You will practise responding to fallacies in a way that moves a discussion forward.
You are on a video call with six people when a senior colleague says, "We tried a four-day week pilot at my last company and it was a disaster, so there's no point looking at it." You can see it is one story standing in for evidence, and you also know that saying "that's anecdotal" in front of everyone will make the call tense and kill the idea anyway. This exercise is about the reply in between.
Calling out a fallacy by name feels satisfying and almost never changes anyone's mind. What the other person hears is that they have been accused of bad thinking in public, so from that moment they are defending themselves while everyone else watches a point-scoring contest. Even when you are right, the discussion ends up further from the evidence than it was before you spoke.
The goal is not to win the exchange. It is to get the group back to the question that matters, with the other person still willing to take part. The replies in this exercise do that in three moves, and they build on lesson 5.3, Disagree without making it personal, from the course Communicate at work.
First, restate the other person's position fairly. This is the straw man test from lesson 2.1, Attacking the person, the straw man and the false choice, turned into a habit. If they would not agree with your summary, you are not ready to answer. A fair restatement also shows you were listening, which lowers the temperature straight away.
Second, accept whatever is true in what they said. The four-day week story is real experience. Something did go wrong at that company. Saying so costs you nothing and makes the next step easier to hear.
Third, redirect to the evidence with a question: what would we expect to see if that were true? Or, what would tell us whether it applies here? A question invites the other person to think with you. A correction asks them to back down.
Keep the whole reply short enough to say in about ten seconds, or to fit in two lines of a chat, because anything longer starts to sound like a lecture and people stop listening before you reach the question.
Collect five fallacies from real discussions: meetings you sat in, work chats, family group chats, comment sections. Try to get a mix of the kinds you have met in this module: ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, appeal to authority or popularity, slippery slope, sunk cost and post hoc.
For each one, write four things in a row. Copy the original line, or a close paraphrase if it is from a private chat. Name the fallacy for your own notes, but do not put the name in your reply. Write a one-sentence fair restatement. Then write your reply, and make its last words a question about evidence.
Read each reply aloud. If it sounds sarcastic, defensive or like a lecture, rewrite it. If it would make sense to someone who has never heard of fallacies, it is ready.
Here is how Farhan, from lesson 2.1, filled in his five over one week.
The first was the four-day week story above, one case presented as proof. His restatement: the pilot you saw went badly, and you think ours would too. His reply: "That's useful to know. What went wrong there, and do you think the same thing would happen with our team's workload?"
The second was a straw man in a chat about hybrid work. Someone wrote, "So you want everyone working from home forever?" when the proposal was two fixed office days a week. Farhan's reply: "Not quite, I'm suggesting two fixed office days. Which days would matter most for the work you do with the client team?"
Third came an appeal to authority. A manager said, "The consultants recommended the new CRM, so let's not reopen it." The restatement: the decision was made with expert input and you don't want to spend time on it again. The reply: "Fair. Did their recommendation look at teams our size? If so, I'm happy to go with it."
His fourth was a false dilemma about the year-end event: "Either we do the full dinner or we cancel." The reply: "Both are options. Is there something in between, like a lunch, that would fit the budget?"
The fifth was sunk cost, from his own team: "We've spent too much on the rewards feature to stop now." His reply: "I get that it's been a big effort. If we were starting today with the test results we have, would we fund three more months?"
Look at the pattern. None of the five names a fallacy, each one accepts something, and every one finishes on a question that points to evidence or options. Several also show that Farhan understood the other view before he answered it.
Not every fallacy needs a reply. If the stakes are low, the comment is a joke, or the person is clearly venting, leave it. In a large meeting, it is sometimes better to follow up one to one afterwards. Save the effort for when a fallacy is steering a real decision.
Also watch for replies that are technically fair but still read as point-scoring because of tone. A sentence that is fine face to face can feel cold in a chat. Lesson 2.3 of Communicate at work, Why your message sounded ruder than you meant, covers this in detail.
Your five examples are probably already in your chats from the past week. In the activity below you will gather them and write a calm one-line reply for each.
Write calm one-line responses to five fallacies drawn from real discussions, each ending with a question about evidence.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).