CHAPTER 3
FALLACIOUS REASONING—1
I. Brief Chapter Outline
1. Appeal to Authority
Some Authorities Are More Trustworthy than Others
Authorities in One Field Aren’t Necessarily Experts in Another
Learn How Best to Appeal to Authorities
Understand What Authorities Can Be Expected to Know
Become Your Own Expert on Important Controversial Topics
2. Inconsistency
3. Straw Man
4. False Dilemma and the Either-or Fallacy
5. Begging the Question
Evading the Issue
6. Questionable Premise—Questionable Statement
7. Suppressed (Overlooked) Evidence
8. Tokenism
Summary of Chapter 3
Exercise 3-1

II. List of Key Terms
Appeal to authority
Begging the question
Black-or-white fallacy
Campaign rhetoric
Dilemma
Either-or-fallacy
Evading the issue
False dilemma
Inconsistency
Organizational inconsistency
Overlooked evidence
Questionable premise
Slighted evidence
Suppressed evidence
Tokenism
III. Chapter Summary
After noting that, to be precise, rather than calling an argument itself fallacious we should say that people are guilty of fallacious reasoning, the authors turn to outline

various ways in which such reasoning could occur.
The first error in reasoning is to accept someone’s word, especially that of a purported authority, when we should be suspicious of it. This fallacy is the appeal to authority. The authors note that some authorities are more trustworthy than others, and so when considering expert reasoning or claims we need to make a judgment about their believability. We should also recognize that authorities in one field are not necessarily experts in another, as well as become adept at understanding what they are saying. We should also understand what authorities can be expected to know, for in some fields knowledge is not as readily available as it is in others. Moreover, when authorities disagree on important topics we should use them not for conclusions, but as sources of evidence, reasons, and arguments.
The second error of reasoning addressed in this Chapter is that of inconsistency.
We commit this error when we accept the conclusions of an argument that contains self-contradictory statements, or statements that contradict each other. We could also be inconsistent if we argue one way at one time, and another way at some other time.
The authors note that large organizations often have representatives who speak on one side of an issue while others speak on others sides; this is organizational inconsistency; they, and individuals, can also say one thing while doing another.
The third error of reasoning discussed here in the straw man fallacy, which is committed when one misrepresents an opponent’s position as being weaker than it actually is. The authors then outline the fallacies of the false dilemma and the eitheror fallacy. The first occurs when something is presented as a dilemma, but there are

more than the two alternatives presented. Alternatively, we can defeat a dilemma by challenging one or both of its premises. A similar fallacy is the either-or fallacy, which occurs when we reason to a conclusion in the belief that it has only one alternative, which is bad.
The authors then discuss the fallacy of begging the question, which occurs when we assume the truth of what we are trying to prove. They note that one way to beg the question at issue is simply to avoid it entirely, which makes one guilty of evading the issue. The last three types of fallacies they discuss are that of the questionable premise, suppressed evidence, and tokenism.
IV. Practice Questions
A. Objective Multiple Choice
1. Accepting the word of an authority when we shouldn’t is the fallacy of a. Appeal to authority b. Equivocation c. Organizational authority d. Affirming the consequent
2. Authorities are a. Equally reliable

b. Experts on all issues c. Not created equal d. Not well-trained
3. When a celebrity endorses a product, this proves a. They like it b. They use it a lot c. It is of high quality d. Nothing about the product
4. When authorities disagree we should a. Believe there is no fact of the matter to be had b. Become our own experts, and come to our own conclusions c. Pick a side and stick to it d. Seeks second opinions
5. The fallacy of inconsistency is often committed by a. Logicians b. Doctors

c. Students d. Politicians
6. When we argue one way at one time and another way at another time we could be a. Inconsistent b. Authoritative c. Straw men d. Begging the question
7. Emerson’s criticism of foolish consistency is best understood as a criticism of a. Logical consistency b. Political consistency c. Consistency in the face of countervailing evidence d. Consistency in the face of danger
8. When a company ignores its own policies for expediency it is guilty of a. Begging the question b. Being a straw man c. Organization bias d. Organizational inconsistency

9. The straw man fallacy is in the fallacy category of a. Suppressed evidence b. False evidence c. Begging the question d. Questionable character
10. In logic, a dilemma is a. An argument that presents two alternatives, both claimed to be bad for someone or some position b. An argument that presents two alternatives, both claimed to be good for someone or some position c. An argument in which at least two alternatives are presented d. An argument in which less than two alternatives are presented
11. The either-or-fallacy is sometimes correctly called a. A false dilemma fallacy b. The one-for-all fallacy

c. The black-or-white fallacy d. The all-or-nothing fallacy
12. The sense of “beg” in “begging the question” means a. To plead b. To avoid c. To assume d. To assert
13. When a politician states in answer to a question “That’s a complex issue…” he or she is probably a. Lying b. Evading the issue c. Uninformed d. Begging the question
14. There is merit in expanding the notion of a “questionable premise” to that of a a. Questionable conclusion b. Questionable statement c. Questionable question d. Questionable answer

15. A more encompassing label for the fallacy of “suppressed evidence” is a. Overlooked evidence b. Hidden evidence c. Oppressed evidence d. False evidence
16. Tokenism is the fallacy in which a. A token gesture is mistaken for the real thing b. Note even a token gesture is made c. A real gesture is mistaken for a token one d. A politician’s promises are believed
17. If a person is satisfied with campaign rhetoric when there is little likelihood of the promises made being kept she is a victim of a. Theft b. Tokenism c. Argument from authority d. Straw man fallacy
18. The three master categories of types of fallacies are

a. Straw man, begging the question, questionable premise b. Straw man, suppressed evidence, invalid inference c. Questionable premise, suppressed evidence, and invalid inference d. Questionable premise, suppressed evidence, argument from authority
19. When one “talks out of both sides of one’s mouth” one might be engaged in a. Begging the question b. The black-or-white fallacy c. Inconsistency d. Organization bias
20. At least one of a set of inconsistent statements a. Must be true b. Must be false c. Must be believable d. Must be implausible
B. True/False
1. Politicians always intentionally mislead people.

2. There are three master categories into which each fallacy can be made to fit.
3. We all have to appeal to an expert at some times, unless we are fools.
4. Some authorities are more trustworthy than others.
5. Buying Nike products because Tiger Woods advertises them is an example of straw man reasoning.
6. Age does not preclude gullibility.
7. It is worth the effort to resist being intimidated by professional jargon.
8. Labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” are worthless because they are too vague.
9. When a politician promises an increase in government services, a reduction in taxation, and a reduction in the national debt they are being evasive.
10. When a cigarette smoker advocates a ban on heroin because it is harmful but against a ban on cigarettes they are being inconsistent.
11. When we provide reasons to excuse our behavior to ourselves, we are being inconsistent.

12. A hypocrite pretends to believe what he does not in fact believe, or to be what he is in fact not.
13. A straw man fallacy is an example of a fallacy of suppressed evidence.
14. “Either P or Q. Not P. Therefore, Q” is an example of the either-or-fallacy.
15. “You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror” is an example of the straw man fallacy.
C. Fill-in-the-Blanks
1. False dilemmas usually are a species of the genus _________ .
2. Stating that flying fish fly because they are flying fish is an example of
______ .
3. When there is no evidence for or against a conclusion, reason requires that we
_________ .
4. The plan offered by both Hilary Clinton and John McCain to suspect a tax on gasoline for the summer travel season is an example of _____ .
5. We need to note when there is inconsistency between what a person says and what he does, although this is not, strictly speaking, a _____ .

6. We can show a dilemma to be false, either by _____ or by _____ .
7. We can beg the question by ____ the issue.
8. We reason _____ when we fail to satisfy the three requirements of cogent reasoning.
9. Statements can imply ______.
10. Being careful when evaluating sources of information does not mean we have to be ____ .
D. Essay questions
1. Why could it be said that all deductively valid arguments beg the question? Is this a problem for them? Explain your answer fully, illustrating it with examples of arguments.
2. How could self-interest affect reasoning (a) positively, and (b) negatively?
Explain your answers fully, giving examples of both its positive and negative effects.
3. Sometimes when we are inconsistent we might try to deceive ourselves so that we do not realize this. But this is puzzling, since for this to occur we must already know the facts that we are trying deceptively to conceal from ourselves. How do you think self-deception is possible?

4. Why do you think that politicians get away with making inconsistent claims or arguments? Outline the various ways in which we might explain this. Which do you think is the most plausible, and why?
5. Outline the ways in which organizational inconsistency might occur. How might we try to combat such attempts to fool gullible people by fallacious reasoning?
V. Additional Sources for Study and Research
A. InfoTrac Search Terms
Campaign rhetoric, Commercial Appeal, Either-Or Fallacy, Expert, Fallacy, false
Dilemma, Hypocrisy, Invalid, Straw Man, Suppressed Evidence, Tokenism.
B. Internet Sites
Literacy Education Online http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html
Encyclopedia Britannica: logical fallacy entry

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/346325/logical-fallacy
The Nizkor Project: fallacies; begging the question examples http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
A List of Fallacious Arguments http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
VI. Answer Key
A. Objective Multiple Choice
1. a
2. c
3. d
4. b
5. d
6. a

12. b
13. b
14. b
15. a
16. a
17. b
18. c
19. c
20. b
7. c
8. d
9. a
10. a
11. c
B. True/False
1. F
2. T
3. T
4. T
5. F
6. T

7. T
8. F
9. F
10. T
11. T
12. T
13. T
14. T
15. F
C. Fill-in-the-Blanks
1. Questionable premise
2. Begging the question
3. Withhold judgment
4. Tokenism
5. Fallacy
6. Going between its horns/grasping its horns
7. Evading
8. Fallaciously
9. Arguments
10. Cynical