This week we will do more informal argument analysis. I ask you to do a little more field work and post as last time. (All the directions are here in exercise 3.2a and in tutorial 3.2. If you don't like the scheme files, just put in the relevant information via "modify evaluation".)
One wrinkle for this week: Try to find arguments that include at least one fallacy. (Hint: One of the easiest to find is the "straw man" in political disputes! In advertising, it's common, and also the fallacy of misdirection we've called "red herring". From the fallacies from 3.5, the fallacy of "begging the question" is pretty common. And suppressed evidence most common of all. See if you can find someone trying to sell you by conveniently leaving out the bad part!)
So, for this week, emphasize the following:
But don't stress out over this! Find an interesting argument that contains some of this and do what you can with Araucaria. (Or, if you find a really nice fallacy and just can't fit it into Araucaria, just post the fallacy.)
Here's a page that might help: Strawman Posting.