Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Module: Week 13 of 16 · Fall 2026 · in-person, two 75-minute sessions + one weekly Speech Workshop
Objective covered: Objective 7 — Evaluate and construct persuasive arguments using the principles of sound reasoning; identify and explain common logical fallacies in described arguments.

This file holds two pieces: (A) the Module 13 Overview page ("Start Here") and (B) the Week 13 Announcement that drips out when the module opens. Dates below assume a Tuesday/Thursday pattern with Week 13 meeting Tue Nov 17 and Thu Nov 19, a Speech Workshop that same week, and end-of-week work due Sunday Nov 22, 11:59 p.m. Adjust the day-of-week and times to match your section.

(A) Module 13 Overview — Start Here

Welcome to Week 13: Argument, Reasoning & Logical Fallacies

This is your home base for the week. Read it first, then work the checklist below from top to bottom.

You've spent the past two weeks building informative and persuasive speeches. Now we zoom in on the engine room: how does a sound argument actually work, and how do you recognize — and avoid — the flawed ones? This week you'll meet two essential frameworks. The first is the Toulmin model (Stephen Toulmin, philosopher, factual), which gives you a precision vocabulary for an argument: a claim, the evidence (grounds) that support it, and the warrant — the logical link between them. The second is a field guide to the common logical fallacies: the reasoning errors that make an argument look convincing while it quietly falls apart. By the end of the week, you'll be able to build a sound argument from scratch and spot a flawed one on first read.

The week's big question

"What makes an argument actually hold up — and what makes it look like it holds up while secretly collapsing?"

By Sunday you'll be able to distinguish the four types of reasoning, build a Toulmin-model argument (claim + evidence + warrant), and identify and explain at least eight common logical fallacies.

By the end of this week, you can…

Use this as a checklist. If you can do all four out loud, you're ready for the quiz.

• [ ] Name and describe the four types of reasoning — inductive, deductive, causal, analogical — and give an example of each.
• [ ] Diagram the Toulmin model — claim, evidence/grounds, warrant — and explain what makes the warrant load-bearing.
• [ ] Identify and name the common logical fallacies (hasty generalization, false cause, ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, bandwagon, slippery slope, false authority, red herring, begging the question, appeal to ignorance, weak analogy) from described examples.
• [ ] Explain the key misconceptions: why sequence ≠ cause; what makes an appeal to authority valid vs. a false-authority fallacy; and how ad hominem, straw man, and red herring differ from each other.

What's due this week, and when

Work these in order — each one gets you ready for the next.

Heads-up on the AI tools: the Speech Workshop this week has a specific AI-critique step where the chatbot mislabels one of the fallacies. Your job is to catch it. Chatbots get fallacy names wrong — either confidently applying the wrong label or conflating similar-looking fallacies (ad hominem vs. straw man vs. red herring is a recurring AI stumble). Trust the definitions you've learned, not the AI's confident label.

Late policy reminder: 10% off per day late. If life happens, reach out before the deadline.

How to succeed this week

• Lock in the fallacy names first. The quiz and workshop require precise labels. "It's kind of a bad argument" earns nothing; "this is a hasty generalization because it draws a universal conclusion from one or two cases" earns full credit.
• Memorize the Toulmin triad. Claim (what you're arguing), evidence/grounds (what you're citing), warrant (why that evidence proves the claim). The warrant is the step most people skip — and the step that makes or breaks the argument.
• Know the classic mix-ups. Sequence ≠ cause (that's the false-cause/post hoc fallacy). A real expert counts as authority; a random celebrity does not (false authority). Attacking the person is ad hominem; attacking a misrepresentation of their position is straw man; changing the subject is red herring.
• Non-partisan examples only. The fallacy drill uses everyday/campus arguments, not political hot takes. Reason about the structure, not the ideology.
• The chatbot will be wrong. Not "might be wrong" — the Workshop step guarantees it. Catch the mislabeling, explain why it's wrong, and name the correct fallacy. That's the skill.

You've earned this week. Week 13 is where everything from the first half of the term — ethics, research, evidence, persuasion — clicks together into a complete theory of argument. See you Tuesday.

(B) Week 13 Announcement — Module 13

Release setting: post on the module's start day (offset = 0 days), i.e., Tue Nov 17, 2026 — not before. If your platform won't preserve the scheduled date on import, post this as a draft labeled "Release: Tue Nov 17."

Subject: Week 13 — Argument & Fallacies: the week you start catching every bad argument you hear

Hi everyone,

Two words for this week: claim and warrant. A claim is what you're asserting. A warrant is why the evidence proves the claim — the logical link. Most flawed arguments have a claim and some kind of evidence, but the warrant either doesn't hold or is smuggled in and never examined. This week you'll learn to see it.

This week — Argument, Reasoning & Logical Fallacies — we tackle the big question: What makes an argument hold up, and what makes it look like it holds up while secretly collapsing?

Here's what's waiting:
- The Toulmin model (philosopher Stephen Toulmin, factual): claim → evidence/grounds → warrant. Three pieces. Every sound argument has all three.
- Four reasoning types: inductive (specific → general), deductive (general → specific), causal (cause ↔ effect), analogical (by comparison). Each has a legitimate use — and a fallacy that mimics it.
- A field guide to the common fallacies: hasty generalization, false cause, ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, bandwagon, slippery slope, false authority, red herring, begging the question, appeal to ignorance, and weak analogy. You will hear all twelve of these in the wild this week, now that you know what to look for.

Three things not to miss:
1. Speech Workshop 13 — the signature "spot the fallacy" drill: diagnose four to six described flawed arguments, then build one sound argument from scratch in Toulmin form. The workshop includes a step where the AI intentionally mislabels a fallacy — your job is to catch it.
2. Lecture Tutorial 13 — the full field guide with practice, share-link submission. Due Sun Nov 22.
3. Quiz 13 includes a matching item (fallacy → definition and/or fallacy → described example) — that's the signature item for this week. Know your labels precisely.

One word of advice: the twelve fallacies are not a memory trick. They are descriptions of specific structural flaws in reasoning. If you know why each one is a flaw, you'll remember the name automatically — and you'll be able to apply it to any argument you encounter, not just the ones on the quiz.

See you Tuesday for the fallacy field guide — and bring an argument you're not sure holds up. We'll run it through the model together.

Prof. Marchetti