Formatting, Grammar, and Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning
Formatting and Grammar
Every rubric includes a category for “Formatting/Grammar”, which covers spelling, language, adherence to instructions, and overall professionalism. Research papers must use formal, professional language, and should be free from spelling errors, run-on sentences, and other grammatical mistakes.
When writing, avoid casual terms such as “project” or “our group”. Write as though your study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Refer to those participating in your study as “participants” and assign identifiers such as “Participant 1”, “Participant 2”, etc. Remember: IRB training guidelines require you to maintain the confidentiality of your participants. If you need hep deciding how to format this, please ask.
Limit the use of pronouns. Instead of:
“We exercised and then collected blood pressure, heart rate, and EKG”.
Use:
“All participants walked on a treadmill for five minutes at a speed of four. Immediately after exercise, manual blood pressure, heart rate via pulse oximeters, and 12-lead EKG data were collected within three minutes of completion.”
Avoid contractions (e.g., use “cannot” instead of “can’t”) and only use acronyms after introducing their full forms. For example, write:
“Expiratory reserve volume (ERV)” the first time, then use “ERV” for subsequent references.
If you feel unsure about your writing skills, consider utilizing the college’s Writing Center for assistance with the “General Formatting” requirements.
Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning
Scientists use the scientific method to ensure logical inquiry and valid conclusions. A fallacy, or error in reasoning, occurs when conclusions are not supported by evidence. For example:
Fallacy: “Turtles are animals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, turtles are mammals.”
While the first two statements are true, the conclusion is incorrect because it is not supported by evidence.
Fallacy: “Carrots can kill you because 100 % of people who eat carrots eventually die.” While technically factual, this reasoning is flawed and misleading.
Recognizing and Avoiding Fallacies
Fallacious reasoning undermines the validity of your conclusions. Whether intentional or unintentional, fallacies can sway opinions and weaken arguments. Developing skills in logic and reasoning will help you identify and avoid these errors.
The table below outlines common fallacies and their tactics. Review it to ensure your work is logical, evidence-based, and free from reasoning errors.
By maintaining a high standard of writing and critical thinking, you will ensure your research meets the expectations of scientific rigor. If you have any questions about formatting or reasoning, please reach out for guidance.
| TACTIC | DEFINITION/EXPLANATION | PROBLEM/ISSUE | EXAMPLE |
| Extraordinary Claims | Claim to revolutionary products, devices, effects, etc. | It is extremely rare to have something revolutionary, yet this is used often | “If you use our product, you will lose weight” |
| Anecdotal Evidence | includes testimonials or stories from individuals about a certain event | It may be neither falsifiable nor verifiable under neutral conditions. Too many questions unanswered | New product on the market using “real customers” to show the effects. |
| False Causation Claim | Stating causation without considering confounding variables. | Causation is very hard to prove. Correlation does NOT equal causation | Researchers in a study published in a scientific journal discovered children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to become myopic (nearsighted) later in life. A second study did not find a link between infants sleeping with the light on and development of myopia. A strong association was found between parental and child myopia. Myopic parents more frequently left a light on in their child’s room than non-myopic parents. Thus, the lights and myopia in children were positively correlated; however, the causative factor was probably genetic. |
| Strawman Fallacy | Simplified or misrepresented argument so it is easier to “knock over”. | The full reasoning is not explained, thus not all data is presented | Person 1: “I like tacos more than pizza.”
Person 2: “Why do you hate pizza?” |
| Ad Hominem | Instead of criticizing the argument/ideas of the person with whom you are conversing, you criticize the person themselves for things not pertaining to the argument. | Claiming to criticize their argument when nothing about the argument was presented. | The CEO of a company was found to have a criminal record; therefore, all products of this company are bad. |
| Bandwagon | A rationalization that because lots of people are doing/saying it, it must be true or a good thing to do/trust. | Other people believing or doing something, no matter how many, does not replace scientific research and facts. | I looked up data about COVID vaccines, but everyone I know is saying they are dangerous. I guess I should be on the safe side and not get it |
| Black & White Fallacy/False Dichotomy/False Dilemma | Presenting limited choices as the only choices when there are additional choices available. | Eliminates the complexity/nuance of a situation or argument and takes out critical thinking | “It’s either going to be hot or cold today.”
It could be one or the other or somewhere in the middle. Some parts may be hot and some cold. Also consider difference of perceptions-if some like the cold/hot |
| Guilt by Association | Making a claim about someone based on their affiliation with a group, making a false claim about said group as well. | One’s affiliations does not define who they are. Also, as with all generalizations, they are rarely (if ever) accurate. | My surgeon tried to tell me I was doing too much after my surgery and needed rest, like I don’t know what my own body can take. Of course, a surgeon would be so rude and condescending. |
| Appeal to Fear | A claim trying to use fear to get them to agree | Using people’s emotions against them is a deceitful and effective tactic. This is one of the most difficult to detect as our brains are wired to use emotion to make decisions | If you take that vaccine, you will end up with side effects that are worse. |
| Hasty Generalization | A very broad claim about a specific group of people based on one example | Making overgeneralizations will never lead to anything good, especially when data is concerned | I just saw a woman in a minivan make a stupid mistake while driving. Soccer moms are the worst drivers |
Establishing Causality in Scientific Experiments
How can one establish causality? The most common effective approach is through a controlled study. In such a study, two comparable groups are randomly assigned to different experiments (e.g., one group watches soap operas, and the other watches game shows), and their outcomes (e.g., success in college algebra) are compared. If the outcomes differ substantially between the groups, the differing experiences may have caused the variation.
This type of experiment is known as a randomized controlled experiment because participants are randomly assigned to groups. However, long-term randomized experiments on humans are often challenging due to ethical and practical limitations. As a result, scientists frequently rely on other types of controlled studies, though these provide less robust evidence than randomized experiments.
- Prospective controlled experiments: Groups are formed based on a specific prior characteristic such as the type of TV show individuals regularly watch. For example, one group may consist of individuals who watch only soap operas, while the other watches only game shows. Researchers then compare the desired outcome, such as performance in college algebra, between the two groups.
- Retrospective controlled experiments: Groups are created based on outcome. For instance, one group might include students who earned a C or better in college algebra, while the other consists of students who earned a D or E. Researchers then examine whether there is a significant difference in the type of TV show watched by individuals in each group.
Even in well-designed experiments, one must be cautions about evaluator bias, unaccounted variables, and other confounding factors. True confidence in causality arises only when multiple independent experiments yield the same conclusion. Even then, scientists avoid terms like “proof” or “facts” because the possibility of overlooked factors always exists.
When developing hypotheses and designing experiments, adhere to these two key principles:
- Occam’s Razor: Begin with the simplest explanation for a situation, keep it simple.
- Testable Predictions: Your hypothesis must lead to predictions than can be clearly measured and evaluated.
Working Like a Scientist
As this is a science lab, approach experiments, data analysis, and discussions with logic and reason. Avoid fallacious reasoning and strive for scientific rigor in all aspects of your work.
Peer Review and Collaboration:
Before submitting any section of your project, have your group members peer-review it to ensure you’ve addressed all points on the rubric. It’s highly recommended to collaborate with another group for additional feedback. Fresh perspectives often catch critical details that you might miss in your own work.
Open Lab Hours:
Remember, open lab hours are an excellent opportunity to get help with any part of your POPS Project. Take advantage of these sessions to refine your work and ensure your experiments meet scientific standards.
Adapted from Human Physiology Lab Manual by Jim Blevins, Melaney Farr, and Arleen Sawitzke, Salt Lake Community College.
