Logical Fallacies in Argumentation
Logical Fallacies
Introduction
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument.
Recognizing these fallacies is crucial for effective argumentation and identifying flawed reasoning in others' arguments.
Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning
Definition: A type of fallacy where the premise assumes the conclusion is true without providing independent evidence.
The argument relies on the claim itself to support the claim, creating a circular loop.
Example: "These movies are popular because they make so much money. They make a lot of money because people like them. People like them because they are so popular."
Shortened Example: "Mr. Winters is a good speaker because he speaks effectively."
Non Sequitur
Definition: Arguments where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Occurs when a step is omitted in a logical chain of reasoning or when unrelated events are presented as connected.
Found at both the sentence and argument levels.
Sentence Level Example: “Slim, of medium height, and with sharp features, Mr. Smith's technical skills are combined with strong leadership qualities”
Argument Level Example:
Trump Critic: “President Trump is a poor public speaker.”
Trump Fan: “Well, Joe Biden is a socialist.” (non-sequitur)
Note: Often combined with the ad hominem fallacy.
Trump Critic: “President Trump is a poor public speaker.”
Trump Fan: “You’re an idiot.” (ad hominem/non-sequitur)
Faulty Causality/False Cause (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc)
Definition: Assumes a causal relationship based solely on the sequence of events.
Just because one event follows another does not mean the first caused the second.
The arguer must prove a causal link, not just temporal succession.
Example: "Eating five candy bars and drinking two sodas before a test helps me get better grades. I did that and got an A on my last test in history."
The arguer ignores other possible causes, such as studying or the test's difficulty.
Faulty Analogies
Definition: Drawing conclusions based on comparisons between situations that are not truly similar.
Extended comparisons or metaphors used to relate ideas can be flawed if the ideas lack significant resemblance.
Example: “Making people register their own guns is like the Nazis making the Jews register with their government.”
The analogy is flawed because the difference between tracking gun owners and the Nazi government's genocide is vast.
Note: The post hoc fallacy is due to lack of a causal connection, in the non sequitur fallacy, the error is due to lack of a logical connection.
Moral Equivalence
Definition: A subcategory of faulty analogy that suggests a serious wrongdoing is no different from a minor offense.
Example: Comparing slave labor to free labor (the slave versus free labor argument in antebellum America).
Hasty Generalizations (Overgeneralizations)
Definition: Basing an argument on insufficient evidence, leading to a conclusion drawn too quickly without considering the whole issue.
Conclusions are based on a small group or a small piece of the issue.
Example: Concluding that all fraternities are party houses because you have seen three parties at one fraternity.
Example: “Some college student was tailgating me all the way up North Main Street last night. This proves that all college students are lousy drivers and that we should pull their driver’s licenses until they either grow up, learn to drive, or graduate!”
Red Herrings
Definition: Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main argument.
Changes the subject to a related but different topic to avoid addressing the original issue.
Example: "You know, I’m beginning to think there is some merit in the Republicans’ tax cut plan. I suggest you come up with something like it, because if we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, which is what the public wants."
The focus shifts from the tax cut plan to desirable party characteristics.
Equivocation
Definition: Using a word with multiple meanings and shifting between those meanings during the argument without clarification.
Often involves vague or ambiguous words like
Ignoring the Question
Definition: Avoiding answering a question directly by subtly changing the subject or answering a related question instead.
Often used in political discourse to evade difficult inquiries.
Ignoring the Question is similar to presenting a red herring. Rather than answering the question that has been asked or addressing the issue at hand, the writer shifts focus, supplying an unrelated argument. In this way, the writer dodges the real issues of the debate.
Example: During a press conference, a political candidate is asked a pointed, specific question about some potentially illegal fund-raising activity. Instead of answering the allegations, the candidate gives a rousing speech thanking all of his financial supporters. The speech was eloquent and moving, but shifted the focus from the issue at hand.
Dogmatism
Definition: Presenting a position as the only conceivable or acceptable one, refusing to consider other perspectives.
Shuts down discussion and undermines the possibility of reasoned agreement.
The unwillingness to even consider the opponent’s argument. The assumption that even when many, perhaps millions, of other people believe otherwise, only you can be correct. This is closely related to the Either/Or fallacy as it’s based on the usually false assumption that competing theories or perspectives cannot co-exist within single systems. The assumption that those who disagree with you are “biased,” while you are “objective.” It is where you are stating something that is an opinion as fact.
Example: Mr. Winters is a better teacher than Ms. Speirs, hands down.
Example: Burger King has the best food in the world!
Straw Man
Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
Involves creating a distorted or exaggerated version of the argument.
Straw Man is a tactic used by a lot of writers that misrepresents the opposition’s argument by exaggeration, distortion, or oversimplification. Many writers use this fallacious argument because they find it easier to refute an oversimplified position rather than a more nuanced one.
Example: "Pro-choicers hate babies!" Or, "Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the kitchen stove!" (completely over-simplified arguments don’t capture the real complexity of the issue)
Example: “We should adopt a dog, they’re so cute!”
“Why do you hate cats? Why do you think cats are ugly?”
Example: “That AP Lang test was so hard.”
“I Know it’s like Ms. Speirs wants us to fail.”
“She wants us to fail so she has less work to do”
Either/Or Arguments (False Dilemma)
Definition: Presenting a situation as having only two options when more exist.
Oversimplifies complex issues and limits the scope of potential solutions.
Either—Or arguments reduce complex issues to black and white choices. Most often issues will have a number of choices for resolution. Because writers who use the either-or argument are creating a problem that doesn’t really exist, we sometimes refer to this fallacy as a false dilemma.
Example: “Look, you’re going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide you can afford a new iPhone or you’re going to have to do without music for a while.” This rigid argument ignores the possibilities of any other options.
Example: “You’re either with me or you’re against me”
Slippery Slope
Definition: Asserting that one event will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences without providing evidence.
Relies on speculation and fails to demonstrate a direct causal link.
Slippery Slopes suggest that one step will inevitably lead to more, eventually negative steps. The slippery slope argues that the descent is inevitable and unalterable. Stirring up emotions against the downward slipping, this fallacy can be avoided by providing solid evidence of the eventuality rather than speculation.
Example: "If we force public elementary school pupils to wear uniforms, eventually we will require middle school students to wear uniforms. If that happens, then high school requirements aren’t far off. Eventually, even college students who attend public universities will be forced to wear uniforms."
Bandwagon Appeals (Ad Populum)
Definition: Arguing that something is true or good because it is popular.
Appeals to the desire to fit in or be accepted.
Bandwagon Appeals (ad populum) is a fallacy that the popular idea is the correct one. Writers who use this approach try to convince readers that everyone else believes something, so the reader should also. The fact that a lot of people believe it does not make it so.
Example: "Fifty million Bieber fans can’t be wrong about how great he is!" Of course they can. The merit of Justin Bieber is not related to how many people do or do not like him or his music.
Ad Hominem (“Against the Man”)
Definition: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Focuses on irrelevant personal characteristics.
Ad Hominem (“against the man”) arguments limit themselves not to the issues, but to attacking the character of the opposition itself. Writers who fall into this fallacy attempt to refute the claims of the opposition by attacking the person, the circumstances, or the actions of the person making the claim. These arguments ignore the issues and attack the people.
Example:
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that—you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. You’re just a lackey for the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”
Appeal to Faulty Authority
Definition: Citing an authority who is not an expert on the subject at hand.
The authority's expertise is irrelevant to the argument.
Appeal to Faulty Authority is, in a way, the opposite strategy of the ad hominem tactic, and is especially prevalent in advertising. Being knowledgeable in one area doesn’t constitute knowledge in other areas. There are three common ways in which this fallacy is implemented: 1) Appealing to an expert in an area that is not his area of expertise; 2) Failure to consider the worldview of the expert and how this might affect his interpretation of the data (everyone has a personal bias, but some more than others); and 3) The writer/speaker has failed to identify the authority.
Example of #1: A popular sports star may know a lot about football, but very little about shaving cream. His expertise on the playing field does not qualify him to intelligently discuss the benefits of aloe.
Example of #3: “Based on data from a recent survey, my opponent’s argument just does not hold true.” (What survey? Who conducted it?)
Scare Tactics (Appeal to Fear)
Definition: Using fear to persuade by exaggerating potential dangers.
Manipulates emotions rather than presenting rational evidence.
Scare Tactics (Appeal to Fear): fear and love are two of the strongest emotions, and this sort of non-rational persuasion is usually designed to tap into both of them, by threatening the safety or happiness of ourselves or someone we love. As a result, it's often called scare tactics or appeal to force because the threats of force are intended to scare us into agreement or action.
Example: You know, Mrs. Kline, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways, visiting my neighbor and parent’s best friend, Ms. Chaudhry. She’s your principal, by the way. I'll see you later.
Appeals to Emotion
Definition: Manipulating emotions to persuade instead of using logical reasoning.
Appeals to Emotion (Pity, Patriotism, Sentimentality, Flattery, etc): attempts to persuade using emotion rather than evidence (also known as a “sob story”).
Example: A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life… Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.
Appeal to Ignorance
Definition: Arguing that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true.
Appeal to Ignorance: This is a fallacious argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. Bottom line—it must be true/false because we cannot prove it is false/true.
Example: “You cannot prove that God does/does not exist, so he must not/must.”
Appeal to Tradition
Definition: Arguing that something is right because it has always been done that way.
Appeal to Tradition: (also "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation, or action is right, correct, or even better simply because it has "always" been that way, because people have "always" thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well.
Example: "In America, women have always been paid less, so let's not mess with long-standing tradition."