Fallacies of Argument
AP Language and Composition
Mr. Eble
What are Fallacies?
• Argumentative strategies that are…fallacious.
• Errors in reasoning that render an argument invalid.
• An “argument” in which the premises given for the
conclusion do not provided the needed degree of
support.
• Fallacies deal largely with ethics, I.E. fairness,
accuracy, and principles.
• Avoid them in your own writing and challenge them
in arguments you hear or read.
Some General Guidelines for Avoiding
Fallacies in Writing
• Don’t Claim Too Much: Don’t expect to solve every
aspect of an argument. Keep it simple, keep it safe.
Some General Guidelines for Avoiding
Fallacies in Writing
• Don’t Oversimplify Complex Issues: Don’t
reduce the argument to simplistic terms and
come up with an easy solution, or you will lose
your credibility and diminish your ethos.
“George W. Bush wants money for the oil
industry, so that’s why he’s starting war in Iraq.”
“President Obama is a socialist Muslim, so that’s
why he’s passing the health care bill.”
Some General Guidelines for Avoiding
Fallacies in Writing
• Don’t Focus on Superfluous Issues / Elements:
Because of the complexity of many issues,
there are many facets; thus, don’t lose your
focus on your topic in the wide sea of
controversies.
Example: Nixon’s Checkers
Speech
Some General Guidelines for Avoiding
Fallacies in Writing
• Support Your Arguments with Concrete
Evidence: Don’t use abstract generalizations
and familiar sentiments. Always assume that
your audience is skeptical, expecting you to
demonstrate your case reasonably, without
bias or shallow development.
Three Categories of Fallacies
• Fallacies of Pathos
• Fallacies of Ethos
• Fallacies of Logos
Fallacies of Pathos
• Emotional arguments can be powerful and
suitable in many circumstances, but writers
can tip the scales of logic with overly
sentimental responses.
• These diminish trust.
Fallacies of Pathos
Ad Baculum: “Scare Tactics”
Making an argument by scaring people and exaggerating
possible dangers well beyond their statistical likelihood.
Creating fear in people does not constitute legitimate evidence
for a claim, and is therefore fallacious.
This is remarkably common in advertising—political and
otherwise. Such ploys work because it’s usually easier to
imagine something terrible happening than appreciating its
statistical rarity. Scare tactics stampede legitimate fears into
panic or prejudice.
Example: The Current Gun Debate
One Side: “If we don’t have guns in our homes, we’re putting
our families at risk of dying when a man enters our home to kill
us—which could happen at any time.”
Another: “We should outlaw guns because
Fallacies of Pathos
False Dilemma, or “Either/or”
Either—Or arguments reduce complex issues to black and white
choices. Most often issues will have a number of choices for
resolution. Because writers who use the either-or argument are
creating a problem that doesn’t really exist, we sometimes refer to
this fallacy as a false dilemma.
Example: "Either we go to Panama City for the whole week of Spring
Break, or we don’t go anywhere at all." This rigid argument ignores
the possibilities of spending part of the week in Panama City,
spending the whole week somewhere else, or any other options.
Example: “You either support the PATRIOT Act or you’re with the
terrorists.”
Example: “Either we cut spending or we'll increase the deficit.” (Have
you heard of raising taxes?)
Fallacies of Pathos
Slippery Slope
Slippery Slopes suggest that one step will inevitably lead to more, eventually
negative steps. While sometimes the results may be negative, the slippery
slope argues that the descent is inevitable and unalterable. Stirring up
emotions against the downward slipping, this fallacy can be avoided by
providing solid evidence of the eventuality rather than speculation.
Example: "If we force public elementary school pupils to wear uniforms,
eventually we will require middle school students to wear uniforms. If we
require middle school students to wear uniforms, high school requirements
aren’t far off. Eventually even college students who attend state-funded, public
universities will be forced to wear uniforms.”
Example: “The government wants to require background checks for pistols?
Before we know it, it’ll take away our guns. What’s next—our freedom of
speech? Our freedom of religion? Thus, we can’t let the government require a
universal background check.”
Fallacies of Pathos
Ad Populum
Appeals to popularity that hinge on the misconception that a
widespread occurrence of something is assumed to make an
idea true or right.
Example: Politicians should enact gun control measures because
recent polls tell us that many Americans want them.
Example: “A Million Smokers Can’t be Wrong.” Well, yes they
can. Smoking is unhealthy; many people making poor decisions
doesn’t change that fact.
Example: McDonald’s has served over 1 billion people, so it
must be good, healthy food.
Fallacies of Pathos
Bandwagon
Bandwagon Appeals try to get everyone on board. Writers who use
this approach try to convince readers that everyone else believes
something, so the reader should also. The fact that a lot of people
believe it does not make it so.
Some are obvious: “There are 25 people at this party and 20 are
drinking, so you should, too!”
Many are not. Many people are easily seduced by ideas endorsed by
the mass media and popular culture; such issues include the War on
Drugs, the War on Terror, health care reform, gun control, drunk
driving, welfare reform, teen smoking, and illegal immigration—
issues that make people feel that everyone should be concerned,
that something—anything—must be done.
Example: The McCarthy Communist Witch Hunts of the 1950’s
Fallacies of Pathos
Ad Misericordiam
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery)
the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as
sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted.
Examples
“Oh, you spend $20 every day going out to eat? Well, you
should be ashamed—that money could finance every student at
Unifat School.”
“Members of Congress can surely see in their hearts that they
need to vote in favor of passage of the Gun Bill banning
concealed weapons because their constituents who lobby for
limiting firearms will be greatly saddened if they do not do so.”
Fallacies of Ethos
• Respect and trust are paramount in the
reader/writer relationship.
• Thus, writers should present themselves as
honest, well-informed, or sympathetic in some
way.
• “Trust me” is a scary warrant, and not all
attempts at gaining trust are admirable.
Fallacies of Ethos
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem (attacking the character of the opponent)
arguments limit themselves not to the issues, but to the
opposition itself. Writers who fall into this fallacy attempt
to refute the claims of the opposition by bringing the
opposition’s character into question.
• These arguments ignore the issues and attack the
people.
• Example: Most political ads, specifically a recent one
dealing with Ashley Judd’s possible campaign for one
of Kentucky’s Senate seats.
Fallacies of Ethos
Tu Quoque (“You Also”)
Tu Quoque (“You Also”) fallacies avoid the real argument by
making similar charges against the opponent. Like ad hominem
arguments, they do little to arrive at conflict resolution. "My
position may be bad, but you should accept it because my
opponent's position is just as bad."
Example: "How can the police ticket me for speeding? I see cops
speeding all the time.“
Example: “How can you give me a detention for not shaving, Mr.
Eble? You have a beard!”
Example: “Creationism is sometimes accused of being
unscientific--of being merely a matter of faith, but the Theory of
Evolution is also just based on faith."
Fallacies of Ethos
Poisoning the Well
A specific kind of ad hominem, this sort of fallacy involves
trying to discredit what a person might later claim by
presenting unfavorable information (true or false) about
the person in order to produce a biased result. A person
committing this fallacy “poisons the well” by making his
or her opponent appear in a bad light before he even has
a chance to say anything.
Example: President Obama is a Chicago politician, so
don’t trust anything he tells you.
Example: George W. Bush is a Texas oil man, so don’t
expect him to do anything for the environment.
Fallacies of Ethos
Irrelevant Authority
False Authority is a tactic used by many writers, especially in
advertising. An authority in one field may know nothing of
another field. Being knowledgeable in one area doesn’t
constitute knowledge in other areas.
Example: “Abortion is moral because
the Supreme Court said so.”
Example: “Mitt Romney is a businessman; President Obama is not. We need
a president like Mitt who can run a
business to run this country to get it
back on track.” (Consider—Reagan didn’t
have an MBA; GW Bush does).
Fallacies of Ethos
Dogmatism
Asserting or assuming that a particular position is the only one
acceptable. People who speak or write dogmatically imply that there
are no arguments to be made: The truth is self-evident to those who
“know better.”
“No rational person would disagree that…”
“It’s clear to anyone who has thought about it that…”
When someone suggests that merely raising an issue for debate is
somehow “unacceptable” or “inappropriate”—whether on grounds
that it’s racist, sexist, unpatriotic, blasphemous, insensitive, or
offensive in some other way—you should be suspicious.
Example: “The truth, my friends, is found right here in this book —
The Bible. All our answers are located between these leather covers,
and no other truth exists. Any other belief is evil in the eyes of God.”
Fallacies of Ethos
Moral Equivalence
Suggests that serious wrongdoings don’t differ in kind
from minor offenses or vice versa: relatively
innocuous activities or situations raised to the level of
major crimes or catastrophes.
Example: Paul Friedman obfuscates the line between
banning abortion and other governmental actions, I.E.
banning soda, advocating gun control, supporting
early childhood education, and mitigating the effects
of climate change
Fallacies of Logos
• You will encounter a fallacy in any argument
when the claims, warrants, and/or evidence
are invalid, insufficient, or disconnected.
Fallacies of Logic
Hasty Generalization
Hasty Generalizations base an argument on insufficient
evidence. Writers may draw conclusions too quickly, not
considering the whole issue. They may look only at a
small group as representative of the whole or may look
only at a small piece of the issue.
• Example: Concluding that all fraternities are party
houses because you have seen three parties at one
fraternity is a hasty generalization. The evidence is too
limited to draw an adequate conclusion.
• Example: I had an English teacher who assigned tons of
work for no reason. All of them are such totalitarian
punishment-mongers.
Fallacies of Logic
Begging the Question / Circular Logic
Begging the Question (or circular logic) happens when the writer presents an
arguable point as a fact that supports the argument. This error leads to an
argument that goes around and around, with evidence making the same claim
as the proposition. Because it is much easier to make a claim than to support
it, many writers fall into this trap.
Example: "These movies are popular because they make so much money. They
make a lot of money because people like them. People like them because they
are so popular." The argument continues around in the logical circle because
the support assumes that the claim is true rather than proving its truth.
Example: If such actions were not illegal, they would not be prohibited by law.
Example: Belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God.
Fallacies of Logic
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore also this) arguments, or post
hoc for short, assume a faulty causal relationship. One event following another
in time does not mean that the first event caused the later event. Writers must
be able to prove that one event caused another event and did not simply
follow in time. Because the cause is often in question in this fallacy, we
sometimes call it a false cause fallacy.
Example: On the Sean Hannity show, Representative Tom Cotton said, "The city
of Chicago for instance has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the
country. They also have some of the highest murder rates in the country.“
This doesn’t establish causality, as there could easily have been a third factor
(or fourth…or fifth…). Also, this line of thinking establishes the claim that the
more stringent gun control statues led to the increase in gun violence.
Watch out for this fallacy with statistics… "Statistics are like bikinis: what they
show is revealing, but what they hide is essential."
Fallacies of Logic
Equivocation
Equivocation happens when the writer makes use of a word’s
multiple meanings and changes the meanings in the middle of the
argument without really telling the audience about the shift. Often
when we use vague or ambiguous words like "right," "justice," or
"experience," we aren’t sure ourselves what we mean. Be sure to
know how you are using a word and stick with that meaning
throughout your argument. If you need to change meanings for any
reason, let your audience know of the change.
Example: When representing himself in court, a defendant said "I
have told the truth, and I have always heard that the truth would set
me free." In this case, the arguer switches the meaning of truth. In
the first instance, he refers to truth as an accurate representation of
the events; in the second, he paraphrases a Biblical passage that
refers to truth as a religious absolute. While the argument may be
catchy and memorable, the double references fail to support his
claim.
Fallacies of Logic
Non Sequitur
Non Sequitur arguments don’t follow a logical sequence.
The conclusion doesn’t logically follow the explanation.
These fallacies can be found on both the sentence level
and the level of the argument itself.
Example: "The rain came down so hard that Jennifer
actually called me." Rain and phone calls have nothing to
do with one another. The force of the rain does not affect
Jennifer’s decision to pick up the phone.
Example: Perhaps every episode of Family Guy…especially
this one.
Fallacies of Logic
Straw Man
Attacking a straw man involves denigrating an argument that is much
weaker or more extreme than the one the opponent is actually
making. By “setting up a straw man,” the writer has an argument
that’s easy to knock down and proceeds to do so, then claiming
victory over the opponent—whose real argument was quite
different. In other words, they choose to refute arguments that go
beyond the claims their opponents have actually made.
Example: “People who think abortion should be banned have no
respect for the rights of women. They treat them as nothing but
baby-making machines. That's wrong. Women must have the right to
choose.”
Example: “Those who support gun control are wrong; they believe
that no one should has the right to defend themselves in any
situation.”
Fallacies of Logic
Faulty / False Analogy
Faulty Analogies lead to faulty conclusions. Writers often use
similar situations to explain a relationship. Sometimes, though,
these extended comparisons and metaphors attempt to relate
ideas or situations that upon closer inspection aren’t really that
similar. Be sure that the ideas you’re comparing are really
related. Also remember that even though analogies can offer
support and insight, they can’t prove anything.
Example: Making people register their own guns is like the Nazis
making the Jews register with their government.
Example: Making the connection between the Nazis / Jews and
Obamacare / Americans.
Fallacies of Logic
Red Herring
Red Herrings have little relevance to the argument at hand.
Desperate arguers often try to change the ground of the
argument by changing the subject. The new subject may be
related to the original argument, but does little to resolve it.
Example: “Moeller should pave the lot next to school. Besides, I
can never find a parking space at school anyway." The writer has
changed the focus of the argument from paving to the scarcity
of parking spaces, two ideas that may be related, but are not
the same argument.
Example: “You want to pass laws requiring background checks
for guns? Well, criminals don’t follow laws as it is, so we
shouldn’t bother passing these laws.”