• Quick retrieval from earlier learning (More faulty reasoning: straw man, circular reasoning, red herring…). Students answer on mini whiteboards.
• Show answers together and note who needs support in the main task.

1. Which fallacy matches this description? Twisting an opponent's argument into a weaker or more extreme version, then attacking that. (appeal to false authority / straw man / post hoc (false cause) / circular reasoning) → straw manPrompt: Think about what each faulty move does: twist, repeat, borrow fame, distract, confuse order with cause, or play on feelings.
2. Which fallacy is used here? My favourite singer says the moon landings were faked, so I believe it. (circular reasoning / red herring / appeal to false authority / appeal to pity) → appeal to false authorityPrompt: What is wrong with the reasoning, exactly?
3. Type the fallacy (in English) that matches this description. Using the opinion of someone who is not an expert on the topic as proof. → appeal to false authorityPrompt: Think about what each faulty move does: twist, repeat, borrow fame, distract, confuse order with cause, or play on feelings.

• Read the first lines of a short text aloud and ask what students predict will happen and why.
• Share the objective: Advanced fallacies: tu quoque, equivocation, false analogy, sunk cost…. Read the success criteria together.

• Work through the example out loud, saying why you do each step, not just what you do.
• Example: Which fallacy matches this description? A question that contains an unproven assumption, so any direct answer seems to accept it.
• Step 1: Identifying fallacies precisely lets you evaluate arguments and avoid weak reasoning in your own writing.
• Step 2: loaded question: A question that contains an unproven assumption, so any direct answer seems to accept it.
• Step 3: So the answer is: loaded question
• Answer: loaded question
• Pause after each step and ask a student to say what comes next.

• Do these together. Students try each step on whiteboards before you reveal it.
• Use the hints as prompts rather than giving the answer.

1. Which fallacy matches this description? Arguing that because two things are alike in one way, they must be alike in another important way. (loaded question / sunk cost fallacy / false analogy / moving the goalposts) → false analogyPrompt: Focus on what the reasoning does wrong: deflect, shift meaning, compare unfairly, rely on habit or nature, shift the target, assume, or throw good after bad.
2. Which fallacy is used here? Why should I stop using my phone at dinner? You check yours all the time! (equivocation / moving the goalposts / tu quoque / appeal to nature) → tu quoquePrompt: What exactly is wrong with the reasoning?

• Students work on the student sheet. Circulate and check the first two answers of every student early.
• Students who finish: write a question of their own for a partner, with the answer.

The 8 questions are on the student sheet below, with answers in the key.

• Two questions on their own. Sort answers into got it / nearly / not yet to plan the next lesson.

1. Type the fallacy (in English) that matches this description. Arguing that because two things are alike in one way, they must be alike in another important way. → false analogyPrompt: Focus on what the reasoning does wrong: deflect, shift meaning, compare unfairly, rely on habit or nature, shift the target, assume, or throw good after bad.
2. Which fallacy matches this description? Continuing with something because of what has already been invested, even when it no longer makes sense. (false analogy / moving the goalposts / sunk cost fallacy / loaded question) → sunk cost fallacyPrompt: Focus on what the reasoning does wrong: deflect, shift meaning, compare unfairly, rely on habit or nature, shift the target, assume, or throw good after bad.

Free online practice with hints and printable worksheets for this skill: eurekami.com/english/grade-12.