而不是直接回应主张本身。例如，在关于气候变化的辩论中，有人可能会说：“你不能相信她对环境问题的看法，因为她开的是一辆耗油的SUV。”这个说法是fallacious（谬误的），因为它转移了对气候变化实际论点的注意力，而专注于个人的品格。识别这样的fallacious（谬误的）策略对于保持理性的讨论至关重要。 另一种普遍存在的fallacious（谬误的）推理形式是“稻草人”谬误。在这种情况下，个人歪曲对手的论点，使其更容易被攻击。例如，如果有人倡导减少肉类消费以促进健康和保护环境，一个fallacious（谬误的）回应可能是：“所以你想让每个人都成为素食主义者，放弃他们最喜欢的食物？”这种过于简单化的说法扭曲了原始论点，使其更容易被反驳。通过识别这样的fallacious（谬误的）推理，我们可以更好地参与建设性的对话，避免不必要的冲突。 此外，诉诸权威也是一种常见的fallacious（谬误的）论点，可能会误导人们。虽然考虑专家意见是合理的，但仅仅根据谁提出一个主张而盲目接受该主张是有问题的。例如，如果一位名人支持某种饮食计划，有些人可能会认为这一定有效，仅仅因为有名人支持它。这种推理是fallacious（谬误的），因为受欢迎程度并不等同于有效性。评估证据和推理背后的理由，而不是单纯依赖权威，是至关重要的。 总之，意识到fallacious（谬误的）推理能够增强我们的批判性思维能力，帮助我们辨别真相与欺骗。通过识别常见的谬误，如人身攻击、稻草人和诉诸权威，我们可以参与更有意义的讨论，并做出明智的决策。在错误信息迅速传播的时代，发展识别fallacious（谬误的）论点的能力不仅有益，而且对智力成长和社会进步是必要的。我们必须努力批判性思考，质疑假设，并在对话中寻求清晰，以促进一个更加知情和理性的社会。