Logical Fallacies
4 Criteria of a Good Argument
Relevance Criterion
Definition: The premises must be pertinent to the conclusion.
Example: Asking if Jake is the killer due to a survey showing 90% belief in his guilt is weak if the survey's relevance to evidence isn’t established. This is a bad argument because public opinion does not prove someone's guilt.
Sufficient Grounds Criterion
Definition: The premises should be enough in quantity, quality, and force to support the conclusion.
Example: "Jake is the killer because his fingerprints were found on the weapon" lacks sufficiency if the possibility exists that he was framed by the actual killer. The argument is inadequate.
Acceptability Criterion
Definition: Premises must meet acceptable standards, such as being true and not mere restatements of the conclusion.
Example: “Jake is guilty because he cannot possibly be innocent” is circular reasoning and fails. This does not add valid support.
Rebuttal Criterion
Definition: A good argument should effectively address counterarguments.
Example: Claiming divorce should be legalized due to a fictitious statistic misrepresents evidence. A good rebuttal is crucial for a solid argument.
Fallacies of Reasoning
fallacy: a violation of one or more of the criteria of a good argument; a mistake or error in reasoning
Fallacies Violating Relevance Criterion
Irrelevant or Questionable Authority: Attempting to support a claim by appealing to the judgment of a person or group that lacks direct expertise or knowledge related to the specific issue at hand.
Appeal to Common Opinion: Arguing that something is true based solely on the majority's belief.
Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing current arguments based on past practices without considering changes.
Rationalization: Providing fabricated justifications for a belief.
Using the Wrong Reasons: Presenting irrelevant arguments that don't support the claim.
Drawing Wrong Conclusions: Arriving at conclusions not endorsed by the premises.
Appeal to Pity: Attempting to persuade others by appealing to their sympathy instead of to relevant evidence.
Appeal to Force/Threat: Using threats rather than debate to persuade.
Appeal to Tradition: Relying on tradition or appealing to their feelings or reverence or respect for a tradition instead of evaluating actual evidence.
Appeal to Personal Circumstances or Motives (Appeal to Advantage): Focusing on personal motives rather than robust arguments.
Exploitation of Strong Feelings and Attitudes: Leveraging strong feelings to persuade others of one’s point of view.
Use of Flattery: Seeking agreement through excessive praise rather than logic.
Guilt by Association: Discrediting an argument based on who supports it rather than the argument itself.
Fallacies Violating the Acceptability Criterion
Equivocation: Using a term in multiple senses to mislead.
Ambiguity: Presenting unclear arguments that can be interpreted diversely.
Improper Accent: Mis-emphasizing elements of an argument to change its implication.
Arguing in a Circle: Explicitly or implicitly asserting, in one of the premises of an argument, what is asserted in the conclusion of that argument; repeating the conclusion, not adding anything new to the argument.
Loaded or Complex Question: Framing questions that presuppose unproven assumptions.
Question-Begging Definition: Attempting to establish an irrefutable position in an argument by means of a questionable definition.
Fallacy of the Continuum: Assuming that small things will have a negligible effect and that to make definite distinctions between the points on that line is impossible or at least arbitrary.
Fallacy of Composition: Assuming that what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole.
Fallacy of Division: Assuming that what is true for a whole must also be true for its individual parts.
False Alternatives: Presenting limited choices when other possibilities exist.
Is-Ought Fallacy: Assuming that because something is the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, assuming that because something is not the practice, it ought not to be the practice.
Wishful Thinking: Assuming something will be true because one wishes it to be.
Misuse of a General Principle: Generally, a principle is true/helpful, but it is not meant to be applied in specific cases
Fallacy of the Golden Mean: Assuming that the moderate or middle view between two extremes must be the best or right one simply because it’s the middle view
Faulty Analogy: Assuming that because two things are like in one more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other important respect while failing to recognize the insignificance of their similarities and/or the significance of their dissimilarities.
Fallacy of Novelty: This fallacy asserts that something is superior or better simply because it is new or innovative.
Fallacies Violating the Sufficient Grounds Condition
Insufficient Sample: Drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases.
Unrepresentative Data: Drawing a conclusion based on data from an unrepresentative or biased sample.
Argument from Ignorance: Claiming something is true simply due to a lack of contradictory evidence.
Contrary-to-fact Hypothesis: Treating a hypothetical claim about what would have been in the present if other conditions had been present in the past.
“maybe things would be better if…”
Improper Use of a Cliche: Using an aphorism or cliche in place of relevant evidence or claim.
Inference From a Label: Assuming that evaluative or identifying words or phrases attached to people or things constitute a sufficient reason for drawing conclusions; saying a product is the best one because it is marketed as “new and improved”
Special Pleading: Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception
Confusion of a Necessary With a Sufficient Condition: Necessary condition is different from a sufficient condition
Post Hoc Fallacy: Assuming that a particular event B is caused by another event A simply because B follows A in time
Domino Fallacy/Slippery Slope: Assuming without appropriate evidence that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead to a specifically, usually undesirable, consequence
Gambler’s Fallacy: Mistakenly believing past random events influence future outcomes.
Fallacies Violating the Rebuttal Criterion
Abusive Ad Hominem: Attacking the person rather than the argument.
Poisoning the Well: Rejecting a criticism/argument presented by another’s circumstances because of their personal circumstances or improper motives
“You do it too” Argument (Tu quoque): rejecting a criticism/argument by accusing one’s critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way
Attacking a Straw Man: Misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
Trivial Objections: Attacking an opponent’s position by focusing critical attention on a minor point of the argument.
Red Herring: Attempting to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue
Resort to Humor or Ridicule: Injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to the criticism or counterargument