Fallacies of Logical
Argument (Logos) (7 in
Total)
• drawing a general and premature conclusion on
the basis of only one or two cases. It is
basically an inference drawn from insufficient
evidence. This fallacy forms the basis for most
stereotypes about people or institutions:
because a few people in a large group are
observed to act in a certain way, one infers that
all members of that group will behave similarly.
• Dallas Police Chief Christopher Michaels suggested
that all dogs be muzzled because two Golden
Retrievers have been biting people in Fritz Park.
• My Honda broke down. Honda’s are junk!
• Women are bad drivers.
• Irish people are drunks.
• “after this, therefore because of this”,
the “faulty causality” fallacy,
assuming that an incident that
precedes another is the cause of the
second incident
• Antionette worked on her written assignment longer than she
had for any other essay; therefore, she felt she must earn an
“A”.
• A writer sued Coors claiming that drinking too much beer kept
him from writing a novel. (unsuccessfully)
• Doctors have recently found that when elderly people fall and
are found to have broken legs, the break usually caused the fall
rather than the other way around.
• Politicians are always involved with faulty
causality (both for them and against them).
When economic issues are improving they take
the credit and when they are declining they
receive the blame, even though (often)
individual politicians such as the president
actually can do very little to control huge
systems like the national economy.
• taking for granted something that really
needs proving. It is when a claim is made
on grounds that cannot be accepted as
true because those grounds are in doubt.
It is a form of circular reasoning where the
logic moves you backwards instead of
forwards.
• Claim + Reason : You can’t give me a “C” because I’m an “A”
student.
Warrant An “A” student is someone who can’t receive
“C”s.
• Claim + Reason: Congressman Smith can’t be guilty of adultery
because he is a good husband.
Warrant A good husband cannot be guilty of adultery.
• an argument that gives a lie an honest
appearance; it’s a half-truth.
• A student that plagiarized a paper by copying it word-for-word from
another student claims correctly that, “It isn’t plagiarism, I wrote the
whole thing myself.” The student actually did write it, but it was
copied.
• Bill Clinton famously said, “I never had sex with that women” during
the Monica Lewinsky hearings. TECHNICALLY they never had sex, if
we follow the exact, or most commonly accepted, definition of sex.
• Currently you will hear equivocation surrounding the word “torture”.
Words like “enhanced interrogation” will be used to avoid using a
loaded word like torture.
• “it does not follow”, an inference or conclusion
that does not follow established premises or
evidence. An argument where claims, reasons,
or warrants fail to connect logically.
• “He is certainly a sincere person; he must be
right.”
• “She’s the most popular: she should be
president.”
• “You don’t love me, you didn’t buy me that
bike!”
• when you attack an argument that
isn’t there to avoid attacking a
stronger argument. Straw men are
easy to knock down, just as weaker or
more extreme arguments are easier
to knock down.
• If you are pro-choice, you are pro-death to
children.
• You gave me an “F”, why do you hate me?
• an analogy compares two things that have
some sort of similar characteristics.
Analogies are helpful for understanding
unfamiliar ideas by comparing them with
something already known. But they can
be false or can be pushed too far.
Intelligent Design theory claims the following:
•
•
The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a
watchmaker.
•
Therefore, the universe must have been designed
by some kind of creator
• Create an example of each of these!