Writing Center at Southeastern
20 Sep 2011
Recognizing Fallacies
A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning resulting in a flawed argument. A fallacious argument may seem to prove its conclusion but,
in fact, does not. A writer who unintentionally uses fallacies is not thinking clearly while a writer who intentionally uses
fallacies is either strongly biased or being deceptive (fallere in Latin). Readers and writers should learn to recognize the most
common fallacies: challenging them when reading, avoiding them when writing, always naming then when found.
Fallacies of Logos (Statement)
Non sequitur
Post hoc fallacy
Begging the question
Excluded middle
False analogy
Naturalistic fallacy
Reductionism
Hasty generalization
Sweeping
generalization
Cherry Picking
Appeal to ignorance
Deductive fallacy meaning it does not follow: Arriving at a conclusion that does not logically follow
from its premises. “Bill is a good businessman, so he will make a good deacon, too.”
Deductive fallacy of doubtful cause: A came before B; therefore, A caused B. “Roosters crow just
before the sun rises; therefore, roosters cause the sun to rise.” (Association ≠ causation.)
Deductive fallacy: Assuming the premise and conclusion at the same time; circular reasoning;
exemplified in definition by opposition (e.g., faith/reason). “Why did it survive?” “Because it is the
fittest.” “How do you know it is the fittest?” “Because it survived.”
Deductive fallacy: Oversimplifying a complex issue as if only two viable options exist, thus failing to
consider a range of middle options; also called false dilemma and either/or question. “How can we
support international humanitarian missions when the need at home is so urgent?”
Deductive fallacy: Assuming that since events are similar in some ways, they are similar in other
ways; comparing “apples and oranges”; called the historian‟s fallacy. Reporter: “Mr. President, Some
people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire.” President: “I think the analogy
is false and sends the wrong message to our troops” (Bush, 2006).
Deductive fallacy: Assuming that nature is the norm for human behavior. “If evolution is true, then we
ought to practice Social Darwinism” (argument of the Nazi regime).
Deductive fallacy: Reducing form to matter; abstractionism or essentialism. “For the truth is that when
you have stripped off what the human heart actually was in this or that culture, you are left with a
miserable abstraction totally unlike the life really lived by any human being” (C.S. Lewis).
Inductive fallacy: Jumping to a conclusion based on too little evidence; being judgmental. “Ten Arab
Muslims bombed the World Trade Center, so the message is clear: all Arab Muslims are violent.”
Inductive fallacy: Claiming a qualitative conclusion that cannot be supported no matter how much
quantitative evidence is supplied. “Only those who read the Bible daily will grow in faith.”
Inductive fallacy: Selecting evidence tending to support one‟s hypothesis while ignoring evidence
tending to refute it; biased sample. “Racism no longer exists, and all of my white friends agree.”
Inductive fallacy: Claiming that a thesis is true because it cannot be proved false, or vice versa, thus
ignoring that some theses may never be proved or disproved with certainty. “Every action humans
perform is predetermined since no one has proved that humans have free will.”
Fallacies of Êthos (Character)
False authority
Ad hominem
Dogmatism
Moral equivalency
Appealing to an expert when out of his or her field of expertise. “Since „Dr. J‟ drinks Dr. Pepper, you
should drink Dr. Pepper, too.”
Attacking a person rather than his or her argument. “I believe that abortion is wrong.” “Of course you
do, you‟re religious.” “What about my strong arguments?” “Those don‟t count. Like I said, you‟re
religious, so you‟re supposed to say that abortion is wrong.”
Attacking character to discredit trust that must exist between those who engage in dialogue.
“You promote hate, so we will not speak with you.” “No rational person would disagree that . . .”
Similar fallacies include misrepresentation, straw-man argument, and hasty generalization.
Comparing a minor misdeed with a major atrocity to discredit a policy on moral grounds. A senator
compares the attack on Pearl Harbor to America‟s actions in Iraq (America Back on Track, 2009).
Fallacies of Pathos (Emotion)
Bandwagon appeal
Scare tactics
Seeking to establish a thesis based on the quantity of people who believe it (zeitgeist) or who have
believed it in the past (tradition). “Evolution must be right because most scientists believe it.”
Seeking to force an idea or action by veiled threats. “If Congress does not pass the seven-billion-dollar
bill, then the mortgage industry will fail.” (Fear that is not based in fact is a fraud.)
Writing Center at Southeastern
20 Sep 2011
Proposing
an
analogy
meant
to
enflame
fear.
“We
are
experiencing
the
worst
economic
decline
since
False analogy
the Great Depression.”
Stating an implicit or explicit threat. “When considering my grade, Dr. Evans, please keep in mind that
Appeal to force
my father is the Dean (your boss). Thanks.”
Using emotional appeals that are irrelevant to the topic. “When considering my grade, Dr. Keathley,
Appeal to pity
please keep in mind that I have two kids and work two part-time jobs! Thanks.”
Fallacies of Language (Ambiguity)
Straw-man
argument
Misleading context
Slanted language
Slanted question
Equivocation
Proper-meaning
fallacy
Making a misrepresentation of an opposing argument, such as a ridiculous or overly simplified version
of it, and then refuting that straw argument instead of the real argument. “Intelligent design is simply
religion in disguise.” “Evolution is simply Victorian mythology.”
Omitting context to hide information; thus the maxim: A text without a context is a pretext. “Wall of
separation between church and state,” for instance, derives from the Protestant Reformation with
specific usage in Thomas Jefferson‟s 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, a context that changes
the phrase‟s meaning from today‟s perceived meaning of that phrase.
Slanting language to create a biased mood and perception; a form of circular reasoning that describes
and evaluates at once. “Pro-choice” vs. “anti-choice” and “pro-life” vs. “anti-life.” “I am firm, you
are stubborn, he is pigheaded” (Bertrand Russell).
Framing a research question to obtain a desired answer and to skew statistics; thus the maxim: He who
poses the question wins the debate. “Don‟t you think people are entitled to universal health care?” vs.
“Do you think we should be forced to pay for socialized medicine?”
Shifting the meaning of a key word or phrase (a homonym: double identity of a single term) during the
course of an argument. “Your argument is very sound; in fact, it is nothing but sound.”
Claiming that words have meaning apart from context; assuming a direct link between words and the
things or ideas that they represent rather than finding that meaning is rhetorical: words are meaningful
only in discourse (not, that is, in dictionaries); naïve realism, especially by making a rigid distinction
and hierarchy between logical-grammar and rhetoric. “Just the facts, Ma‟am” (Sgt. Joe Friday).
Fallacies of Exêgêsis (Bible-Study Blunders)
Word-study fallacy
Reading between the
lines
Ignoring particles
Illegitimate totality
transfer
Evidential fallacy
Superior knowledge
Reduction fallacy
New Testament
exclusion
Fallacy of language: Considering only the literal meaning of individual words, thus discounting
context, such as situation, syntax, tone, and style, which help determine meaning or usage in context.
Fallacy of language: Considering what is implied rather than what is stated in a text, including
unwarranted personal associations.
Fallacy of language: Failing to recognize the distinctive importance of small words, especially the
semantic range of particles, when interpreting a text‟s meaning in context.
Fallacy of language: Transferring all the meanings of a given word into any passage; extending the
meaning of a word in one context to others in its semantic range in conflict with its context.
Fallacy of êthos: Presuming a text is inaccurate until corroborated by external evidence for verification
of its statements; analogous to guilty until proven innocent in judicial contexts.
Fallacy of êthos: Presuming a text has a fault rather than one‟s (mis)understanding of it and rather than
researching to find a reasonable answer to a perceived difficulty in a text.
Logical fallacy: Reducing a text to its abridged meaning or subject-matter, thereby ignoring form,
style, tone, and situation.
Logical fallacy: Failing to recognize the unit or whole when interpreting parts of the canon, thus
ignoring implicit meanings that are explicit in later texts; also ignoring the central principle of biblical
interpretation: scripture interprets scripture.
Bibliography
Engel, S. Morris. With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin‟s, 2000.
Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011.
Kreeft, Peter. Socratic Logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles. 2nd ed.
South Bend: St. Augustine‟s, 2005.