Example: Assume all humans are mortal
John is a human
Therefore, John is mortal.
In this argument it shows a simple premise "Assume all humans are mortal" that is we have an assumption in this argument stating that all the humans are mortal. As it is an assumption it is true and a valid argument for us.
Here we have another statement stating that "Mr. John is a human" as this is known to every one we could easily agree with this statement and as it is a valid statement.
Conclusion: So, as we are accepting both above mentioned statements in the arguments we should definitely agree with the conclusion that "John is mortal" as this is also a valid argument.
Example: If it rains, then the sidewalks will be wet
It is raining.
Therefore, the sidewalks will be wet.
In this argument the premise is "If it rains, then the sidewalks will be wet" we have to accept it because this is a valid statement in the argument because it is true that if rain falls the sidewalks will be wet so, this is an true premise. Every one has to accept this premise it is as simple as it is.
The second premise it "It is raining" this is a statement which we have to accept it any cost stating that it is raining. No other choice that to accept it.
Conclusion: It concludes that "Therefore, the sidewalks will be wet" if we are in a position to agree and trust the both above mentioned premises then definitely we are forced to agree that the sidewalks will be wet as it is raining outside.
Example: A car will not run without gas.
I don't have any gas in my car.
My car will not run.
This is an another argument in a example stating that "A car will not run without gas" the car will not run with out gas as this is an statement this is an valid argument.
In this premise it shows that "I don't have any gas in my car" he is accepting the argument in the premise that his car doesn't have any gas in it.
Conclusion: It concludes that "My car will not run" if we accept the first two premises then definitely we have to accept the conclusion even though it may not be true we have accept it as it is concluded based on the other two premises. As we have accepted and agreed to the above mentioned two premises the conclusion is true.
Example: Aristotle was Greek.
Most Greeks eat lamb.
Aristotle probably ate lamb.
This is an example where the first premise is "Aristotle was Greek" yes it is true and a valid argument because we all know that Aristotle is Greek.
In the second premise it shows an statement that "Most Greeks eat lamb" this premise may be true or may not be because we have no theoretical or practical figures to ensure the premise.
Based on the above mentioned premises the arguments conclude that Aristotle probably ate lamb. As Aristotle is a Greek and most of the Greeks eat lamb then probably Aristotle ate lamb. There is no other valid supporting statement for this argument.
Example: All monkeys have blue teeth
Meg is a monkey
Therefore, Meg has blue teeth
In this argument it is clearly shown that all the premises are false. And there is an chance for the conclusion to be true only when both the premises are proved to be true then the conclusion is true at any cost. If the premise is true then there is a question of validity of the conclusion. We have think that if the premises are true then definitely the conclusion will be true. Because we can't say the premise 1 "All monkeys have blue teeth" it is not valid or true.
Conclusion: There fore, the arguments concludes that meg has blue teeth only when the two above mentioned premises are true.
Part - II (Fallacies)
Attacking the Individual instead of the argument:
Example: "I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment"
In the above example the author forces the listener to accept the statement instead of arguing about the facts of the statement. There is no question of argument in the example he directly concludes that it couldn't be right so he has ignored the comment.
Appeal to Force:
Example: "Convert or die"
This type of a fallacy is known as appeal to force where the listener has to listen what he says there is no other option directly he gives his final conclusion on the issue with out any argument with the listener. It's just like "Do or die process".
Appeal to Pity:
Example: "Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline".
In this type of fallacy the arguer begs the listener to accept the statement on sympathy, emotions, etc. It clearly shows us that he is sick which is the reason to miss the deadline and asks for the excuse to re arrange the deadline for him.
Appeal to the popular:
Example: "The majority of people like ice-cream. Therefore, it is good".
In this particular fallacy there is no argument but to only accept it as more number of people believes it to be right. There will no reason for the people to believe that it is true but to only accept it as it is accepted by more number of people.
Appeal to tradition:
Example: "This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way".
In this fallacy there is no thinking of right or wrong but the only thing is that it being followed from a long back and it has to be followed again to be right. There is no question of whether it is right or wrong. So, tradition is followed here no chance of argumentation.