logical fallacies

Straw Man Argument: This fallacy consists of misrepresenting

an opponent’s point of view or argument, usually for the

purpose of making it easier to attack. Misrepresentation or

deliberate distortion is a typical technique of politicians.

 Example:

 Proponent: Unless we construct a nuclear power plant in this area within

the next ten years, we will not be able to meet the significantly growing

demand for power.

 Opponent: What you’re saying is that you couldn’t care less what

happens to the wildlife and plant life that might be harmed by the

presence of nuclear radiation in this area.

 The opponent has drawn an inference from the proponent’s

argument that is clearly unwarranted.

Red Herring: This fallacy consists of attempting to hide the

weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real

issue to a side issue.

 Example:

 Senator Clark: Why are you not willing to support the antiabortion

amendment?

 Senator Davenport: I just don’t understand why you people who get so

worked up about abortion don’t have the same feelings about the

thousands of lives that are blotted out every year by an indiscriminate use

of handguns. Why have you not supported us in our efforts at gun-control

legislation?

 Senator Davenport’s concern here is no doubt a very important

one, but that concern is not related in any obvious way to the

abortion issue. The issue of gun control in this context is a red

herring.

Example (changing the subject): In a press conference, a

political candidate is questioned about allegations of financial

impropriety. She responds by shifting the focus to her

opponent’s harmful policies. In this example, the candidate

being questioned commits a reed herring fallacy.

 Example (avoiding the question): When questioned about his

late paper submission, Dave mentions how many hours he’s

been working lately.

Example (changing the subject): In a press conference, a

political candidate is questioned about allegations of financial

impropriety. She responds by shifting the focus to her

opponent’s harmful policies. In this example, the candidate

being questioned commits a reed herring fallacy.

 Example (avoiding the question): When questioned about his

late paper submission, Dave mentions how many hours he’s

been working lately.

Ambiguity: This fallacy consists in presenting a claim or

argument that uses a word, phrase, or grammatical construction

that can be interpreted in two or more distinctly different ways

without making clear which meaning is intended.

 Example:

 Bob: How can they afford to do that?

 Linda: Do what?

 Bob: Give pizza away!

 Linda: What do you mean?

 Bob: It says right here in the ad! Pizza delivered free!

 Attacking the Fallacy: Identify the word, and, if possible, ask the

speaker for the intended meaning.

Equivocation: This fallacy consists in directing an opponent

toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase,

employed in two different senses in an argument, appear to

have the same meaning throughout. (Equivocations are

arguments that give lies an honest appearance).

 Example: “We don’t need to listen to the superintendent on this

textbook issue. We need to hear from someone who has some

authority in the field of education. Our superintendent doesn’t

even have enough authority to keep the students or the

teachers in line.”

Argument by Innuendo: This fallacy consists of directing one’s

listeners to a particular conclusion, by a skillful choice of words

or the careful arrangement of sentences, which implicitly

suggest but do not assert that conclusion.

 Example: “If you knew that one of the candidates in this race

were receiving money from illegal sources, would that affect

your voting decision? Look into the matter and se where the

campaign funds of my opponent are coming from. The facts

might surprise you.”

Distinction Without a Difference: This fallacy consists of

attempting to defend an action or point of view as different

from some other one, with which it is allegedly confused, by

means of a very careful distinction of language.

 Example: “I’m not saying anything against women’s lib; I just

happen to sincerely believe that the male should be the head of

the household.”

Technical Jargon: becomes a problem when the audience is

overwhelmed with too many new terms or when jargon is used

to impress the audience or replace sound reasoning.

 Example #1: “Lifeguard Soap! Always best! Now better with

the miracle ingredient DZ 607!”

 You don’t know what DZ607 is, but maybe you are impressed.

 Example #2: “Mentalphysics is the comsummation and

culmination of all knowledge; it is the suprascience of the

stratosphere of intelligence, the intuition of the ineffably

electronic.”