A fallacy is a form of argument which is incorrect logically as well as rhetorically thereby resulting into lack of weight and in most cases they tend to lack some soundness. Fallacies usually take two forms that are informal fallacies and formal fallacies. This paper seeks to investigate the various types of fallacies and how the O’Reilly versions of facts and opinions are based on a given fallacy.
Formal fallacy is a misleading notion where there is a fault in judgment that is typically in the nature of an argument without accepting the content of the notion been put forward. This fallacy is evident in the O’Reilly factor show whereby, some argument have fault in their verdict. Another accepted form of fallacy is conjunction misleading notion. This misleading notion occurs once a hypothesis is made concerning a result concurrently gratifying a number of situations and it is possible that the outcome of the situation will gratify a single result instead of them all. The guests in the O’Reilly show usually tends to make arguments that have this form of fallacy.
Fallacy of division is a type of fallacy that assumes that something factual of a given situation must be factual about other similar situations. For instance, the fallacy argues that if a given situation gives result all the other similar situations should give the same results. The host in the show under review tends to make conclusions that situations will always give similar results in future there making misleading arguments to their audience. Etymological fallacy argues that the historical or original meaning of a phrase or word is essentially comparable to its concrete current day meaning. For instance, according to this fallacy if the word school ten years ago meant an institution where students and pupils are taught, when will make an assumption that the word school has the same meaning today. In addition, there is a fallacy of false attribution. In this fallacy an individual do advocate for an appeal that is from irrelevant, unidentified, unqualified source to support the argument that he or has. This type of fallacy is usually used by politicians who use unverified sources of information to support their arguments. A fallacy of dilemma is another type of fallacy. According to this fallacy two substitute statements are apprehended to be the simply potential options, when in real sense there are many other options. Fallacy of equivocation occurs when there is a misleading usage of a term which has more than one denotation in real sense.
On the other hand, we have a fallacy of continuum. This fallacy occurs when a claim is improperly rejected for being vague. Argument to moderation is another form of fallacy. The fallacy occurs when an assumption is made that the compromise in a given situation is always correct. Another fallacy that is common is the gambler’s fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a wrong belief that bring separation between independent events do affect the probability of another unsystematic events occurring (Engel and Morris, pg 90). Finally, we have a fallacy of argument from ignorance. The fallacy do occurs when an assumption is made about a certain claim to be true since the claim has not been proven otherwise.
The O’Reilly Factor show in most cases has some arguments which are fallacious in nature. There are two forms of fallacies that are evident in the arguments that are put across during the show. Misleading notion arising from lack of knowledge is clear in the show where a good number of those engaged in various debates in the show usually to makes assumptions of given claims to be true or false since an opposing claim has not yet been put across. Another misleading notion that is manifest in the show is the misleading notion of false ascription. The debaters tend to make a number of contributions from unproven sources thus building claims that are ambiguous in the long run.