Amuse your friends .com



Amuse your friends . . . astound your parents . . . amaze your teachers . . . with . . .Mr. Cotton’s Fascinating (and incomplete) Guide to Logical FallaciesMost of the info is adapted from the “Logical Fallacies” website by Professor Hagin at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. See: sources are various websites, our textbook, op-eds and such, and Mr. Cotton’s little brainNote: I have combined fallacies known by more than one name, and those closely related. Also, remember that many bad arguments contain multiple fallacies. I. EMOTIONAL APPEALS 1. Appeal to Vanity / Appeal to Audience / Flattery Writers and speakers need to make their audiences feel friendly toward them, identify with them, and gain their trust. However, when authors strive only to gain public support by molding their words and deeds to fit public opinion, or are manipulating their audience with flattery, then the appeal becomes fallacious. EXAMPLES 1. Politician: “You and I are just plain folks. We understand each other, and we ain’t gonna let them fool us!”2. From Bush’s 2007 State of the Union speech: “Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads... There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.” As Chris Kelly of writes, the last sentence commits three logical fallacies. Not only does it flatter all Americans, suggesting that every one of us would have done the same thing, it also commits “the fallacy of illicit process—Wesley Autrey saved a guy, making all Americans heroes—and the fallacy of false cause—Wesley Autrey's nationality makes him jump in front of subways.” Lastly, what does Bush’s logic say about the guy who fell? “Is there something wonderful about a country that produces people who stumble onto the tracks?”3. On the first semester final, Queen Elizabeth and the Inquisitor both used this device.2. Bandwagon Appeal / Ad Populum / Appeal to Common Practice The belief that something should be done because the majority of people do it (or wish to do it). Professor Hagin says: Ad populum is the original Latin term, meaning “to the people,” suggesting that a person yields his opinion to the will of the public majority rather than to logic. Bandwagon appeals are arguments that urge people to follow the same paths that others do. In old-time political campaigns, politicians used to travel literally on horse-drawn bandwagons, urging citizens to “jump on the bandwagon”—or join the crowd—to vote for them.EXAMPLES 1. “It’s alright for me to cheat on my taxes because everyone else does it.”2. Radio Ad: “Jackson Ford is the Number One Ford Dealership in the Southeast Region.”3. “Gosh, officer, everybody was driving at 75.”4. In politics, this fallacy sometimes takes on a “will-of-the-people” tone, and thereby sounds (and can be) honorable. Yet perhaps there is an opposite and complementary one: the “Tough Choices” fallacy. When Bush refused to heed the popular mandate the 2006 elections and the Iraq Study Group, he said that he’s not trying to be “popular” and is paid to make the “tough choices.” So a politician can have it both ways here.5. Here’s a beautiful example from the bank bailout crisis:In 2008, Citigroup was the only bank that needed two bailouts from the Treasury Department.? But even in the years before that, Citigroup had major problems due to its disastrous risk-taking with sub-prime mortgages and other shaky, shady practices.? Chuck Prince, who was CEO of Citigroup in 2007, defended his bank’s record by saying: “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”3. Appeal to Fear / Scare Tactics / Fear-MongeringScare tactics are not direct threats, but are coerced conclusions. Instead of threatening a consequence onto a person, scare tactics highlight the possible negative outcomes to the extreme, while merely suggesting causality. The audience is supposed to use its own logic to draw the obvious negative conclusions. Professor Hagin says:It is the essence of demagoguery to reduce complicated issues to threats or to exaggerate a possible danger well beyond its statistical likelihood. Such tactics can also be unfairly used to magnify existing (and sometimes legitimate) fears into panic or prejudice. The possibility of nuclear war in the 1950s encouraged millions of Americans to spend over $20,000 of today’s money on a back yard bomb shelter so their family could “survive” a nuclear war (and the 100-year nuclear winter that would follow). EXAMPLES1. “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you give me a ticket, I’ll have to call my friend the mayor and have a long talk.”2. “If this man gets elected, he’ll change your welfare benefits. Don’t let those Washington bureaucrats tinker with your food stamps!”3. Here’s what the columnist Steve Chapman says about current debate regarding Iraq: “Hard-core supporters of the war, no longer able to pretend that we are making progress … have fallen back to their last line of defense … [fear]…. Neoconservative Robert Kagan is among those confidently predicting a parade of horribles if we pull out: ethnic slaughter, a regional war and a secure base for al-Qaida to launch attacks on us and our allies.”4. Of course the Bush administration is well versed in fear-mongering. Remember Condoleezza Rice’s line about Saddam’s purported WMD: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” 5. St. Joan’s inquisitor certainly used this device.4. Appeal to Pity / Ad Misericordiam / Sob StoryPreying upon the audience’s sympathy to solicit a favorable response.Arguments that use pity, grief, or bereavement often use these emotions excessively to distract the audience from the facts. These appeals are often aimed directly at the individual’s emotions: guilt, pity, or remorse encourage the audience to act out of sympathy. You can identify a fallacious appeal if it is irrelevant to the argument, distracts from the real issue, or conceals another purpose. Professor Hagin says:To be fair about emotions, we must not forget that humans are emotional beings. When used properly as illustrations of logical arguments, sentimental images and appeals are highly effective and quite legitimate. Anyone who uses television to communicate a message has the greatest potential to use raw emotion rather than validated conclusions. Television news often appeals to pity first to lure viewers into watching the broadcast (because more viewers = more revenue). EXAMPLES1. “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but please don't give me a ticket. I've had a hard day, and I was just trying to get over to my aged mother's hospital room, and spend a few minutes with her before I report to my second full-time minimum-wage job, which I have to have as the sole support of the seventeen members of my family.”2. “I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don’t find me guilty; I’m suffering enough through being an orphan.” II. DICTION 1. Distortion / Slanting / SpinA misrepresentation of a point of view by intentionally reporting it inaccurately. Putting a “spin” on an issue, or “slanting” it, is a form of half-truth ... which makes it also a form of a half-lie. EXAMPLES1. “When Mr. Smith corrected me in class, what he really meant to say to me is ‘I hate you and all of your filthy opinions.’ He hates my guts.”2. James A. Baker: “Why do we need another President? We’ve already got one.”These were James A. Baker’s words during the week following the 2000 election. Baker, an attorney, strategist, and spokesman for George W. Bush, used this argument to denounce Al Gore’s legal challenges of the Florida election results. If you recall, Bush narrowly won the majority of votes in Florida (and thus the Presidency), but Gore challenged that thousands of votes were not counted in heavily Democratic areas of the state (a fact later confirmed, in part). Baker’s comments suggest that the election was over, that a President had been chosen (“We’ve already got one”), and that Al Gore wanted to be “another” President who would join or “replace” the already-elected Bush. However, these comments distorted the situation in three ways: by assuming that the election’s fairness should not contested, by assuming that Bush was the clear victor, and by assuming that Gore’s legal contests were a waste of resources (even though Gore had a legal right to challenge the results).2. Equivocation / AmbiguityUsing a word or phrase to convey two different meanings simultaneously.The Latin term “equivocation” means “equal voice,” suggesting that a word or phrase can equally convey two or more different connotations. Since language needs to be expressed clearly to be properly understood, any vagueness can cause confusion. Equivocation is a type of lie that has an honest appearance; it is a half-truth that distracts or confuses the listener. EXAMPLES 1. If a homeless man asks a stranger for a quarter, the stranger might respond, “I don’t have a quarter.” In the stranger’s mind, he knows he does not have a quarter in his pocket, although his wallet might be stuffed with $20 bills!2. Equivocation can be more costly, however, when public officials or companies slant the truth for their benefit. Bill Clinton famously said, “I did not have sex with that woman,” equivocating on the word “sex” by relying on a narrow, hidden definition.3. Monty Python (from The Meaning of Life): “You're born from nothing. You go back to nothing. What do you lose? Nothing!”4. Unintentional ambiguity has led to many famously funny headlines:"Police Shoot Man With Knife.""Transportation Department To Hold Public Meeting On I-49.""Rest of the Year May Not Follow January.""Kamikazi Speller Wins National Bee.""Marijuana Issue Sent to Joint Committee.""Check with the Doctor Before Getting Sick.""Wives Kill Most Spouses in Chicago.""Lack of Brains Hinders Research.""Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over.""Key Witness Takes Fifth in Liquor Probe.""High Speed Train Could Reach Valley in Five Years."3. Loaded Language Diction that carries with it a heavy emotional charge. Loaded language usually contains words with strong positive or negative connotations that unfairly frame words into limited or biased contexts. The words you choose should clarify the truth of a situation, not misdirect your audience by unfairly describing or biasing the audience’s interpretations. EXAMPLES1. Your father: “Did you enjoy spoiling the dinner for everyone else?”2. Your mother: “Well, I hope you enjoyed making a fool of me in front of all my friends.”3. “We shouldn’t allow that draft-dodger Clinton to run the country.” Many Americans used arguments like this one to vent frustration at President Clinton. The fact that Bill Clinton went to college instead of Vietnam made a lot of people angry. To be fair, Clinton did not do anything illegal. American law stated that Americans who are enrolled as full-time students would not have to answer the draft into Vietnam. So, did Clinton “dodge” the draft? That word suggests that Clinton did something wrong by choosing college over war. Vice President Dick Cheney made a similar decision in the 1960s, and he has described the similar choice that he made by loading his language with a positive, euphemistic charge: “I had other priorities. I had other ways of serving my country.”4. The Inquisitor invokes loaded religious terms such as “heretic,” “diabolical,” etc.4. Poisoning the WellAn argument against another person that is delivered in such an emotionally biased way that the victim’s response looks inherently dishonest or immoral.Imagine that the source, or the “well” from which the opponent’s argument comes—has been poisoned. Nothing the opponent can say will be effective because nothing good comes from a poisoned well. Poisoning the well is an ancient form of terrorism.EXAMPLES1. A high-strung store owner accuses a teenager: “Of course this liar will tell you he didn’t steal my stuff. You can’t believe a thief. Go ahead – ask him. He’ll just deny it!”2. During the 1970s, some critics of the Equal Rights Amendment (which made discrimination against women illegal) argued against it by pointing out that the Communist Manifesto also favored gender equality.3. “Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water.” 4. “Everybody knows that cold fusion is a proven impossibility. Jack: did you have something to say on this?”5. The Inquisitor attempts to poison the well for Joan. He convinces the court to interpret her very piety and humility as heresy. III. DISTRACTIONS1. Ad Hominem / Character Attack / Demonizing the OpponentAlso, perhaps, “Swift-Boating”Attacks that are directed against a person rather than his/her arguments. Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning “against the man,” suggesting that these attacks are directed at the character of a person rather than at his argument. Ad Hominem arguments attack the source or presenter of an argument, not anything within the argument itself, therefore making them both invalid and distracting. EXAMPLES1. A suspicious groom says: “What can this priest tell us about marriage? He’s never been married himself!”2. In her new book, Ann Coulter claimed that the 9/11 widows “enjoy their husbands’ deaths” and “revel in their status as celebrities” and accused Democrats of deliberately putting forward such “infallible” advocates in order to squelch honest debate. Lots of loaded language, too.3. Rush Limbaugh: “Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming.”4. “In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent’s drinking problem.”5. Mike Huckabee pulled off an interesting variation of this fallacy prior to the Iowa caucuses. He called a press conference to announce that he would NOT be airing a negative attack ad that he had already produced. Then he proceeded to show the ad to the reporters.6. Queen Liz paints the Spanish as “enemies of God”—quite literally demonizing them.2. Shifting the Burden of ProofWhen speakers do not prove their own claims while forcing others to prove them. A standard rule in argumentation is “he who asserts must prove,” meaning that the writer bears full responsibility to prove that his or her claims are true. Writers and speakers, especially when cornered with tough questions, often speak authoritatively, but they sometimes assume that their assertions are valid and place the onus of proof onto the audience. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid. The audience does not bear any responsibility to prove the speaker’s arguments. EXAMPLES1. “Aliens don’t exist because no one has ever proven that they do.”2. Donald Rumsfeld: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, the burden of proof has shifted from the Bush Administration, who couldn’t find WMD, to its opponents, who had always questioned their existence.3. Prosecutor to jury: “She must be guilty. After all, she has no alibi for the night of the crime.”3. Red Herring / SmokescreenAn argument that distracts the audience from the original topic of discussion. The phrase “red herring” comes from the practice of dragging a strong-smelling fish across a trail to confuse tracking dogs by throwing them off the original scent. In writing, a red herring is a topic or statement used to distract the reader’s attention from the central issue by raising irrelevant issues. Red herrings are often used to hide weak arguments or to divert attention away from a volatile issue. EXAMPLES1. “As a candidate in this year’s election, I can best help the financial distress which our nation faces today. I also believe that abortion is wrong and will fight to the ends of the earth to stop them from happening in our cities.”2. The president of the Pole Sport Federation argues that pole dancing should be an Olympic sport. T.K. Coates explains: “The word ‘gymnastics’ derives from the Greek ‘gymnos,’ which means ‘naked.’3. An arrogant Oklahoman proudly states: “This was Indian Territory once. Sure, the white settlers didn’t always treat the Indians very nicely, or always live up their treaties. But there can be no question but that we have every right to be here and to enjoy this rich land. After all, we brought civilization to the Indians, a clearly superior way of life. You’d think they’d be grateful.”4. George W. Bush has often said something like this: “There may be chaos in Iraq, but no one can deny that we are all better off without Saddam Hussein.”5. Examples from advertising:When a viewer sees this Under Armour ad with the slogan "The Advantage is Undeniable" and the intense look of these professional athletes, he is sure to agree with the slogan without a clue exactly what advantage is in question. Is that a game-time advantage, or a look better in the locker room advantage? This advertisement makes a good example of the logical fallacy known as a "Smokescreen/Red Herring".The viewer is led to believe this claim based on facts that are in no way related to the advertisement. These ads might also be considered non sequiturs, since they suggest a conclusion (you can be strong, healthy, tough, sexy, happy, popular, etc.) that has nothing to do with the premisesThis is an example of a smokescreen and wishful thinking. The writer wants his reader to believe that after buying his product they can become just like this lucky guy or girl. They are in shape and at the beach. In reality though, buying his cigarettes are not going to increase your chances of living this life style. It is a smokescreen because a happy, beautiful couple at the beach has nothing to do with cigarettes.4. Loaded QuestionA question that carries an assumption, and is worded in such a way so that the respondent who answers the question directly admits to accepting that assumption.A loaded question is really two questions phrased as one. The loaded question assumes that the first answer must be true; otherwise, why would someone phrase it that way? EXAMPLES1. An attorney asks: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”The two questions in this example really are, “Have you ever beat your wife?” and “If so, have you stopped?” Loaded questions usually demand a “yes” or “no” response. Yet, no matter how this man answers, he gets himself in trouble: “yes” implies that he used to beat her but have recently stopped; “no” implies that he has not stopped beating her, as usual. Trial lawyers can be quite good at phrasing loaded questions, causing the other side to object to the slanted diction and inherent implications.2. “I notice that you surf the Net a lot, dude. Do you enjoy all the pornography you find there?”IV. COMPARISONS/ANALYSIS 1. CompositionAssuming that strong parts, when assembled, make a strong whole. The fallacy of composition occurs when an author assumes that strong parts, when combined, make a stronger whole. In many cases this is true: strong building materials will usually make the whole house stronger — assuming the construction crew did their jobs properly. This fallacy usually overlooks important variables that affect the way that pieces join together to form complete sets. EXAMPLE1. “The NBA All-Star team could whip the Spurs any day of the week – they’re all-stars for crying out loud!”2. DivisionAssuming that complex parts can be removed, but retain their integrity. The reverse of the composition fallacy, the fallacy of division suggests that complex ideas can be divorced from their unified situations and still maintain their strength alone. To state that the average American family will have 1.8 children, for example, does not mean that your sister and brother-in-law are likely to have 1.8 children each. The average number is simply that — an average. It does not predict how many children may be born into your family specifically. The division is a form of overgeneralization.EXAMPLE1. “Purdue is a great engineering school. Mike went there; he must be a great engineer.”3. False AnalogyAn elaborate comparison of two things that are too dissimilar.Analogies are elaborate, point-by-point comparisons. They are most helpful when a writer is trying to explain something that is unfamiliar to his readers by explaining it in more familiar terms. Authors must compare two subjects carefully to ensure that they have essential features in common. Questionable analogies arise when a reader can point to one or more significant differences between the two subjects that are being compared in an analogy. Professor Hagin says:Historians often use analogies when comparing today’s events to the past. Studying history can show us that the problems we face today are age-old; if we study past outcomes, then we can better understand the course of action that we should take today. We must be careful, however: discussing one war as analogous to another war may create problems. Unfortunately, we do not have any one foolproof method of determining when analogies are legitimate or faulty. Ask yourself this key question to determine if the analogy is sound: “Do the two analogous items differ in any essential and relevant respect, or are they different only in unimportant aspects?” If the differences appear to be greater than the similarities then the analogy might be fallacious. Bear in mind that no single analogy is perfect, so this technique should be used only to illustrate foreign issues by placing them in common terms. Analogies should not be used to carry the bulk of an argument’s explanation. EXAMPLES1. “Clogged arteries require surgery to clear them; our clogged highways require equally drastic measures.”2. “Education cannot prepare men and women for marriage. Trying to educate them for marriage is like trying to teach them to swim without allowing them to go into the water.”3. “Bill Clinton has no experience of serving in the military. To have Bill Clinton become president, and thus commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, is like electing some passer-by on the street to fly the space shuttle.”4. Limbaugh again: “One woman called my show to protest that animals do at least have one right: to kind-ness. I told her she was mistaken. Look at what they do to each other. They tear each other limb from limb.” This is also an enthymeme with the missing premise: Whatever animal tears other animals limb from limb does not have a right to kindness.5. George W. Bush has reportedly been reading about the French colonial war in Algeria—a curious place to look for lessons for Iraq, since it is the story of a European colonial power’s inevitable loss to a Muslim insur-gency. Ted Kennedy says: “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” Here’s a questionable analogy from Charles Krauthammer: “We [Americans] gave them [Iraqis] a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?”4. Genetic FallacyAssuming that the origin of something nullifies its value today. A person commits the genetic fallacy when he argues against some claim by pointing out that its origin (genesis) is tainted (or that it was invented by someone who deserves our contempt). Thus, one might attack the Declaration of Independence because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Although this uncovers some hypocrisy in Jefferson’s character, his moral faults by themselves do not nullify his idealistic vision of America. EXAMPLES1. “Capital punishment arose in barbarous times; but we claim to be civilized; therefore, we should discard this terrible relic of our past.”2. Mr. Cotton says: Once, when I was a young smart-aleck, I asked an Episcopal minister how he dealt with the fact that his denomination was started by an evil man (King Henry VIII) for evil reasons (dumping his wife and seizing monastic lands). The unflustered rev. deflected my genetic fallacy: “We look to other early leaders for inspiration.”5. Hasty Generalization / StereotypingStatements that are so general that they oversimplify reality. A conclusion formed without evidence.Generalizations are often useful in persuasion if they are worded carefully and if they are accompanied by clarifications and evidence. But writers and speakers can exaggerate in a number of ways. Statements that make sweeping generalizations tend to exaggerate and oversimplify reality, ignoring important details.EXAMPLES1. “That raging alcoholic just caused the accident. Liquor should be banned.”2. “My car broke down today! Fords are worthless pieces of garbage!”3. Rush Limbaugh: “Militant environmentalists are anti-people New Age mystics.”4. “In times of crisis, every American supports the President.”6. Straw Man Restating a complex idea into a simpler version of it—that is easier to defeat. Straw man arguments occur when opponents take the original argument of their adversaries and offer a close imitation (or straw man version) of the original argument; they then “knock down” the straw man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit). This tactic gives the fallacious appearance of having successfully defeated the original argument. EXAMPLES 1. A politician: “My opponent believes that higher taxes are the only way to pay for needed improvements. She never met a tax she didn’t like. But I have a better idea: let’s cut waste in government first.”2. Bill Clinton, in a 1996 debate: “We want to build a bridge to the future. Bob Dole talks about building a bridge to the past.”3. Michael Gerson (former speechwriter for George W. Bush) in a Jan. 21, 2013 Washington Post column: “In his first inaugural address, George Washington described the “sacred fire of liberty.” In his second, Obama constructed a raging bonfire of straw men. Those who oppose this agenda, in Obama’s view, are not a very admirable lot. They evidently don’t want our wives, mothers and daughters to “earn a living equal to their efforts.” They would cause some citizens “to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.” They mistake “absolutism for principle” and “substitute spectacle for politics” and “treat name-calling as reasoned debate.” They would have people’s “twilight years ... spent in poverty” and ensure that the parents of disabled children have “nowhere to turn.” They would reserve freedom “for the lucky” and believe that Medicare and Social Security “sap our initiative,” and they see this as “a nation of takers.” They “deny the overwhelming judgment of science” on climate change, don’t want love to be “equal” and apparently contemplate “perpetual war.” 4. Queen Elizabeth referred to “some advisors” who have told her to fear treachery. But she doesn’t doubt the loyalty of her troops! V. PREMISES/CONCLUSIONS 1. Circular Reasoning / Begging the QuestionSupporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. Note: Nowadays, the phrase “begging the question” is often used to mean “inviting or suggesting the question.” This error drives nit-picky logicians bonkers! EXAMPLES1. “You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!”2. “Richardson is the most successful public servant the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history.”3. “Can a person quit smoking? Of course—as long as he has sufficient willpower and really wants to quit.”4. The President has the authority to order warrantless surveillance because he is the Commander-in-Chief.2. Protecting the Hypothesis A type of rationalization, used to avoid facing error. Somebody once said: “People fear nothing so much as the loss of their illusions.” EXAMPLES1. Someone who is certain that the earth is round watches a ship sailing away. As it reaches the horizon, it slowly disappears—first the hull, then the upper decks, and finally the tip of the mast. If such phenomena cannot be explained by the curvature of the earth, the flat-earther claims that the light waves sag—or the ship sank.2. Many creationists accept the existence of dinosaurs, but defend their hypothesis that the world is only 6000 years old by claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived simultaneously.3. Here’s George Will writing about the huge Republican loss at the 2006 election. Will says that the rout was not any sort of referendum about conservatism. Republicans didn’t lose because they were conservative: “First, they were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism. Second, they admire market rationality, and the political market has worked. Third, on various important fronts, conservatism continued its advance Tuesday.”4. Leo Tolstoy had a wonderful example of this fallacy is War and Peace (I wish I could find it!). I remember that Tolstoy remarked on generals who were not moved by repeated defeats. Each defeat only confirmed their certainty in their strategy. Each battle was lost not because the strategy was flawed, but because the strategy was not adhered to closely enough. (Tolstoy said it much more eloquently.) Beware of people who respond to repeated failure with more of the same (we might call it the “Stay the Course Fallacy”). One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Or, as the old motivational joke goes: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”3. False Dichotomy / False Dilemma / Either-Or Fallacy / Black and White FallacyA claim that presents an artificially limited range of choices. An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their aud-ience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable. EXAMPLES1. George W. Bush: “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”2. He also has suggested that our only choices in Iraq are to “stay the course” or “cut and run.” (Often “cut and run” is a straw man, too.)4. America: love it or leave it.5. Limbaugh again: “There is something intrinsically anti-American about the way Al Gore flagellates the US over its environmental policies. He writes that our civilization is dysfunctional because of its brutal attack on nature. This from a guy who gets lost in a park with the Secret Service.” This one divides “Americans” and “environmentalists.” Limbaugh also employs loaded language and an ad hominem attack.6. Here is Dr. Norman Robbins, former professor at Case and now coordinator of Case for Peace. He is writing about the Bush administration’s saber-rattling regarding Iran: “Americans must reject the administration’s fraudulent choice between war and surrender.”7. The Inquisitor used this technique, painting the court into a corner by suggesting that they have only two choices: convict Joan or be heretics themselves.4. False AuthorityUsing a biased, suspicious, or incredible source to defend a conclusion. One of the best strategies a writer can employ to support his arguments is to tap into the authority of widely respected people, books, or institutions. A false authority fallacy occurs when people offer themselves (or other suspicious authorities) as sufficient warrant for believing their claims.EXAMPLES1. In advertising, one of the most powerful tools is the celebrity endorsement.2. There’s the classic example from a TV ad: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV” and you should buy this cold remedy…3. Perhaps the Inquisitor uses this trick when he presents himself as the ultimate authority on heresy, who knows so much more than he could divulge to the lowly court clerics. It seems reminiscent to me of the frequent use of “it’s classified information” in terrorism or surveillance issues.5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Post Hoc Reasoning / False Cause Fallacy / Confusing Chronology with Causality“After this, therefore because of this” Writers often state reasons for the occurrence of events or circumstances. However, these reasons must have a basis on the facts, not opinions. People often make up explanations for things that they do not understand themselves. The Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc means “after this, therefore because of this.” Just because one action or event seems to influence another, the first does not necessarily cause the second to occur. Often, coincidence is the true explanation, meaning that the two events are unrelated, and any attempt to connect these events would be rash and invalid without clear proof. This fallacy only shows up in common, every-day examples from popular culture, advertising, campaign rhetoric, etc. EXAMPLES1. “Two fellow classmates got sick right after science class; therefore, science class must have made them sick.”2. “A black cat crossed Joe's path yesterday, and he died last night from the bad luck.”3. When sales of hot chocolate go up, street crime drops. Does this correlation mean that hot chocolate prevents crime? No, it means that fewer people are on the streets when the weather is cold.4. Here are two examples of post hoc reasoning, one on each side of the gun-control issue. Notice that both of them cite a decrease in the crime rate in the late 1970s to 1980s.The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. …Evidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work. For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business. The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%.Source #1: "The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership", The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source #2: "Fact Card", Handgun Control, Inc.From the 2012 Republican campaign trail: Mitt Romney said, “Now we have more chronic long-term unemployment than this country has ever seen before, twenty million people out of work, stopped looking for work, or in part-time jobs that need full-time jobs, we’ve got housing prices continuing to decline, and we have foreclosures at record levels. This president has failed.”6. Non Sequitur A conclusion that has no apparent connection to the premises or reasons. Often this is an enthymeme with a fallacious premise unstated.This Latin phrase means “it does not follow” and refers to a conclusion that has no apparent connection to the reasons. Non sequiturs occur when writers omit a step in an otherwise logical chain of sequential reasoning, assuming that readers agree with the highly contestable claims of others. Two events may occur sequentially, but one may not necessarily be the cause of the other. This fallacy is part of the false cause fallacy, except that this fallacy occurs specifically due to the sequence of two unrelated events.EXAMPLES1. In a January 2012 debate, Newt Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of “pious baloney” for saying he’s not a career politician, demanding that the Republican presidential front-runner “Just level with the American people.” Romney denied the accusation briskly. “Politics is not my career,” he said. “My life’s passion has been my family, my faith, my country.”2. In January 2013, the NRA released an ad in favor of protecting children by having armed teachers and guards in school. The ad described how Sasha and Malia Obama have Secret Service guards protecting them at school. The voiceover then says: “President Obama demands that Americans pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.” In an op-ed column for the Washington Post, Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of President Eisenhower) wrote: “This brilliantly diabolical non sequitur hurts more than the president and his family. It hurts our democracy by twisting the nature of the public debate. This is absurd. The nation’s children are not individually at risk the way the Obama children are.” 3. One last Limbaughian fallacy: “There are now more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does that sound like a record of genocide.” If Limbaugh’s facts were correct, it would be a non sequitur. But of course his facts are quite wrong.7. Oversimplification / The Only Reason / Dogmatic FallacyIdentifying one valid reason, but ignoring the other possible reasons.EXAMPLES1. “Poverty causes crime.”This statement is an example of oversimplifying the cause that generates an effect. Poverty alone cannot be the sole cause of crime. We know this because not every poor person commits a crime; in fact, our biggest crime problem in terms of dollars in the USA is white-collar crime (creative accounting, insurance fraud, money laundering, phone card scams, etc.). Poverty is one of the most direct causes of crime, and actually one of the easiest to solve.2. It is Republican dogma that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by militarily outspending the USSR. But our friend Thomas Friedman wants to beat his fuel-price drum on this question: “Surely the Soviet Union died because oil fell to $10 a barrel shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev took office, not because of anything Ronald Reagan did.” 8. Slippery Slope / Thin End of the Wedge / Domino Effect Exaggerating the possible future consequences of an action. If you stand on a slippery slope, then one small misstep can make you fall or begin the avalanche that causes havoc or destruction down the hill. Likewise, when the thin end of the wedge enters a log, the thick end is sure to follow. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument exaggerates the possible future consequences of an action, usually with the intention of frightening the audience; hence, slippery slope arguments are forms of the scare tactic. EXAMPLES1. A National Rifle Association president might say: “We have to support our Second Amendment rights to bear arms. As soon as guns are made illegal, suddenly you’ll find the government taking more and more of our rights away until we are all slaves to the state. If we lose our Second Amendment rights, the others will follow, one by one. Therefore, support the NRA before the government robs us all!”2. The Bush Administration has provided plenty of examples of this fallacy, too—the new version of the domino effect. This famous phrase, reportedly first mentioned only briefly in an Eisenhower speech, was used to suggest that if we lost in Vietnam, the rest of Asia (if not the world) would turn Communist. Soon, commies would be landing on California beaches. The new version claims that a loss in Iraq will lead to global domination of al-Qaida—a new “Caliphate,” or Islamic empire, “stretching from Indonesia to Morocco.”3. The Inquisitor claimed that women who begin by dressing in men’s clothes end with incest!9. Appeal to TraditionPromoting ideas simply because others have done so in the past.Professor Hagin says:In making an appeal to tradition, an arguer assumes that what has existed for a long time (and has therefore become tradition) should continue to exist simply because it is “tradition.” Traditions are necessary, and Americans probably need many more of them! However, we are silly to do something that we don’t want to do only because it is traditionally done. The author bears the responsibility in a persuasive essay to prove why a tradition should be continued (or not). Appeals to tradition typically rely on two other fallacies: the appeal to ignorance, and circular reasoning. EXAMPLEGrandma, on Thanksgiving Day: “I made everybody’s favorite — cranberry sauce!”Family: “Ohhh, Grandma, nobody ever eats that stuff. Why do you still make it?”Grandma: “It’s tradition, silly. Now eat it up!”Perhaps there is an opposite and complementary one: the “Change is Good” fallacy. Often, when voters are disgruntled, candidates promote change for its own sake.AND FOR THOSE LOGICAL FALLACY JUNKIES (and yes, there are plenty!) WHO JUST CAN’T GET ENOUGH . . .Here’s an assortment of miscellaneous others, some quite idiosyncratic and probably only used by a small group of “objectivists.” To find out what these folks are objective about, visit the objectivist website where I found this list (and the complete list is much longer). Also, why not make up a few of your own?? Amphiboly (what a lovely word, eh? It means ambiguity caused by sentence structure)? Anti-Conceptual Mentality? Barking Cat? Boolean Fallacy? Cherishing the Zombie? The Donut Fallacy? Elephant Repellant? Flat Earth Navigation? Gravity Game? Greek Math? I-Cubed? Meatpoison? Megatrifle? Moving Goalpost Syndrome? Texas Sharpshooter? Thompson Invisibility Syndrome? Verbal Obliteration? Wouldchuck ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download