Logical Fallacies and How to avoid them in Business Communications<\/p>\n
[Name of Author]<\/p>\n
[Institutional Affiliation]<\/p>\n
Logical Fallacies and How to avoid them in Business Communications<\/p>\n
The field of business communications is commonly characterized by negotiations, arguments, bargains, and communiqu\u00e9s that determine the successes and failures of business organizations. While many corporate institutions may handle their communications casually, Guffey and Loewy (2010) opine that the possibility of committing fallacies in such communiqu\u00e9s may cost a business its reputation. It is for this reason that many organizations learn to identify and avoid logical fallacies.<\/p>\n
Logical fallacies are substantial flaws in logic and reasoning that lead to unsound conclusions in relation to rationality. Considerably prevalent, \u2018Ad hominem\u2019 is a fallacy that defines biases and prejudiced judgment in relation to opponents\u2019 character or personality (Grcic, 2006). Because this hampers business, it is important that those involved should focus on important subjects rather than opponents\u2019 personality. Another common fallacy is \u2018Post hoc ergo propter hoc\u2019 which directly implies \u201cafter this, therefore because of this\u201d (Grcic, 2006). An analogical situation that may indicate this is when an employee goes to a party with a boss and is promoted the next day. To avoid this fallacy, one should not believe that all occurrences are outcomes of preceding events. They may end up becoming overly casual with bosses. Perhaps the most common fallacy is \u2018Faulty generalization\u2019 which involves making rush decisions and drawing quick conclusions based on incomplete evidence or faulty parallelism. Again this can be avoided by keen analysis of situations and concepts (Van, 2011).<\/p>\n
\u2018False analogy\u2019 and \u2018either \/ or\u2019 also occur as major fallacies in business communications. In the former, the sharing of a characteristic between two or more elements may make one assume that the elements share all characteristics (Grcic, 2006). An example would be an assumption that professors are lazy because you know one who is lazy. In \u2018either \/ or,\u2019 one presents an argument whereby their suggestion is preferred or the only other alternative is unacceptable. The \u2018Straw man fallacy\u2019 also occurs when an individual simplifies points presented by their opponents and proceeds based on their simplifications (Van, 2011). Markedly, all the fallacies can be avoided by critical thinking, logical analysis, fair judgment, and proper scrutiny of principles applied in making various conclusions.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Grcic, J. (2006). Logic & life: An introduction to applied logic and critical thinking. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.<\/p>\n
Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2010). Business Communication: Process and Product. Mason, OH: South-Western\/Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n
Van, V. J. E. (2011). Informal logical Fallacies: A brief Guide. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Logical Fallacies and How to avoid them in Business Communications [Name of Author] [Institutional Affiliation] Logical Fallacies and How to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n