Fallacies in General

• Fallacy

  • A defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises.

• Fallacies can be committed is multiple ways but usually take involve

  either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both).

• Non-Sequitur

  • A fallacy that involves a mistake in reasoning

• Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies.

  • If this is the case, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument.

• If an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).

• Fallacies are usually divided into two groups, those being the following:

  • Formal

    • One that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument.

      • Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms.

        • Example:

          • All bullfights are grotesque rituals.

          • All executions are grotesque rituals.

          • Therefore, all bullfights are executions.

  • Informal

    • Those that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument.

      • Example:

        • The Brooklyn Bridge is made of atoms.

        • Atoms are invisible.

        • Therefore, the Brooklyn Bridge is invisible.

• If a given argument is inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy.

Fallacies of Relevance

• Fallacies of relevance

  • Share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

• Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum or Appeal to the “Stick”)

  • occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.

  • The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may be either a single person or a group of persons.

    • Example 1, Child to playmate: “Teletubbies” is the best show on TV; and if you don’t believe it, I’m going to call my big brother over here, and he’s going to beat you up.”

    • Example 2, Secretary to boss: “I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want her to find out what’s been going on between you and that sexpot client of yours.”

• The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at least questionable.

• Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

  • Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener; This pity may be directed toward the arguer or toward some third party.

    • Example, Taxpayer to judge: “Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I’ll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.”

      • The appeal to pity is quite common and is often used by students on their instructors at exam time and by lawyers on behalf of their clients before judges and juries.

• Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

  • Uses everyone’s want for love and esteem, to be admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others, to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.

  • This can happen either in a direct or indirect approach.

    • Direct approach

      • Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion.

    • Indirect approach

      • Occurs when the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd.

    

• Bandwagon argument

  • The idea is that you will be left behind or left out of the group if you do not use what they use, do what they do, etc.

    • Example: “Of course, you want to buy Zing toothpaste. Why 90 percent of America brushes with Zing.”

• Appeal to vanity

  • Associates the a product or act with someone admired, pursued, or imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use or do it.

    • Example: “The Few, the Proud, the Marines.”

• Appeal to snobbery

  • Uses a similar kind of association as the appeal to vanity but with a twist of exclusivity.

    • Example: “A Rolls-Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of the select few, this distinguished classic may be seen and driven at British Motor Cars, Ltd. (By appointment only, please.)”

• Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

  • It always involves two arguers; One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself.

  • The Argument Against the Person can take three forms, those being the following:

    • Ad hominem abusive

      • The second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person.

    • Ad hominem circumstantial

      • The respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.

    • Tu quoque

      • The second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.

• Accident

  • Committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover and is typically cited directly or implicitly.

  • The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.

    • Example 1: “Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John Q. Radical should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.”

    • Example 2: “Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken sailor who is starting a fight with his opponents at the pool table lent you his .45-caliber pistol, and now he wants it back. Therefore, you should return it to him now.”

• Straw Man

  • Committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.

    • Example: “Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously, Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly, Mr. Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.”

  • Similar to the argument against the person fallacy, the straw man fallacy involves two arguers; the first arguer presents an argument, and the second then attacks the argument presented by the first by distorting the original argument and using the distortion to make the conclusion.

• Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

  • Occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.

    • Example 1: “Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.”

    • Example 2: “Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our only alternative is to abolish the system altogether.”

• Red Herring

  • Committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one; He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.

  • The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent.

  • To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the argument without the reader or listener noticing it.

    • Example 1: “Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would just exercise greater caution.”

    • Example 2: “There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But many of these foods are essential to our health. Carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A, broccoli is rich in iron, and oranges and grapefruits have lots of vitamin C”

Fallacies of Weak Induction

• Fallacies of weak induction

  • Occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case with the eight fallacies of relevance, but because the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

• Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

  • Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility.

    • Reasons a person might lack credibility can include but are not limited to the following:

      • The person might lack the requisite expertise.

      • Might be biased or prejudiced

      • Might have the motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation.”

      • Might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.

        • Example: “Dr. Bradshaw, our family physician, has stated that the creation of muonic atoms of deuterium and tritium hold the key to producing a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. In view of Dr. Bradshaw’s expertise as a physician, we must conclude that this is indeed true.”

• Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

  • When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing.

    • Example: “People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense.”

• Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

  • Occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.

    • Example 1: “After only one year the alternator went out in Mr. O’Grady’s new Chevrolet. Mrs. Dodson’s Oldsmobile developed a transmission problem after six months.The obvious conclusion is that cars made by General Motors are just a pile of junk these days.”

    • Example 2: “Ten Arab fundamentalists hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City. The message is clear: Arabs are nothing but a pack of religious fanatics prone to violence.”

• False Cause

  • Occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.

    • Example 1: “During the past two months, every time that the cheerleaders have worn blue ribbons in their hair, the basketball team has been defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheerleaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.”

    • Example 2: “There are more laws on the books today than ever before, and more crimes are being committed than ever before. Therefore, to reduce crime, we must eliminate the laws.”

• Slippery Slope

  • Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction, and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.

• Example: “The secretaries have asked us to provide lounge areas where they can spend their coffee breaks. This request will have to be refused. If we give them lounge areas, next they’ll be asking for spas and swimming pools. Then it will be racquetball courts, tennis courts, and fitness centers. Expenditures for these facilities will drive us into bankruptcy.”

• Weak Analogy

  • Committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.

    • Example 1: “Harper’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery and gets excellent gas mileage. Crowley’s new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas mileage, too.”

    • Example 2: “If a car breaks down on the freeway, a passing mechanic is not obligated to render emergency road service. For similar reasons, if a person suffers a heart attack on the street, a passing physician is not obligated to render emergency medical assistance."

Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy

• Fallacies of presumption

  • These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide an insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to prove.

• Fallacies of ambiguity

  • These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both).

• Fallacies of grammatical analogy

  • These fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect.

    • Such fallacious arguments may appear suitable yet bad.

• Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

  • Committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.

    • Example 1: “Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.”

    • Example 2: “Of course, humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how similar they are.”

    • Example 3: “It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.”

• Complex Question

  • Committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question, and a single answer is then given to both of them.

    • Example 1: “Have you stopped cheating on exams?”

    • Example 2: “Where did you hide the marijuana you were smoking?”

• False Dichotomy

  • Committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.

    • Example 2: “Either you let me attend the Dixie Chicks concert or I’ll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don’t want me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that you’ll let me attend the concert.”

    • Example 2: “Either you buy only American-made products or you don’t deserve to be called a loyal American.Yesterday you bought a new Toyota. It’s therefore clear that you don’t deserve to be called a loyal American.”

• Suppressed Evidence

  • When an inductive argument ignores some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence, that entails a very different conclusion.

    • Example 1: “Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them.Therefore, it would be safe to pet the little dog that is approaching us now.”

    • Example 2: “The ad for Kentucky Fried Chicken says,“Buy a bucket of chicken and have a barrel of fun!” Therefore, if we buy a bucket of that chicken, we will be guaranteed to have lots of fun.”

• Equivocation

  • Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.

  • Such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case, they are unsound.

    • Example 1: "Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant."

    • Example 2: ***“***Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.”

• Amphiboly

  • Occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.

    • Example 1: “The tour guide said that standing in Greenwich Village, the Empire State Building could easily be seen. It follows that the Empire State Building is in Greenwich Village.”

    • Example 2: “John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.”

• Composition

  • Committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.

    • Example 1: “Maria likes anchovies. She also likes chocolate ice cream. Therefore, it is certain that she would like a chocolate sundae topped with anchovies.”

    • Example 2: “Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.”

• Division

  • Committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members).

    • Example 1: Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are nonpoisonous.

    • Example 2: This jigsaw puzzle, when assembled, is circular in shape. Therefore, each piece is circular in shape.