Logical Fallacies
By Magedah Shabo
PowerPoint®
for the
Classroom
Logical Fallacies PowerPoint, © November 2010
by Prestwick House, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-935466-31-4
Item #: 307622
1
Table of Contents
Non Causa Pro Causa
4
Red Herring
132
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
14
Argument from Authority 139
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
20
Ad Hominem
148
29
Guilt by Association
160
43
Straw Man
165
Hasty Generalization
61
Emotional Appeal
173
Stereotyping
74
Exercises
183
Exercises
Weak Analogy
Exercises
Loaded Question
Exercises
84
98
116
2
Non Causa Pro Causa
A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that follows one of various
well-known patterns.
In the following slides, we’ll discuss several of the most common
types of logical fallacies.
Back to Contents
3
Non Causa Pro Causa
Back to Contents
4
Non Causa Pro Causa
The non causa pro causa fallacy is an error of mistaken causation.
Its Latin name means “non-cause for cause.” It is also known as
the fallacy of “false cause” or “questionable cause.”
A speaker commits this fallacy when he or she identifies a factor that
is not a cause (i.e., a “non-cause”) as a cause.
Back to Contents
5
Non Causa Pro Causa
Often, non causa arguments mistake mere coincidence or correlation
for causation.
It’s important to recognize that correlation is not the same as causation.
Back to Contents
6
Non Causa Pro Causa
Correlation describes a relationship between two or more factors.
Example:
“The increase in temperature was correlated with a simultaneous
increase in gas prices.”
As the temperature increases,
the price of gas also increases.
Back to Contents
7
Non Causa Pro Causa
By contrast, causation is the act of producing an effect.
If we identify a factor as a cause, there is no doubt that it has brought
about a particular result.
Example:
“Falling down the stairs caused Jennifer to break her arm.”
Back to Contents
8
Non Causa Pro Causa
Even if multiple factors appear to be related in some way, one cannot
assume that there is any kind of cause-and-effect relationship between
them without further evidence.
Non causa arguments often overlook the possibility that two factors
may be related by mere chance.
They presume that if two factors appear to be related in some way
(e.g., if they occur at the same time or in the same place), the
relationship must be of a cause-effect nature.
Back to Contents
9
Non Causa Pro Causa
However, this is not always the case. The following argument commits
this fallacy.
1. My grandmother lived to the age of 98.
2. My grandmother ate chocolate every day.
3. My grandmother lived to the age of 98 because she ate chocolate
every day.
Back to Contents
10
Non Causa Pro Causa
The speaker wrongly assumes that the two facts about her grandmother
have a specific cause-and-effect relationship.
“My grandmother lived to the age of 98 because she ate chocolate
every day.”
In reality, it may be merely a coincidence that the grandmother lived a
long life despite eating so much chocolate.
Back to Contents
11
Non Causa Pro Causa
Keep in mind that people often form false conclusions about causes
and effects without committing the non causa pro causa fallacy.
To identify a non causa fallacy, look for an argument that insists a
specific cause-effect relationship exists without giving adequate proof.
Back to Contents
12
Non Causa Pro Causa
There are several subcategories of non causa pro causa arguments,
and in the following slides, we will briefly explore two of the more
commonly seen varieties:
cum hoc, ergo propter hoc
and
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Back to Contents
13
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Back to Contents
14
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The Latin phrase “cum hoc, ergo propter hoc” translates to “with this,
therefore because of this.”
It describes a situation in which a speaker assumes there is a causal
relationship between two factors simply because they occur at the
same time.
Back to Contents
15
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The fact that two events happen simultaneously does not necessarily
mean that they have a cause-and-effect relationship.
For example, consider the following scenario.
An organization called the Society for a Bread-Free Nation (SBFN) cites the
following facts in its mission statement:
“In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the
average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were
unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as
typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.”
Back to Contents
16
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
On the basis of these facts, the society argues that baking bread is a
dangerous activity and poses serious health risks. The SBFN proposes
strict government regulation of the bread-making industry and a ban on
making bread in the home.
The SBFN’s argument is obviously absurd, and through this example,
it’s easy to see the error inherent in all cum hoc fallacies:
The speaker mistakes concurrence (the simultaneous occurrence
of two or more events) for causation.
Back to Contents
17
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Unfortunately, it is often far more difficult to recognize such fallacies
when the argument seems more plausible.
The following is a more realistic example of a cum hoc argument you
might encounter.
Back to Contents
18
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Scientists Confirm Link Between ADD and Cell Phones
Studies have shown that since the use of cell phones has become more
widespread worldwide, diagnoses of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) have
increased dramatically.
These findings seem to suggest that the radiation emitted by cell phones may
cause ADD in some users.
To combat this kind of argument, remember to ask whether the fact
that A and B take place at the same time means that A caused B.
Back to Contents
19
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Back to Contents
20
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy is one of the most common
types of fallacies you’ll encounter, and it is closely related to the
cum hoc fallacy.
The fallacy’s Latin name means “after this, therefore because of this.”
As you may have guessed, the post hoc fallacy occurs when a speaker
attempts to argue that one thing has caused another using only the
chronological sequence of events as evidence.
Back to Contents
21
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The event that happens first is assumed to have caused the event that
follows.
For an example of what these kinds of fallacies look like, let’s consider
another argument from the Society for a Bread-Free Nation.
The SBFN claims that more than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed
within 24 hours after the perpetrator has eaten bread. These findings seem to
suggest that consuming bread inspires violent behavior.
Back to Contents
22
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
If a person commits a violent crime within 24 hours after he or she has
eaten bread, does that mean that eating bread caused the individual to
behave violently?
The obvious answer is no, based on this information alone.
Many people, if not most, consume bread on a daily basis without
committing acts of violence.
Back to Contents
23
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
If there were additional evidence of a connection between eating
bread and committing crimes, SBFN might be able to make the case
that eating bread causes violence.
Without further proof, however, the argument is extremely weak.
Back to Contents
24
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
For a more realistic example, consider the following argument, similar
to one you might hear in a news-analysis program:
Since the new president has been in office, the federal budget deficit has
decreased by ten percent, and unemployment has decreased by an average
of four percent, nationwide. These changes clearly show that the current
president has improved the nation’s economy.
Back to Contents
25
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
In other words:
1. The new president took office in January.
2. Since January, both the federal budget deficit and unemployment
rates have decreased.
3. Therefore, the current president has improved the nation’s
economy.
Back to Contents
26
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
This argument might sound stronger than the argument linking bread
to violence, but it uses the same fallacious reasoning.
We are left asking the same question we asked in the scenario about
eating bread: does the fact that A occurred before B prove that A
caused B?
Back to Contents
27
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The answer, of course, is no. By itself, this information does not prove
a cause-effect relationship.
Remember: A chronological relationship between two events
does not mean that one caused the other.
Back to Contents
28
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Exercise 1: Identification
Identify each of the following arguments as either an example of sound
reasoning or an example of the non causa pro causa fallacy.
Back to Contents
29
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Argument 1:
1. Our company’s stock prices plummeted on June 19th.
2. We hired a new intern that day.
3. Our stock prices fell because we hired the intern.
Answer: non causa pro causa (specifically, cum hoc, ergo propter hoc)
This argument rests its conclusion solely on the sequence of events.
Back to Contents
30
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Argument 2:
1. I took antibiotics yesterday.
2. I’ve been feeling sick today.
3. The antibiotics made me feel sick.
Answer: non causa pro causa (specifically, post hoc, ergo propter hoc)
This argument rests its conclusion solely on the sequence of events.
Back to Contents
31
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Argument 3:
1. Yesterday, I saw a stray cat in my yard.
2. I have never seen any other cat in my yard.
3. Today, I found paw prints in my yard that look like they were made by
a cat.
4. The stray cat probably created the paw prints I found in my yard.
Back to Contents
32
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Answer: legitimate argument
In addition to describing a sequence of events, this argument also includes
another important premise that supports its conclusion—“I have never seen
any other cat in my yard.” The argument is also strengthened by the fact that
its conclusion is qualified with the word “probably.”
Back to Contents
33
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Exercise 2: Explanation
Identify the fallacy that is committed in each argument: cum hoc, post
hoc, or another form of non causa pro causa. Explain your answer.
Back to Contents
34
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
1. A study by the research branch of the International Institute for
Paper Cut Awareness showed that of all the age-groups polled,
people who were 25-35 years old seem to have the highest incidence
of paper cuts, proving conclusively that this is a high-risk age group.
Answer: non causa pro causa (other)
2. Of those surveyed, 27% of current paper cut sufferers were also
found to suffer from chronic sleep disturbances. This confirms the
theory that sleep disturbances are a symptom of paper cuts.
Answer: cum hoc, ergo propter hoc
Back to Contents
35
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
3. The study also proved the link between paper cuts and driving,
demonstrating that for those of driving age, over 86% of paper cuts
occur less than four hours after the sufferer has operated a vehicle.
Researchers believe this clearly demonstrates that driving is a major
cause of paper cuts.
Answer: post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Back to Contents
36
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Exercise 3: Imitation
Create an example of either a cum hoc or a post hoc argument. Identify
which type of fallacy you are illustrating, and explain why the argument
is weak.
Back to Contents
37
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Answers will vary, but should demonstrate an understanding of the
chosen type of non causa fallacy.
For cum hoc arguments, the premise should talk about two or more
events happening at the same time, with no further explanation of how
they might be related, and the conclusion should be that one caused
the other.
Post hoc arguments should be similar, but they should argue that
one event caused the other based solely on the fact that one happened
before the other.
Back to Contents
38
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The arguments should not contain any further explanation for why
the two events might be linked; the conclusions should be based solely
on the timing of events. In explaining why the arguments are weak,
students should state that the timing of events does not by itself
prove causation, and that more evidence of a relationship between the
two events would be needed to make the argument strong.
Back to Contents
39
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Exercise 4: Evaluation
Determine whether the argument contained in the following quote is
strong or fallacious. If the argument is strong, explain why. If it is
weak, identify which fallacy is contained in the quote, and explain what
information the article would need to contain in order to make a strong
argument for causation.
Back to Contents
40
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
“Children who are spanked when they are five years old are more likely to
behave aggressively at the age of seven than they otherwise would have, a new
study suggests. Those children who had been spanked were 50% more likely to
use physical aggression and name-calling, or talk back to their parents than were
their non-spanked peers, according to researchers at The University of Okoboji
in Iowa.”
Back to Contents
41
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The argument contained within the quote is fallacious because it
argues that spanking causes children to misbehave solely on the basis that
some were found to misbehave after being spanked. This argument commits
the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy; it assumes that the first event caused
the second without any proof other than the sequence of events.
In its current form, the argument leaves room for many possibilities.
For example, the children who were spanked might have been children
who have always been more aggressive than their peers. In order to make
a strong argument for causation, the article would have to suggest that
before the experiment began, the children who were to be spanked had the
same overall behavior patterns as the control group (those who were not
going to be spanked).
Back to Contents
42
Weak Analogy
Back to Contents
43
Weak Analogy
One of the simplest forms of reasoning is the argument by analogy.
This kind of argument makes the claim that since two items have a
given attribute in common, they must also share a second, distinct
point of similarity.
Back to Contents
44
Weak Analogy
In other words, arguments by analogy assert the following:
1. A is like B.
2. B has property X.
3. Therefore, A also has property X.
Back to Contents
45
Weak Analogy
This is the underlying form that all analogies share.
But arguments that are based on analogies are rarely expressed so
directly, with explicit statements of comparison and a definitive
conclusion.
More often, arguments by analogy are presented in a simplified form.
For example, the well-known adage “the squeaky wheel gets the
grease” is a shorthand form of an argument from analogy.
Back to Contents
46
Weak Analogy
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease” could be restated in the following
form:
1. A person who complains loudly and frequently attracts attention,
just as a squeaky wheel does.
2. Squeaky wheels get the service they need because they attract
attention to themselves.
3. Therefore, people who complain loudly are also more likely to get
the service they need.
Back to Contents
47
Weak Analogy
As illustrated here, even a comparison between such dissimilar items
as a human being and a wheel can create a surprisingly persuasive
analogy.
Despite the many differences between human beings and wheels, both
are often more likely to receive the service they need when they attract
attention to themselves.
Back to Contents
48
Weak Analogy
As this example illustrates, analogies often make unexpected
comparisons, resulting in memorable illustrations.
However, in some analogies, the differences between the objects of
comparison are more than merely funny or odd—sometimes they are so
significant that they actually defeat the argument.
Back to Contents
49
Weak Analogy
When the comparison between A and B does not lead to the conclusion
given, we have a fallacy known as a weak analogy.
For a literary example of a weak analogy, consider the following
dialogue from Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Back to Contents
50
Weak Analogy
“Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do?”
“No, a cat don’t.”
“Well, does a cow?”
“No, a cow don’t, nuther.”
“Does a cat talk like a cow, or a cow talk like a cat?”
“No, dey don’t.”
“It’s natural and right for ’em to talk different from each other, ain’t it?”
“Course.”
“And ain’t it natural and right for a cat and a cow to talk different from us?”
“Why, mos’ sholy it is.”
“Well, then, why ain’t it natural and right for a Frenchman to talk different from us?
You answer me that.”
In this conversation with Jim, Huck argues that it is natural for people
of different nationalities to speak different languages. He uses an
analogy to prove his point.
Back to Contents
51
Weak Analogy
Huck’s argument could be rephrased as follows:
1. The variation between people of different nationalities—in this
case, French and American—is similar to the variation between
animals of different species.
2. Animals of different species do not make the same sounds or
communicate in the same way.
3. Therefore, it is natural that humans of different nationalities should
not speak the same language.
Back to Contents
52
Weak Analogy
Here, Huck’s conclusion—that it is natural for people of different
nationalities to speak different languages—is correct.
Nevertheless, his argument is fallacious because it is based on a weak
analogy, equating nationality with species.
Back to Contents
53
Weak Analogy
Now, let’s look at Jim’s response to Huck’s analogy.
“Is a cat a man, Huck?”
“No.”
“Well, den, dey ain’t no sense in a cat talkin’ like a man. Is a cow a man?
—er is a cow a cat?”
“No, she ain’t either of them.”
“Well, den, she ain’t got no business to talk like either one er the yuther of ’em.
Is a Frenchman a man?”
“Yes.”
“Well, den! Dad blame it, why doan’ he talk like a man? You answer me dat!”
Back to Contents
54
Weak Analogy
As Jim points out, the differences between different animal species are
not comparable to the differences among different groups of people.
In this passage, Jim illustrates how an argument that is based on a weak
analogy can be refuted.
By pointing out that cats and cows are not of the same species, Jim
draws attention to a major difference between the two objects of
comparison in Huck’s analogy.
Back to Contents
55
Weak Analogy
If there is a significant difference between the objects of an analogy
that casts doubt on the argument’s conclusion, the analogy is probably
weak.
No analogy is perfect, and among legitimate analogies, some are
stronger and more effective than others.
To illustrate this point, let’s take another look at the analogy we
discussed earlier about the squeaky wheel.
Back to Contents
56
Weak Analogy
The strength of the argument “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”
depends on the context in which it is used.
If someone were to use this expression to convince you to yell “fire” in
a crowded theater, the analogy would obviously be quite weak.
However, if used to explain why the employee who complained about
her pay received the highest raise, the analogy would be rather strong.
Back to Contents
57
Weak Analogy
Unfortunately, most weak analogies do not contain obvious flaws.
Assessing the strength of an analogy usually takes careful analysis.
When analyzing an analogy, remember to look for differences between
the two items or situations that are being compared, and see if any of
these differences significantly diminishes the strength of the argument.
Back to Contents
58
Weak Analogy
People often use the expression “comparing apples and oranges” to
point out a weak analogy.
The idea can be rephrased as follows:
1. It is unreasonable to compare apples and oranges because of their
dissimilarity.
2. Objects A and B are as dissimilar as apples and oranges.
3. Therefore, it is unreasonable to compare objects A and B.
Back to Contents
59
Weak Analogy
When you are confronted with an analogy, this saying (“apples and
oranges”) should remind you that the comparison may be unreasonable
based on the differences between the objects involved.
Back to Contents
60
Hasty Generalization
Back to Contents
61
Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization is a type of weak analogy.
In this particular kind of weak analogy, the speaker draws a conclusion
based on an unrepresentative sample, making an analogy between a part
and the whole.
Example:
1. Chester is a cat.
2. Chester has no tail.
3. Therefore, cats have no tails.
Back to Contents
62
Hasty Generalization
This argument is weak because it makes an assumption about all cats
based on a very small sample group: a single cat named Chester.
Chester is being treated as a representative of all the cats that exist.
Back to Contents
63
Hasty Generalization
Any argument that commits the hasty-generalization fallacy will follow
the same basic formula:
1. A is part of B.
2. A has quality X.
3. Therefore, B also
has quality X.
Chester is a cat.
Chester has no tail.
Therefore, all cats are tailless.
Back to Contents
64
Hasty Generalization
For the sake of illustration, let’s consider an extreme example: a
political pollster predicts the outcome of a presidential election based
on a poll of ten randomly selected individuals.
The sample group of ten individuals is treated as analogous to the
entire voting population.
Back to Contents
65
Hasty Generalization
Based on the fact that four respondents said they would vote for
Mickey Mouse, and six claimed they would vote for Donald Duck, the
pollster argues that Mr. Mouse will receive 40% of the votes, while
Mr. Duck will win the election with 60%.
Mouse:
Duck:
40%
60%
Back to Contents
66
Hasty Generalization
In other words:
1. The ten individuals who were polled represent the entire population
of the United States.
2. The group voted 6:4 in favor of Donald Duck.
3. Therefore, the American people will vote 6:4 in favor of Donald
Duck.
Back to Contents
67
Hasty Generalization
Clearly, such a poll would not be scientifically meaningful because
the first premise of the argument—the idea that the views of ten
people represent those of the entire population of the country—is
very weak.
A hasty generalization like this one might correctly predict future
outcomes once in a while, but only by chance.
Back to Contents
68
Hasty Generalization
Of course, it’s not always unreasonable to draw conclusions based on
a small sample.
Under the right conditions, it makes sense to make an analogy between
a small part and the whole—and sometimes that is the only option.
With the proper use of statistical methods, we can make meaningful
predictions.
Back to Contents
69
Hasty Generalization
Unlike the pollster in the example we used earlier, professional
pollsters base their predictions on scientific principles.
They use samples that have been carefully chosen to represent the
entire population.
Back to Contents
70
Hasty Generalization
Fortunately, it’s not necessary to become a professional statistician in
order to make reasonable generalizations in more casual situations.
For instance, it’s perfectly reasonable to draw a conclusion about the
quality of a batch of chocolate-chip cookies after only a few bites.
Back to Contents
71
Hasty Generalization
If the cookies are made from the same batter and are baked the same
way, any given cookie is probably a fair representative of the batch.
By contrast, tasting only one chocolate-chip cookie and drawing
conclusions about an assortment of chocolate-chip, oatmeal, sugar,
and pecan cookies based on this small sample would be a hasty
generalization.
Back to Contents
72
Hasty Generalization
When assessing a generalization that might be fallacious, it’s best to
do what we would do with any other suspicious analogy: look for
differences between the two objects of comparison.
In the case of generalizations, we compare the sample (e.g., the people
polled or the cookie tasted) and the whole (e.g., the entire population
of voters or the whole batch of cookies).
If the argument ignores significant differences between the part and
the whole, the speaker is committing the hasty-generalization fallacy.
Back to Contents
73
Stereotyping
Back to Contents
74
Stereotyping
One common form of hasty generalization is the stereotype—a widely
accepted, simplistic view of people who belong to a given group.
Like other hasty generalizations, arguments based on stereotypes make
assumptions about an entire group based on a small sample.
Back to Contents
75
Stereotyping
Stereotypes are usually made about people.
They characterize everyone who shares a particular quality—whether
it be an ethnicity, a profession, or a shoe size—as sharing some other
trait or group of traits.
The traits may be positive or negative.
Back to Contents
76
Stereotyping
For example, you might hear an argument like the following:
I’ve known many politicians, and you can’t trust any of them; they’re all liars.
In this stereotype, the speaker makes an assumption about every
member of a large group of people (politicians) based on personal
experiences.
Back to Contents
77
Stereotyping
We could rephrase the argument in the following way:
1. All the politicians I have known have been liars.
2. All politicians are exactly like the politicians I have known.
3. Therefore, all politicians are liars.
Back to Contents
78
Stereotyping
To illustrate just how weak this line of reasoning is, let’s look at an
argument of the same form that discusses a different subject:
You can’t trust left-handed people; they’re all liars.
Back to Contents
79
Stereotyping
This statement is based on the same fallacious assumptions made in
the previous argument:
1. A seems to have quality X.
2. A is perfectly representative of group B.
3. Therefore, everyone in group B has quality X.
Back to Contents
80
Stereotyping
The second premise is both the defining feature of stereotypes and
their greatest weakness.
A is perfectly representative of group B.
Back to Contents
81
Stereotyping
As with other hasty generalizations, and weak analogies in general, the
downfall of the stereotyping fallacy is the fact that it assumes sameness
and overlooks significant differences.
When people commit this fallacy, they form assumptions about an
entire population based on an individual member of the group, creating
an analogy between a part and the whole.
Back to Contents
82
Stereotyping
When debunking an argument that is based on a stereotype, remember
to attack the weakest premise of the argument—the idea that “A”
(e.g., a politician, a group of left-handed people, etc.) is a perfect
representative of everyone in category B.
Back to Contents
83
Stereotyping
Exercise 1: Identification
The following arguments use common sayings to support their
conclusions. Identify each as a strong analogy, a weak analogy, or
another form of expression (“other”). Explain your answer.
Back to Contents
84
Stereotyping
1. Pride goes before a fall, so you should stop bragging so much.
Other. This argument does not contain an analogy.
2. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so we should remove
the worst players from our team.
Strong. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. Here, the
chain represents the team, and the weakest link can be equated to the
weakest players on the team.
Back to Contents
85
Stereotyping
3. A rolling stone gathers no moss, so it’s best to stay in one place.
Weak. The analogy does not lead to the given conclusion. In this
analogy, growing moss signifies decay and stagnancy. Therefore, the
premise that “a rolling stone gathers no moss” suggests the opposite
of the given conclusion.
4. God looks after drunks and fools, so I’m sure he will look after you.
Other. This argument does not contain an analogy.
Back to Contents
86
Stereotyping
5. A leopard cannot change its spots, so I wouldn’t expect Peter to
stop lying.
Strong. The conclusion follows logically from the premise. In this
analogy, the leopard’s spots represent a characteristic of the leopard
that is essential to its nature, just as deceitfulness is here assumed to be
essential to Peter’s nature.
Back to Contents
87
Stereotyping
Exercise 2: Explanation
The following passage contains an analogy. Explain which objects are
being compared in the analogy and what conclusion is drawn.
1. “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not
overdo it.” — Lao Tsu
Governing a country is compared to frying a small fish. The
conclusion is that too much governance can ruin a nation, just as too
much cooking can spoil a fish.
Back to Contents
88
Stereotyping
Rephrase the analogy in the following format:
1. A is like B.
2. A has property X.
3. B also has property X.
1. Governing a great nation is like frying a small fish.
2. When you overcook a fish, you ruin it.
3. Likewise, when you govern excessively, you may ruin a nation.
Back to Contents
89
Stereotyping
2. “[A] great Empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at
the edges.” –Benjamin Franklin (from the essay, “Rules By Which
A Great Empire May Be Reduced To A Small One”)
Franklin compares empires to cakes and concludes that both items are
easiest to demolish at their peripheries.
1. Empires are like cakes in that each has physical boundaries or
“edges.”
2. The easiest way to make a cake smaller is to eat away at its edges.
3. Likewise, it is easiest to make an empire smaller by conquering its
peripheral territories.
Back to Contents
90
Stereotyping
Exercise 3: Imitation
Create an example of a legitimate analogy and an example of a weak
analogy. Then, for each analogy, translate your argument into the
following format:
1. Premise
2. Premise
3. Conclusion
Then, explain the difference between the legitimate analogy and the
fallacious analogy.
Back to Contents
91
Stereotyping
Answers will vary, but should fall within the following parameters:
Both the legitimate and the weak analogy should follow the form
A is like B.
B has property X.
Therefore, A also has property X.
Back to Contents
92
Stereotyping
The legitimate example should compare objects A and B in a reasonable
manner, while the fallacious example should make a comparison that
does not suggest the conclusion given. There is an element of subjectivity
at play, but students should demonstrate, especially in their explanations,
that they understand what an analogy is and what kinds of comparisons
do and do not make proper analogies.
Back to Contents
93
Stereotyping
Exercise 4: Evaluation
The following passage comes from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The
Brothers Karamazov. Read the segment carefully. Then, answer the
questions that follow the passage.
Back to Contents
94
Stereotyping
“But to return to the eldest son,” Ippolit Kirillovitch went on. “He is the
prisoner before us. We have his life and his actions, too, before us; the fatal day
has come and all has been brought to the surface. While his brothers seem to
stand for ‘Europeanism’ and ‘the principles of the people,’ he seems to represent
Russia as she is. Oh, not all Russia, not all! God preserve us, if it were! Yet, here
we have her, our mother Russia, the very scent and sound of her. Oh, he is
spontaneous, he is a marvelous mingling of good and evil, he is a lover of culture
and Schiller, yet he brawls in taverns and plucks out the beards of his boon
companions.”
Back to Contents
95
Stereotyping
1. Identify what group of people is described in this passage.
Answer: The speaker describes the people of Russia.
2. Briefly describe how the group is characterized.
Answer: In this speech, the Russian people are characterized as having
a dual nature that combines good with evil and idealism with vulgarity.
Back to Contents
96
Stereotyping
3. Determine whether the description constitutes an example of
stereotyping, explaining your conclusion and providing support
from the passage.
Answer: This passage does not constitute an example of stereotyping
because the speaker qualifies his statement with the expression, “Oh,
not all Russia, not all!” With this explanation, the speaker makes it
clear that he is not claiming that all Russians fit his description. For
this reason, while the speaker is making a broad generalization about
what Russians tend to be like, he is not committing a fallacy.
Back to Contents
97
Loaded Question
Back to Contents
98
Loaded Question
Each of the fallacies we’ve discussed so far has been a fallacy of
argumentation.
The loaded question, however, is a fallacy of interrogation.
Rather than being a flawed argument, this type of fallacy occurs in the
form of a question.
Back to Contents
99
Loaded Question
Loaded questions are laden with assumptions.
The question, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” is often used
as an example of this underhanded tactic.
Loaded questions are designed to be impossible to answer without
making a concession of some kind.
Back to Contents
100
Loaded Question
The purpose of this technique is to trick an opponent into conceding
one or more points that have not been agreed upon or proven.
Rather than attempting to prove premises one by one, the individual
who commits this kind of fallacy speaks as if the premises are
obviously true and require no proof or discussion.
Back to Contents
101
Loaded Question
For example, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” implies that
the person in question has at some point beaten his wife.
The respondent appears to have only two possible options for
answering the question:
a. “Yes; I have stopped beating my wife.”
b. “No; I still beat my wife.”
Back to Contents
102
Loaded Question
If neither of the options is suitable, it’s best to point out that the
question is fallacious and then suggest an “option c” that more
accurately reflects the truth.
In this case, an appropriate response may be:
c. “I have never beaten my wife.”
Back to Contents
103
Loaded Question
Loaded questions often combine two or more questions into one.
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
This particular question can be broken down into the following:
“Have you ever beaten your wife?”
“If so, have you stopped beating your wife?”
Back to Contents
104
Loaded Question
In the following example, which is taken from Voltaire’s Candide, the
speaker combines quite a number of assumptions into a single “yes or
no” question.
“Do you think,” said Candide, “that men have always massacred each other, as
they do today? Have they always been liars, cheats, traitors, brigands, weak, flighty,
cowardly, envious, gluttonous, drunken, grasping and vicious, bloody, backbiting,
debauched, fanatical, hypocritical, and silly?”
Back to Contents
105
Loaded Question
In this case, despite the numerous unproven premises that are built into
the question, the respondent still appears to have only two responses to
choose from:
a. “Yes—people are, and always have been, liars, cheats, traitors,
brigands, weak, flighty, cowardly, envious, gluttonous, drunken,
grasping and vicious, bloody, backbiting, debauched, fanatical,
hypocritical, and silly, as they are today.”
b. “No—people have not always been liars, cheats, traitors, brigands,
weak, flighty, cowardly, envious, gluttonous, drunken, grasping and
vicious, bloody, backbiting, debauched, fanatical, hypocritical, and
silly, as they are today.”
Back to Contents
106
Loaded Question
Whether answering “yes” or “no,” the respondent must concede that
people are currently liars, cheats, traitors, etc.
The only question is whether people have always matched this detailed
description.
Back to Contents
107
Loaded Question
A more honest approach would be to deal with each issue separately.
First, the speaker must deal with the issue of whether humans are
currently liars, then cheats, then traitors, and so on until each quality
has been discussed.
Then, the question of whether people have always been as they are
today can be posed.
Back to Contents
108
Loaded Question
To respond to this kind of question, first point out that the question is
loaded with assumptions.
Then, explain your stance on the subject.
Back to Contents
109
Loaded Question
For example, in response to Candide’s question, one might say,
“People are generally cheats and liars, but not traitors or cowards.
They have not always been this way.”
Loaded questions can come in many forms. In each case, the questioner
is attempting to get the respondent to concede a point that has not been
proven or discussed.
Back to Contents
110
Loaded Question
Example:
1. “Who do you think will win the election: the lying con artist or the
cheating hypocrite?”
2. “What do you think of the corrupt two-party system?”
3. “Where does Santa Claus really live?”
Back to Contents
111
Loaded Question
4. “When did you stop trying to get to work on time?”
5. “Why do gun owners like violence so much?”
6. “How can we ensure that rabid squirrels are no longer a threat to the
lives of our citizens?”
Back to Contents
112
Loaded Question
In some situations, it’s perfectly appropriate to ask a question that
contains an assumption.
1. Asking about an issue that has already been resolved in the
discussion.
For example, asking “Have you always been a thief?” of someone who
has already admitted to being a thief at present.
Back to Contents
113
Loaded Question
2. Asking a rhetorical question—a thought-provoking question that
requires no response.
Example: “Here was Caesar! When comes such another?” (From
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar)
3. Asking about a fact that’s considered common knowledge or an
experience that is considered universal.
Example: “Why is the sky blue?” or “When did you get your first
driver’s license?”
Back to Contents
114
Loaded Question
Outside of these circumstances, asking more than one question in a
single sentence is a fallacious method of questioning.
So, have you stopped asking loaded questions yet?
Back to Contents
115
Loaded Question
Exercise 1: Identification
Determine whether the following questions on the next few slides are
fair or a “loaded” questions. Explain your answer.
Back to Contents
116
Loaded Question
1. How long has France been an evil country?
Answer: Loaded question; assumes that France is an evil country at
present.
2. Has grass always been green?
Answer: Legitimate question; the fact that grass appears green to the
human eye is common knowledge.
Back to Contents
117
Loaded Question
3. Is it still immoral to sell cigarettes now that everyone knows they
cause cancer?
Answer: Loaded question; assumes that it is immoral to sell cigarettes
under some circumstances and that it has been immoral to do so in the
past.
4. When will there be justice in Tibet?
Answer: Loaded question; assumes both that there is currently no
justice in Tibet and that someday there will be justice in the region.
Back to Contents
118
Loaded Question
5. Do you know when Alaska became a state?
Answer: Legitimate question; it is a well-known, undisputed fact that
Alaska was granted statehood at some point in time.
Back to Contents
119
Loaded Question
Exercise 2: Explanation
Identify the assumption(s) contained in the following questions.
Back to Contents
120
Loaded Question
1. “How many times must the cannon balls fly / before they’re forever
banned?” – Bob Dylan, “Blowin’ in the Wind”
Answer: This question assumes that cannon balls (symbolic of
instruments of war) will one day be “forever banned.”
Back to Contents
121
Loaded Question
2. “How much longer are we going to think it necessary to be
’American’ before (or in contradistinction to) being cultivated,
being enlightened, being humane, and having the same intellectual
discipline as other civilized countries?” – Edith Wharton
Answer: In this question, Edith Wharton assumes that Americans
believe it more important to be “American” than to have the
refinements she describes (i.e., education, enlightenment, etc.).
Wharton also assumes that citizens of “other civilized countries” have
greater intellectual discipline than Americans have.
Back to Contents
122
Loaded Question
3. “Our study was set up to explore why some people can exercise
self-control, while others simply cannot.” – a professor of
psychology
Answer: The question assumes that some individuals can exercise
self-control and that others simply cannot do so. This is problematic
because even the idea that there are some who can exercise self control
could be contested. The suggestion that some people simply cannot
control themselves is an even greater assumption, leaving more room
for controversy. (A response describing only one of the two assumptions
is acceptable.)
Back to Contents
123
Loaded Question
Exercise 3: Imitation
Create an example of a loaded question. Then, describe the question’s
implicit assumption(s). Finally, break the question into two or more
distinct questions, dealing with one issue at a time.
Back to Contents
124
Loaded Question
Example:
“What can we do to stop the spread of Marxist propaganda in our
schools?”
This question assumes both that Marxist propaganda is currently being
spread in schools and that this propaganda must be stopped. It could
be broken down into the following questions: “Is Marxist propaganda
being spread in schools? If so, should we try to stop the spread of this
propaganda?”
Back to Contents
125
Loaded Question
Student responses will vary, but they should demonstrate an
understanding of the concept of loaded questions—questions that
contain assumptions that could be contested.
Back to Contents
126
Loaded Question
Exercise 4: Evaluation
In the biblical dialogue that follows, we see an example of a loaded
question and a model of an appropriate response. Read the passage and
complete the following steps:
1. Explain what assumption is contained within the loaded question.
2. Rewrite the question in a way that eliminates the unwarranted
assumption contained in the original question.
3. In your own words, explain the response to the question that appears
in the passage.
Back to Contents
127
Loaded Question
“As [Jesus] passed along, He noticed a man blind from his birth. His disciples
asked Him, ’Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born
blind?’
Jesus answered, ’It was not that this man or his parents sinned, but he was born
blind in order that the workings of God should be manifested (displayed and
illustrated) in him.’”
- John 9:1-3 (Amplified Bible)
Back to Contents
128
Loaded Question
1. Explain what assumption is contained within the loaded question.
Answer: The question assumes that the man’s blindness must have been
caused by one of only two things: the man’s sin or that of his parents.
The question also assumes that the man’s blindness is a punishment.
Back to Contents
129
Loaded Question
2. Rewrite the question in a way that eliminates the unwarranted
assumption contained in the original question.
Answer: There are several different ways to reword this question that
would eliminate the fallacy, including the following:
• “Is this man’s blindness a punishment for sin?”
• “Was it sin that caused this man to be born blind? If so, whose sin
caused his blindness?”
• “Was it this man’s sins, the sins of his parents, or something
different that caused this man to be born blind?”
Back to Contents
130
Loaded Question
3. In your own words, explain the response to the question that appears
in the passage.
In responding to the question, Jesus points out that it was neither
the man’s sin nor the sins of his parents that caused him to be born
blind—there was a different reason for it altogether: “that the
workings of God should be manifested in him.”
Back to Contents
131
Red Herring
Back to Contents
132
Red Herring
A red herring argument diverts attention from the true issues of a
debate by emphasizing irrelevant information.
This use of the term “red herring” has its origins in the practice of
using smoked herring to train hunting dogs.
At one time, it was common practice for English fox hunters to use the
flesh of these reddish-colored fish to create trails for their hounds to
follow, thus training the dogs to follow a scent.
Back to Contents
133
Red Herring
Through this association, “red herring” has come to symbolize any
diversionary tactic that essentially creates a “false trail.”
Like many logical fallacies, the red herring technique is often used to
divert attention from a weakly presented or ill-founded argument.
Back to Contents
134
Red Herring
The following dialogue from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers
Karamazov contains a humorous example of the use of the red herring
technique in a poorly reasoned argument.
It’s impossible, I think, for the devils to forget to drag me down to hell with
their hooks when I die. Then I wonder—hooks? Where would they get them?
What of? Iron hooks? Where do they forge them? Have they a foundry there of
some sort? The monks in the monastery probably believe that there’s a ceiling in
hell, for instance. Now I’m ready to believe in hell, but without a ceiling. But, do
you know, there’s a damnable question involved in it. If there’s no ceiling there
can be no hooks, and if there are no hooks it all breaks down, which is unlikely
again, for then there would be none to drag me down to hell, and if they don’t
drag me down what justice is there in the world?
Back to Contents
135
Red Herring
In this passage, the speaker, Fyodor Karamazov, attempts to cast doubt
on the concept of Hell by arguing that it can exist only if it has a ceiling
and if its demons are equipped with hooks.
Lacking a logical defense for his skepticism over the concept of Hell,
he grasps for a defense through these inconsequential details.
Back to Contents
136
Red Herring
When used well, the red herring technique can be highly effective at
sidetracking audiences.
Nevertheless, doing so can make the speaker seem desperate and
dishonest.
The use of this fallacy can ruin even a good argument by making it
seem too weak to stand on its own.
Back to Contents
137
Red Herring
There are many varieties of red herring fallacies, and each sub-type in
this category describes a specific approach to distraction.
In the slides that follow, we’ll discuss a few of the most common types
of red herring fallacies.
Back to Contents
138
Argument from Authority
Back to Contents
139
Argument from Authority
An argument from authority is one that places undue emphasis on the
opinion of the speaker or another presumed expert.
Not all arguments that cite the opinion of an expert are fallacious; in
fact, in many situations, trusting the opinion of someone who has a
great deal of knowledge and experience is the most logical thing to do.
Back to Contents
140
Argument from Authority
We generally give great weight to the opinions of experts when dealing
with complex subjects that the average untrained person may have
trouble understanding.
For instance, it’s perfectly reasonable to consider a doctor’s opinion
about the human body or a mechanic’s opinion about an engine.
Back to Contents
141
Argument from Authority
It’s also important to note that all arguments appeal to an ultimate
authority of some kind.
For instance, modern scientists usually appeal to the evidence in nature
that they are able to directly observe or measure as their ultimate
authority.
The fact that a speaker is appealing to an authority of some kind does
not, in and of itself, make an argument weak.
Back to Contents
142
Argument from Authority
A fallacious argument from authority commits one of the following
mistakes:
a. cites an “expert” who is not really an authority on the subject at
hand
b. treats a legitimate expert’s opinion as infallible proof
Back to Contents
143
Argument from Authority
Examples of citing an inappropriate “expert”:
The U.S. Surgeon General uses a PC.
Therefore, PCs are better than Macs.
Back to Contents
144
Argument from Authority
Citing an expert’s opinion as infallible proof:
The U.S. Surgeon General says that no one should ever be allowed to
eat trans-fat.
Therefore, no one should ever be allowed to eat trans-fat.
Back to Contents
145
Argument from Authority
Keep in mind that a speaker can also commit either of these arguments
from authority by citing his or her own opinion as infallible or by
inappropriately assuming the role of expert.
A speaker should always attempt to appear credible and may use his
or her own character and experience to add weight to an argument.
The problem occurs when a speaker cites an opinion not to support,
but to replace or override logical thought.
Back to Contents
146
Argument from Authority
There is nothing wrong with using an expert’s opinion to bolster an
argument, if the individual truly has special knowledge of the topic.
It’s important to remember, however, that in a rational debate, no mere
opinion, however well informed, can constitute a sufficient argument
in and of itself.
At best, an opinion can add credibility to an argument that is well
supported by facts.
Back to Contents
147
Ad Hominem
Back to Contents
148
Ad Hominem
Like other red herring fallacies, ad hominem arguments are meant to
divert attention from the legitimate issues of the debate.
In this particular kind of red herring, the distraction that’s offered is
an argument that focuses on irrelevant details about the speaker’s
opponent.
That’s why this kind of argument is called ad hominem, which means
“against the man” in Latin.
Back to Contents
149
Ad Hominem
The speaker who commits this fallacy avoids tackling an opponent’s
argument by instead focusing on some unrelated quality of the
individual.
The following dialogue illustrates what this technique might look like
in a debate:
A: My research demonstrates that using pesticides in the home increases the
risk of cancer.
B: Have you had cancer?
A: No.
B: Then you’re in no position to know whether pesticides cause cancer.
Back to Contents
150
Ad Hominem
In this example, speaker B makes an obvious attempt to distract the
audience from his opponent’s points.
The attempt falls flat because B’s ad hominem attack clearly has no
bearing on A’s argument.
Back to Contents
151
Ad Hominem
Instead of addressing the research his opponent has presented, speaker
B attempts to put speaker A’s authority in doubt.
B claims that A cannot perform a meaningful scientific analysis
because he has never experienced cancer.
A legitimate response to speaker A’s presentation would have focused
on the argument presented, rather than speaker A’s personal
experience—unless personal experience was central to speaker A’s
argument.
Back to Contents
152
Ad Hominem
The example we looked at may seem absurd, but the pattern it follows
is not uncommon in debates.
Unfortunately, when a debate touches upon emotionally charged issues,
it can be more difficult to discern the faulty thought patterns behind
this kind of attack.
Back to Contents
153
Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is one of the most common and best-known fallacies.
However, many of the statements that are described as ad hominem
attacks do not actually commit this logical fallacy.
Back to Contents
154
Ad Hominem
The best way to gauge the legitimacy of a possible ad hominem
argument is to determine whether the allegation is designed merely to
distract from the issue at hand.
If the argument casts legitimate doubts on an opponent’s knowledge
or personal credibility, the speaker may actually be making a useful
point.
Back to Contents
155
Ad Hominem
Consider the following more sensible approach to questioning an
opponent’s expertise.
A: My research demonstrates that using pesticides in the home increases the
risk of cancer.
B: Do you have a degree in medicine or biology?
A: No; I’m a sociologist.
B: Can you tell us more about how you conducted your research?
Back to Contents
156
Ad Hominem
This approach is not fallacious.
In a debate on this topic, it might be perfectly legitimate for a speaker
to point out an opponent’s relative lack of knowledge of biology or
medicine.
It would not, however, be appropriate to suggest that an opponent
cannot be qualified to enter the debate simply because he has not had
personal experience with pesticides or cancer.
Back to Contents
157
Ad Hominem
As a general rule, it’s reasonable to point out an opponent’s personal
traits if they relate to his or her credibility.
In a political debate or murder trial, for example, questioning the
individual’s character is often acceptable.
The further the accusations stray from the facts of the argument,
however, the weaker (i.e., more fallacious) an ad hominem appeal
becomes.
Back to Contents
158
Ad Hominem
To defuse an ad hominem argument, point out that it is a mere
distraction from the true questions at hand.
Demonstrate that the accusation, even if true, does not change the
nature of the facts in dispute.
Back to Contents
159
Guilt by Association
Back to Contents
160
Guilt by Association
Guilt by association is a type of ad hominem fallacy in which a
speaker attempts to malign an opponent by associating that person
with an offensive individual, group, idea, or object.
One real-life example of this kind of argument can be seen in a
political advertisement that was created for Lyndon B. Johnson’s
1964 presidential campaign.
The commercial, which was never televised because of its controversial
approach, attempted to vilify Johnson’s opponent, Barry Goldwater, by
associating him with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
Back to Contents
161
Guilt by Association
The commercial depicted activities and symbols associated with the
KKK, accompanied by the following narration:
’We represent the majority of the people in Alabama who hate niggerism,
Catholicism, Judaism, and all the -isms in the whole world.’ So said Robert
Creel, Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan. He also said, ’I like Barry
Goldwater. I believe what he believes in.’
In this quote, we see a blatant use of the guilt-by-association fallacy.
Back to Contents
162
Guilt by Association
Johnson’s campaign attempted to malign Goldwater based solely on the
fact that he was admired by a leader of the KKK.
According to the ad, Goldwater represented the same bigoted worldview
and interests Robert Creel supported.
The problem is that from the information in this ad, it is impossible to
know whether the two men actually agreed on substantive issues; all we
know is that Creel has endorsed Goldwater.
Back to Contents
163
Guilt by Association
Without any further illustration of bigotry on the part of Goldwater
himself, this argument would be fallacious even if Goldwater had
actually been as bigoted as Creel.
In reality, Goldwater had rejected Creel’s endorsement before the
advertisement was made.
Back to Contents
164
Straw Man
Back to Contents
165
Straw Man
Like each of the other red herrings we’ve discussed, straw-man
arguments are a diversionary tactic.
In this particular fallacy, the speaker avoids addressing an opponent’s
argument directly by creating and attacking a “dummy” argument that
does not accurately represent the opponent’s stance.
Back to Contents
166
Straw Man
Rather than addressing the opponent’s points, the speaker describes a
different argument and argues this bogus position instead of addressing
the real argument.
It’s as if the speaker is attacking a mere scarecrow—a limp, lifeless
caricature of the opponent’s true stance.
Back to Contents
167
Straw Man
Often, a speaker will mischaracterize his or her opponent’s stance in a
subtle way, altering a few key details.
Most straw-man arguments will exaggerate the opposition’s stance to
some degree, making it seem more extreme than it actually is.
For an example of a straw-man argument, we can look at Voltaire’s
Candide.
Back to Contents
168
Straw Man
Voltaire created this satirical novella to mock the ideas of his
contemporary, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz.
Voltaire used one of his main characters, Professor Pangloss, to voice
a distorted version of Leibniz’s arguments.
Back to Contents
169
Straw Man
Pangloss insists repeatedly that “All is for the best in this best of all
possible worlds,” despite the fact that he is surrounded by disaster and
tragedy.
Through this straw-man representation, Voltaire simply ridicules
Leibniz, rather than addressing his actual arguments in all their
complexity.
Back to Contents
170
Straw Man
The straw-man fallacy can be found in many forms. For an example of
what this fallacy might look like in a political setting, consider the
following argument you might hear in a public debate:
The Senator from Vermont has suggested that we dismantle our North
Atlantic Radar system now that the Soviet Union is no longer a threat.
I don’t understand why he would want the United States to be
defenseless.
Back to Contents
171
Straw Man
The speaker asserts that his opponent “want[s] the United States to be
defenseless.”
This obvious distortion of the opponent’s viewpoint makes the speaker
appear desperate and untrustworthy.
When the straw-man tactic is used against you, point directly to the
differences between your argument and the version of your argument
your opponent is presenting.
Back to Contents
172
Emotional Appeal
Back to Contents
173
Emotional Appeal
An emotional appeal is a red herring fallacy in which a speaker
attempts to persuade an audience through emotional manipulation.
Like all forms of the red herring fallacy, appeals to emotion offer a
distraction from the true issues in question.
Back to Contents
174
Emotional Appeal
In this case, the distraction presented is one that arouses strong feelings.
Example:
You should eat everything on your plate because there are starving
children in Africa.
Back to Contents
175
Emotional Appeal
You should eat everything on your plate because there are starving
children in Africa.
This argument can be rewritten as follows:
1. There are starving children in Africa.
2. Therefore, you should be grateful that you have food.
3. Therefore, you should eat everything on your plate.
Back to Contents
176
Emotional Appeal
This argument might seem compelling, but from a logical standpoint,
it is weak.
While the thought of starving children should inspire gratitude, it does
not provide a rationale for eating whatever food happens to be on one’s
plate.
Rather than providing a logical reason for a certain way of behaving or
thinking, this argument attempts to persuade through an appeal to guilt.
Back to Contents
177
Emotional Appeal
Fallacious appeals to emotion cover the entire range of human feelings.
They often evoke negative feelings, like envy and fear, but benevolent
emotions, like pity, can also be abused using this tactic.
Appealing to an audience’s emotions can be a reasonable and justifiable
approach when done properly.
This approach is most appropriate in arguments that are meant to
inspire a specific action and bring about a predictable direct outcome.
Back to Contents
178
Emotional Appeal
It makes sense to appeal to fear when convincing a child not to play
with matches.
Don’t play with matches; you could set the house on fire.
Note that this message suggests a specific action on the basis of a
direct outcome.
Back to Contents
179
Emotional Appeal
Likewise, if a speaker is appealing for charity, it’s reasonable to appeal
to the audience’s pity.
If you don’t donate your kidney, your uncle is not likely to
survive much longer.
Again, in this case, the speaker describes a specific action and a
direct outcome.
Back to Contents
180
Emotional Appeal
Legitimate emotional appeals connect actions with outcomes.
They do not use emotional language to override logical thought, like
the fallacious argument below.
The engineers made a few miscalculations in designing the space
shuttle, but they put a lot of effort into it. They’d be disappointed if we
asked them to start over.
Back to Contents
181
Emotional Appeal
In this instance, the speaker is suggesting that a decision be made
purely on the basis of emotion, despite the likelihood of a disastrous
outcome.
To rebut a manipulative argument, point out the role that emotion is
playing in the argument.
Then, give a reasoned evaluation of the role emotion should play in
the issue at hand.
Back to Contents
182
Emotional Appeal
Exercise 1: Identification
Identify which type of red herring fallacy these statement exemplify.
Back to Contents
183
Emotional Appeal
1. Senator Fink would like us to wage war against any country that
fails to obey our every wish.
Answer: straw man
2. He doesn’t seem to value the many thousands of lives that will be
lost—or the tears of the thousands of mothers who will have to
hear that their sons and daughters are never coming home again.
Answer: emotional appeal
Back to Contents
184
Emotional Appeal
3. Benjamin Franklin once said, “There never was a good war or a bad
peace.” If one of our founding fathers believed that war was always
a bad thing, I think we, too, should agree that this war is a bad idea.
Answer: argument from (misleading) authority
4. Would you rather listen to Benjamin Franklin or to Senator Fink,
who failed a history class in college?
Answer: ad hominem
Back to Contents
185
Emotional Appeal
Exercise 2: Explanation
Each of the following arguments appeals to the emotions. For each,
identify whether the argument represents a legitimate appeal to pathos
or a fallacious emotional appeal.
Back to Contents
186
Emotional Appeal
1. Americans spend an estimated twenty billion dollars annually on
ice cream. That amount of money could feed eighty-three million
hungry children for an entire year. The whole world would be better
off if Americans would stop eating ice cream.
Answer: This is a fallacious emotional appeal. The conclusion of the
argument is not strongly suggested by its premises. The premises do
not suggest that if Americans were to simply stop eating ice cream, the
world would be better off in any way. If the conclusion suggested that
Americans use their money in some other way—for example, sending it
to hungry children overseas—this argument would be much stronger.
Back to Contents
187
Emotional Appeal
2. Americans spend an estimated twenty billion dollars annually on
ice cream. That amount of money could feed eighty-three million
hungry children for an entire year. Americans are selfish.
Answer: This is also a fallacious emotional appeal. The conclusion of
the argument is not strongly suggested by its premises. The fact that
Americans spend a certain amount of money on ice cream does not, in
and of itself, strongly suggest that Americans are selfish. This argument
does not take into account the number of people living in the U.S., the
amount of money Americans donate to hungry children overseas, or the
exchange rate between countries, among other important factors.
Back to Contents
188
Emotional Appeal
3. Americans spend an estimated twenty billion dollars annually on
ice cream. That amount of money could feed eighty-three million
hungry children for an entire year. Americans could easily help
alleviate hunger in other parts of the world by sending a few dollars
a month that they might otherwise have spent on something like ice
cream to the World Hunger Campaign.
Answer: This argument makes a legitimate appeal to pathos. Unlike the
previous two arguments, this argument has premises and a conclusion
that are directly related, and the truth of the premises strongly suggests
the truth of the conclusion.
Back to Contents
189
Emotional Appeal
Exercise 3: Imitation
Create an example of a legitimate argument that appeals to an
authoritative source. Then, create an example of a fallacious argument
from authority. Explain what makes one argument strong and the other
fallacious.
Back to Contents
190
Emotional Appeal
Example of a strong argument:
1. I have studied plant biology for forty years, and I have never heard
of a plant that does not need any light at all to survive.
2. Therefore, there probably aren’t any plants that can flourish in total
darkness.
Back to Contents
191
Emotional Appeal
Example of a fallacious argument from authority:
1. Thomas Jefferson thought that alliances between nations could be
harmful.
2. Therefore, the United States should have no part in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Back to Contents
192
Emotional Appeal
Answers will vary, but should fall within the following parameters: The
strong argument should cite a source that matches the subject of the
argument and should not treat the opinion or statement of a human
being as being sufficient evidence on which to rest the entire argument.
The fallacious argument, by contrast, should cite a source that does not
relate well to the subject at hand; alternatively, it may cite a reliable
individual’s opinion or statement as sufficient evidence, in and of itself,
on which to rest the argument’s conclusion.
Back to Contents
193
Emotional Appeal
Exercise 4: Evaluation
The following is an excerpt from Kenneth B. Clark’s 1963 interview
of Malcolm X. In this section of the interview, Malcolm X argues
against Martin Luther King, Jr.’s policy of non-violent activism. Read
the passage carefully. Then, describe each of the two bolded passages
as either a legitimate argument or an example of one of the specific
kinds of red herring arguments described in the previous chapter.
Explain your answer, including why Malcolm X’s response does or
does not qualify as fallacious.
Back to Contents
194
Emotional Appeal
Clark: Reverend Martin Luther King preaches a doctrine of non-violent insistence upon the
rights of the American Negro. What is your attitude toward this philosophy?
Malcolm X: The white man pays Reverend Martin Luther King, subsidizes Reverend Martin
Luther King, so that Reverend Martin Luther King can continue to teach the Negroes to be
defenseless. That’s what you mean by non-violent: be defenseless. Be defenseless in the
face of one of the most cruel [sic] beasts that has ever taken a people into captivity. That’s
this [sic] American white man.
And they have proved it throughout the country by the police dogs and the police clubs...
And just as Uncle Tom, back during slavery, used to keep the Negroes from resisting the
bloodhound, or resisting the Ku Klux Klan, by teaching them to love their enemy, or pray
for those who use them spitefully, today Martin Luther King is just a 20th century or
modern Uncle Tom, or a religious Uncle Tom, who is doing the same thing today, to keep
Negroes defenseless in the face of an attack, that Uncle Tom did on the plantation to keep
those Negroes defenseless in the face of the attacks of the Klan in that day.
Back to Contents
195
Emotional Appeal
Answer: The first bolded passage is an example of a straw-man
argument. Here, Malcolm X has equated King’s policy of non-violence
with a policy of utter defenselessness. Rather than using logic to argue
against King’s real position—his claim that non-violent protests make
a powerful statement and are the most effective way to change a
society—Malcolm X simply reframes King’s stance in a way that makes
it seem ridiculous (or even sinister, in light of the earlier allegation
that King is being paid by “the white man” to pursue this agenda).
Back to Contents
196
Emotional Appeal
In the second bolded section, Malcolm X attacks King personally with
an ad hominem argument. Specifically, he uses the guilt-by-association
technique, characterizing King as an “Uncle Tom,” or a traitor,
because King shares certain beliefs with the title character of Harriet
Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin and others who have been
accused of conciliatory behavior towards whites (described
colloquially as “Uncle Toms”). Rather than directly addressing and
refuting King’s view that blacks should “love their enem[ies], or pray
for those who use them spitefully,” Malcolm X simply points out that
this was also the stance of the hated “Uncle Tom” figure.
Back to Contents
197