Bad arguments are everywhere — in courtrooms, online debates, and everyday life. Learn to identify the most common logical fallacies and understand why they fail, so you can argue smarter and think clearer.
Lawyers are professional arguers, and the best ones win not by being louder but by thinking more clearly. This camp teaches you to spot the logical mistakes that derail arguments in courtrooms, classrooms, and everyday conversation.
You’ll start with ad hominem attacks — when someone attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. In legal settings, this can look like a lawyer discrediting a witness’s character rather than addressing the substance of their testimony. You’ll learn to recognize this tactic and understand why it’s logically invalid.
The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. You’ll study how this works in legal briefs, closing arguments, and public debate, and practice identifying when someone is arguing against a position nobody actually holds.
Appeal to authority is tricky because sometimes authority matters — expert witnesses exist for a reason. You’ll learn the difference between a legitimate reliance on expertise and using credentials to bypass actual evidence. You’ll also study how courts evaluate expert qualifications under the Daubert standard.
Finally, Slippery slope arguments predict extreme consequences without evidence. You’ll learn to distinguish between a valid chain of reasoning and an unsupported claim that allowing one thing will inevitably lead to disaster.
There are no bookable times for this class listing yet.
Please sign in to complete enrollment.
