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