Fealy 1
Recognizing fallacies
Fallacies—errors in argument— fall into two groups. Some evade the issue of the argument. Others
treat the argument as if it were much simpler than it is.
Recognizing evasions
The central claim of an argument defines an issue or question: Should real estate development be
controlled? Should drug testing be mandatory in the workplace?
Fallacies
Checklist of fallacies
Evasions
• Begging the question: treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved.
• Non sequitur ("it does not follow"): drawing a conclusion from irrelevant evidence.
• Red herring: introducing an irrelevant issue to distract readers.
• False authority: citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not an expert.
• Inappropriate appeals:
Appealing to readers' fear or pity.
Snob appeal: appealing to readers' wish to be like those who are more intelligent, famous, rich, and so on.
Bandwagon: appealing to readers' wish to be part of the group.
Flattery: appealing to readers' intelligence, taste, and so on.
Argument ad populum ("to the people"): appealing to readers' general values, such as patriotism or love of
family.
Argument ad hominem ("to the man"): attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument.
Oversimplifications
« Hasty generalization (jumping to a conclusion): asserting an opinion based on too little evidence.
• Sweeping generalization: asserting an opinion as applying to all in
stances when it may apply to some, or to none. Absolute statements and stereotypes are variations.
• Reductive fallacy: generally, oversimplifying causes and effects.
" Post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused B because A preceded B. « Either/or fallacy (false dilemma): reducing a
complicated question
to two alternatives. » False analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an analogy or ignoring key differences, central
issue squarely with relevant opinions, beliefs, and evidence. An ineffective argument dodges the issue.
• Begging the question
A writer begs the question by treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or
disproved. (In essence, the writer begs readers to accept his or her ideas from the start.)
The college library's expenses should be reduced by cutting subscriptions to useless periodicals. [Begged
questions: Are some of the library's periodicals useless? Useless to whom?]
The fact is that the welfare system is too corrupt to be reformed. [Begged questions: How corrupt is the welfare
system? Does corruption, even if extensive, put the system beyond reform?]
Non sequitur
A non sequitur occurs when no logical relation exists between two or more connected ideas. In Latin non
sequitur means "it does not follow." In the sentences below, the second thought does not follow from the first:
She uses a wheelchair, so she must be unhappy. [The second clause does not follow from the first.]
Kathleen Newsome has my vote for mayor because she has the best-run campaign organization. [Shouldn't
one's vote be based on the candidate's qualities, not the campaign's organization?]
• Red herring
A red herring is literally a kind of fish that might be drawn across a path to distract a bloodhound from a
scent it's following. In argument, a red herring is an irrelevant issue intended to distract readers from the relevant
issues. The writer changes the subject rather than pursue the argument.
A campus speech code is essential to protect students, who already have enough problems coping with
Fealy 2
rising tuition. [Tuition costs and speech codes are different subjects. What protections do students need
that a speech code will provide?]
Instead of developing a campus speech code that will infringe on students' First Amendment rights,
administrators should be figuring out how to prevent another tuition increase. [Again, tuition costs and speech
codes are different subjects. How would the code infringe on rights?]
" False authority
Arguments often cite as evidence the opinions of people who are experts on the subject (see pp. 184-85).
But writers use false authority when they cite as an expert someone whose expertise is doubtful or nonexistent.
Jason Bing, a recognized expert in corporate finance, maintains that pharmaceutical companies do not test
their products thoroughly enough. [Bing's expertise in corporate finance bears no apparent relation to the
testing of pharmaceuticals.]
According to Helen Liebowitz, the Food and Drug Administration has approved sixty dangerous drugs in the
last two years alone. [Who is Helen Liebowitz? On what authority does she make this claim?]
• Inappropriate appeals
Appeals to readers' emotions are common in effective arguments. But such appeals must be relevant and
must supplement rather than substitute for facts, examples, and other evidence.
Writers sometimes ignore the question with appeals to readers' fear or pity.
By electing Susan Clark to the city council, you will prevent the city's economic collapse. [Trades on
people's fears. Can Clark singlehandedly prevent economic collapse? Is collapse even likely?]
She should not have to pay taxes, because she is an aged widow with no friends or relatives. [Appeals to
people's pity. Should age and loneliness, rather than income, determine a person's tax obligation?]
Sometimes writers ignore the question by appealing to readers' sense of what other people believe or do.
One approach is snob appeal, inviting readers to accept an assertion in order to be identified with others they
admire.
As any literate person knows, James Joyce is the best twentieth-century novelist. [But what qualities of
Joyce's writing make him a superior novelist?]
Barry Bonds has an account at Big City Bank, and so should you. [A celebrity's endorsement of course does
not automatically guarantee the worth of a product, a service, an idea, or anything else.]
A similar tactic invites readers to accept an assertion because everybody else does. This is the bandwagon
approach.
As everyone knows, marijuana use leads to heroin addiction. [What is the evidence?]
Yet another diversion involves flattery of readers, in a way inviting them to join in a conspiracy.
We all understand campus problems well enough to see the disadvantages of such a policy. [What are the
disadvantages of the policy?]
The argument ad populum ("argument to the people") asks readers to accept a conclusion based on shared
values or even prejudices and nothing else.
Any truly patriotic American will support the President's action. [But why is the action worth taking?]
One final and very common kind of inappropriate emotional appeal addresses not the pros and cons of the
issue itself but the real or imagined negative qualities of the people who hold the opposing view. This kind of
argument is called ad hominem, Latin for "to the man."
One of the scientists has been treated for emotional problems, so his pessimism about nuclear waste merits
no attention. [Do the scientist's previous emotional problems invalidate his current views?]
2 Recognizing oversimplifications
To oversimplify is to conceal or ignore complexities in a vain attempt to create a neater, more convincing
argument than reality allows.
Hasty generalization
A hasty generalization, also called jumping to a conclusion, is a claim based on too little evidence or on evidence
Fealy 3
that is unrepresentative. (See also p. 187.)
It is disturbing that several of the youths who shot up schools were users of violent video games. Obviously,
these games can breed violence, and they should be banned. [A few cases do not establish the relation between
the games and violent behavior. Most youths who play violent video games do not behave violently.]
From the way it handled this complaint, we can assume that the consumer protection office has little intention of
protecting consumers. [One experience with the office does not demonstrate its intention or overall
performance.]
• Sweeping generalization
Whereas a hasty generalization comes from inadequate evidence, a sweeping generalization probably is not
supportable at all. One kind of sweeping generalization is the absolute statement involving words such as all, always,
never, and no one that allow no exceptions. Rarely can evidence support such terms. Moderate words such as some,
sometimes, rarely, and fe\v are more reasonable.
Another common sweeping generalization is the stereotype, a conventional and oversimplified
characterization of a group of people.
People who live in cities are unfriendly.
Californians are fad-crazy.
Women are emotional.
Men can't express their feelings.
(See also pp. 514-17 on sexist and other biased language.)
" Reductive fallacy
The reductive fallacy oversimplifies (or reduces) the relation between causes and their effects. The fallacy
(sometimes called oversimplification) often involves linking two events as if one caused the other directly, whereas
the causes may be more complex or the relation may not exist at all. For example:
Poverty causes crime. [If so, then why do people who are not poor commit crimes? And why aren't all poor
people criminals?]
The better a school's athletic facilities are, the worse its academic programs are. [The sentence assumes a direct
cause-and-effect link between athletics and scholarship.]
• Post hoc fallacy
Related to the reductive fallacy is the assumption that because A preceded B, then A must have caused B. This
fallacy is called in
Latin post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning "after this, therefore because of this," or the post hoc fallacy for short.
In the two months since he took office, Mayor Holcomb has allowed crime in the city to increase 12 percent.
[The increase in crime is probably attributable to conditions existing before Holcomb took office.]
The town council erred in permitting the adult bookstore to open, for shortly afterward two women were
assaulted. [It cannot be assumed without evidence that the women's assailants visited or were influenced
by the bookstore.]
» Either/or fallacy
In the either/or fallacy (also called false dilemma), the writer assumes that a complicated question has only
two answers, one good and one bad, both bad, or both good.
City police officers are either brutal or corrupt. [Most city police officers are neither.]
Either we permit mandatory drug testing in the workplace or productivity will continue to decline.
[Productivity is not necessarily dependent on drug testing.]
• False analogy
An analogy is a comparison between two essentially unlike things for the purpose of definition or
illustration. In arguing by analogy, a writer draws a likeness between things on the basis of a single shared
feature and then extends the likeness to other features. For instance, the "war on drugs" equates a battle against
a foe with a program to eradicate (or at least reduce) sales and use of illegal drugs. Both involve an enemy, a
strategy of overpowering the enemy, a desired goal, officials in uniform, and other similarities.
Fealy 4
Analogy can only illustrate a point, never prove it: just because things are similar in one respect, they are not
necessarily alike in other respects. In the fallacy called false analogy, the writer assumes such a complete likeness.
Here is the analogy of the war on drugs taken to its false extreme:
To win the war on drugs, we must wage more of a military-style operation. Prisoners of war are locked up
without the benefit of a trial by jury, and drug dealers should be, too. Soldiers shoot their enemy on sight, and
officials who encounter big drug operations should, too. Military traitors may be executed, and corrupt law
enforcers could be, too.
EXERCISE 9.2 Analyzing advertisements
Leaf through a magazine or watch commercial television for half an hour, looking for advertisements that
attempt to sell a product not on the basis of its worth but by snob appeal, flattery, or other inappropriate
appeals to emotions. Be prepared to discuss the advertisers'
Evasions
« Begging the question: treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or
disproved.
• Non sequitur ("it does not follow"): drawing a conclusion from irrelevant evidence.
» Red herring: introducing an irrelevant issue to distract readers. « False authority: citing as expert opinion the
views of a person who is not an expert.
• Inappropriate appeals:
Appealing to readers' fear or pity.
Snob appeal: appealing to readers' wish to be like those who are more intelligent, famous, rich, and so
on.
Bandwagon: appealing to readers' wish to be part of the group.
Flattery: appealing to readers' intelligence, taste, and so on.
Argument ad populum ("to the people"): appealing to readers' general values, such as patriotism or love
of family.
Argument ad hominem ("to the man"): attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument.
Oversimplifications
« Hasty generalization (jumping to a conclusion): asserting an opinion based on too little evidence.
• Sweeping generalization: asserting an opinion as applying to all in
stances when it may apply to some, or to none. Absolute statements and stereotypes are variations.
• Reductive fallacy: generally, oversimplifying causes and effects.
m Post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused 6 because A preceded B. « Either/or fallacy (false dilemma):
reducing a complicated question to two alternatives. " False analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an
analogy or ignoring
key differences, central issue squarely with relevant opinions, beliefs, and evidence. An ineffective argument
dodges the issue.
• Begging the question
A writer begs the question by treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or
disproved. (In essence, the writer begs readers to accept his or her ideas from the start.)
The college library's expenses should be reduced by cutting subscriptions to useless periodicals. [Begged
questions: Are some of the library's periodicals useless? Useless to whom?]
The fact is that the welfare system is too corrupt to be reformed. [Begged questions: How corrupt is the
welfare system? Does corruption, even if extensive, put the system beyond reform?] techniques. (See
Chapter 11, p. 229, if you need help analyzing the appeals in images.)
EXERCISE 9.3 Identifying and revising fallacies
Fallacies tend to appear together, as each of the following sentences illustrates. Identify at least one
fallacy in each sentence. Then revise the sentences to make them more reasonable. (You can do this
exercise online at abiongman.com/littlebrown.')
1. The American government can sell nuclear technology to non-nuclear nations, so why can't
individuals, who after all have a God-given right to earn a living as they see fit?
2. A successful marriage demands a maturity that no one under twenty-five possesses.
3. Students' persistent complaints about the grading system prove
Fealy 5
that it is unfair.
4. People watch television because they are too lazy to talk or read or
because they want mindless escape from their lives.
5. Racial tension is bound to occur when people with different back
grounds are forced to live side by side.
EXERCISE 9.4 Identifying fallacies in arguments
Analyze the two arguments on pages 190-92 for fallacies. To what extent do any fallacies weaken
either argument? Explain.
Judging whether a writer deals adequately with his or her opposition is a fairly simple matter for the reader of
argument. By definition, an arguable issue has more than one side. Even if you have no preconceptions about a
subject, you will know that another side exists. If the writer pretends otherwise or dismisses the opposition too
quickly, you are justified in questioning the honesty and fairness of the argument. (For the more complicated
business of writing an acknowledgment of opposing views, see pp. 210-11.)
EXERCISE 9.1 Reading arguments critically
Following are two brief arguments. Though not directly opposed, the two arguments do represent different
stances on environmental issues. Read each argument critically, following the process outlined in the previous
chapter (pp. 152-63) and answering the questions in the box on page 181 (questions about claims, evidence,
assumptions, and the other elements of argument). Develop your responses in writing so that you can refer to
them for later exercises and class discussion.
The Environmental Crisis Is Not Our Fault I am as responsible as most eco-citizens: I bike
everywhere; I 1 don't own a car; I recycle newspapers, bottles, cans, and plastics; I have a vegetable
garden in the summer; I buy organic products; and I put all vegetable waste into my backyard compost bin,
probably the only one in all of Greenwich Village. But I don't at the same time believe that I am saving the
planet, or in fact doing anything of much consequence about the various eco-crises around us. What's more, I
don't even believe that if "all of us" as individuals started doing the same it would make any but the slightest
difference.
Leave aside ozone depletion and rain forest destruction—those 2 are patently corporate crimes that no
individual actions can remedy to any degree. Take, instead, energy consumption in this country. In the most
recent figures, residential consumption was 7.2 percent of the total, commercial 5.5 percent, and industrial
23.3 percent; of the remainder, 27.8 percent was transportation (about one-third of it by private car) and 36.3
percent was electric generation (about one-third for residential use). Individual energy use, in sum, was
something like 28 percent of total consumption. Although you and I cutting down on energy consumption would
have some small effect (and should be done), it is surely the energy consumption of industry and other large
institutions such as government and agribusiness that needs to be addressed first. And it is industry and
government that must be forced to explain what their consumption is for, what is produced by it, how necessary
it is, and how it can be drastically reduced.
The point is that the ecological crisis is essentially beyond "our" 3 control, as citizens or householders or
consumers or even voters. It is not something that can be halted by recycling or double-pane insulation. It is the
inevitable by-product of our modern industrial civilization, dominated by capitalist production and consumption
and serviced and protected by various institutions of government, federal to local. It cannot possibly be altered
or reversed by simple individual actions, even by the actions of the millions who take part in Earth Day —even
if they all go home and fix their refrigerators and from then on walk to work. Nothing less than a drastic
overhaul of this civilization and an abandonment of its ingrained gods—progress, growth, exploitation,
technology, materialism, anthropocentricity, and power —will do anything substantial to halt our path to
environmental destruction, and it's hard to see how life-style solutions will have an effect on that.
What I find truly pernicious about such solutions is that they get 4 people thinking they are actually making a
difference and doing their part to halt the destruction of the earth: "There, I've taken all the bottles to the recycling
center and used my string bag at the grocery store; I guess that'll take care of global warming." It is the kind of
thing that diverts people from the hard truths and hard choices and hard actions, from the recognition that they
have to take on the larger forces of society—corporate and governmental—where true power, and true destructive
ness, lie.
And to the argument that, well, you have to start somewhere to 5 raise people's consciousness, I would reply
that this individualistic approach does not in fact raise consciousness. It does not move people beyond their old familiar
liberal perceptions of the world, it does nothing to challenge the belief in technofix or write-your-Congressperson
solutions, and it does not begin to provide them with the new vocabulary and modes of thought necessary for a true
change of consciousness. We need, for example, to think of recycling centers not as the answer to our waste
problems, but as a confession that the system of packaging and production in this society is out of control. Recycling
centers are like hospitals; they are the institutions at the end of the cycle that take care of problems that would never
Fealy 6
exist if ecological criteria had operated at the beginning of the cycle. Until we have those kinds of understandings,
we will not do anything with consciousness except reinforce it with the same misguided ideas that created the crisis.
—Kirkpatrick Sale
Myths We Wouldn't Miss
There are tall tales and legends. There are fables and apocryphal stories. And there are myths—a number of
which we would like to see disappear. Here are some myths that would not be missed:
MYTH: Offshore drilling would be an ecological disaster.
Truth is, there hasn't been a serious spill in US waters resulting 3 from offshore drilling operations in more
than thirty years—and even that one, in Santa Barbara Channel in 1969, caused no permanent damage to the
environment.
This is why we always have such a problem with the reasoning of 4 those who call for moratoriums or outright
bans on such activity while the nation continues to import foreign oil. The fact is, oil industry offshore drilling
operations cause less pollution than urban runoff, atmospheric phenomena, municipal discharges or natural seeps.
Why this nation would choose not to drill for oil and not to s provide the jobs, profits and taxes such
activity would mean for the American economy when there are no better alternatives is a mystery we hope puzzles
others as much as it does us.
MYTH: America is a profligate waster of energy. The myth makers like to throw around numbers that read like this:
with only 5 percent of the world's population, the US uses about 25 percent of the world's energy. But ours is a big
country—three thousand miles from one ocean to the next. Transportation accounts for more than 60 percent of US
oil use. We could probably cut down if we moved everybody into one corner of the country, but where is the waste?
It certainly isn't the automobiles that are inefficient. They are 8 twice as efficient as the ones we used thirty
years ago. If American drivers use more gasoline than their counterparts in Europe and Japan, it may just have
something to do with the country's size.
In fact, proof of the country's size may be in our economic output—and may also hold a clue as to why we use
the energy we do. Despite having only 5 percent of the world's population, America may indeed use 25 percent of
the world's energy. However, according to the latest statistics, we also produce about 25 percent of the world's
goods and services. Again, Where's the waste?
MYTH: Conservation is the answer to America's energy problems. No doubt about it, we all need to be careful of
the amount of energy we use. But as long as this nation's economy needs to grow, we are going to need energy
to fuel that growth.
For the foreseeable future, there are no viable alternatives to petroleum as the major source of energy, especially for
transportation fuels. Let's face it. Over the past thirty years we have learned to conserve—in our factories, our homes,
our cars. We probably can—and should—do more. But conservation and new exploration should not be mutually
exclusive, because even without an increase in energy consumption, we are using up domestic reserves of oil and gas
and must replace them. For the good of the economy, those reserves should be replaced with new domestic
production, to the extent economically possible. Otherwise, the only solutions would be additional imports or no
growth. And stifling growth would be a gross disservice to the people for whom such growth would provide the
opportunity for a better life.
Simply put, America is going to need more energy for all its people. And that is no myth.
—Oil corporation advertisement
EXERCISE 9.5 Identifying fallacies online
At groups.yahoo.com, find a conversation about drug testing in the workplace, environmental
pollution, violence in the media, or any other subject that interests you and that is debatable. Read
through the arguments made in the conversation, noting the fallacies you see. List the fallacious
statements as well as the types of fallacies they illustrate, keeping in mind that a given statement may
illustrate more than a single type.