Logical Fallacies
English 12, Ms. McPherson
If you want to maintain your ethos and appear logical, you need to avoid logical fallacies. These
errors in reasoning, if noticed, can cause your audience to suspect your assertion and your support
for it. This list of fallacies should be helpful as you engage in writing your arguments, prepare
for debates, analyze arguments, etc. Even if you cannot remember the exact names, hopefully
they will help you think about what is good or sound logic compared to unsound logic.
Note that some of the statements given as fallacies may be true, but they do not provide enough
logic or connection to prove the truth. They are not currently functioning as sound reasoning or
developed, logical arguments. Also, the examples given as fallacies reflect many different
opinions, and I am not trying to suggest any political/moral truth due to the particular examples
selected.
Source Note: Much of the info. and wording below comes from various sources, including McGraw-Hill’s 2004 5
Steps to a 5: Writing the AP English Essay (pgs. 69-70); Essentials of Speech Communication (pgs. 188-89);
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14725-watch-out-for-these-common-fallacies/;
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html; and Wikipedia’s articles on Propaganda and Persuasion.
Handout put together by Shauna McPherson (and TAs), Lone Peak High School.
Tier 1
You are required to read and study the following fallacies. They may appear on a quiz
(with a word bank). They are mostly helpful in aiding students to distinguish between
good logic and manipulation/over-reliance on emotion. Note: some of the fallacies are
known by many different names, including the Latin version as well as English. In some
cases, I have bolded the particular title used on the quiz. (In the cases where no one
term is bolded, I may offer additional help later.) I have put the terms in an order I find
helpful, with similar words “chunked” together.
Attacking the Person / Ad hominem: (Latin phrase for “argue against the man”) This
technique attacks the person rather than his/her argument or the issue under discussion.
(Ex. 1: We all know that Brady was forced to leave college. How can we trust his
company with our investments? Ex. 2: “You claim that atheists can be moral—yet I
happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children.”) This is a fallacy because
the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtue of the person asserting it. A less
obvious ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted
by some other easily criticized person—could also call this Reductio ad Hitlerum. For
example: “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have
agreed with you.” (Note: It’s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an
individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known liar, that fact will reduce their
credibility as a witness. It won’t, however, prove that their testimony is false concerning
whatever matter is under discussion. It also won’t alter the soundness of any logical
arguments they may make.)
(Related: This is an Attack on the Person, based on their associations, or the
speaker might suggest associations that aren’t even valid.)
Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to
disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups
hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which
supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, unpopular, or
contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may
decide to change their original position. (Ex. A few years ago in Utah, some who
argued for Proposition 1, which allowed for public school funds to be used for
private schools, charged that those against it included the liberal NEA and Hillary
Clinton [so they were suggesting that a conservative person shouldn’t oppose the
policy because they would be on the same side as politically liberal groups.].)
False Premise: A speaker begins with a false assumption that is assumed true. Ex. 1:
“All other leading antacid remedies take 20 minutes to provide relief.” (If some of the
competitors take less than 20 minutes to work, the example would be a false premise) Ex.
2: “Because Ms. McPherson is the worst teacher in the school, she should be fired.”
(Understood premise of “The worst teachers should be fired”; hopefully false premise
that Ms. McPherson is the worst teacher). Ex. 3: Because you are in AP or honors, this
work must come easy for you. (Understood—and likely false—premise that honors work
is easy for advanced students.)
Overgeneralization or False Generalization: (Stereotyping) The writer/speaker draws a
conclusion about a large number of people, ideas, things, etc. based on very limited
evidence. Any statement assuming all members of an ethnic, religious, or political group
are all the same in all or most respects is false. (Ex. 1: All members of the Wooden Peg
Club are not to be trusted. Ex. 2: Whites are well-off so they shouldn’t be in the pool for
a scholarship for those who are needy or who have overcome challenges.) Words such as
never, always, all, every, everyone, everywhere, no one are usually indicative of
overgeneralization. It’s best to use and to look for qualifiers (some, seem, appear, often,
perhaps, frequently, etc.), which indicate that the writer has an awareness of the
complexities of the topic or group under discussion.
Hasty generalization: A person who makes a hasty generalization forms a general
rule by examining only a few specific cases, which aren’t necessarily
representative of all cases. Basically, the evidence is insufficient to be applied to
a larger population but someone does it anyway. It is an error that occurs from
going from a specific case and trying to make a generalization based on that
incident (or making a generalization on a whole school or religion or nation based
on a handful of individuals). (Ex. 1: The well-known computer expert found a
virus in his own PC. All computers must be contaminated with this virus. Ex. 2:
Utah county high schools have had a rise with gang violence, so this must be a
rising problem for all of Utah. Ex. 3: Obama changed his mind on how long the
troops need to stay in Irag; therefore, we can’t trust our politicians—they never
stick to what they originally say they will do. Ex. 4: “Jim Bakker was an
insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere.”)
2
Anecdotal Evidence: A type of hasty generalization, one of the simplest fallacies is to
rely on anecdotal evidence. For example: “There's abundant proof that God exists and is
still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of
cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured.” It is
quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes do not act
as much proof by themselves. For example, your friend may say he met Elvis in the
supermarket, but those who haven’t had the same experience will require more than your
friend’s anecdotal evidence to convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem very
compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. Note: When a speaker/writer
tries to use an anecdote alone to prove a point, it is a hasty generalization (perhaps such
and such did occur in one person’s experience, but that experience alone is likely not
enough evidence to generalize as a rule). Note: Anecdotes are often effective in creating
pathos or helping a speaker connect with the audience, but they are not good at creating a
foundation of logos—although, an anecdote may be one building block in creating
evidence.
Correlation vs. Cause: This fallacy, a form of hasty generalization or false cause,
asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy
because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. “Literacy rates
have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes
learning.” (Possibly a third factor has caused literary rates to decline.)
(Related: Post hoc is like Correclation vs. Cause, but it’s usually one item rather
than a group studied. It also has to have a before and after, which Correlation vs.
Cause, doesn’t have to have.)
Post hoc (full name is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, but most just call Post hoc—
the Latin means “After this, therefore, because of this.”): A form of a hasty
generalization or false cause in which it is inferred that because one event
happened after another that the second thing was caused by the first event. Ex: A
mayor took office, and, a while later, there was more graffiti in our town. It must
be his fault. Or: “The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism.
Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons.”
Basically, this fallacy cites an unrelated (or, at least, not proved as related)
event that occurred earlier as the cause of a current situation. (Ex. 1: I had an
argument with my best friend the night before my driver’s test; therefore, I blame
her for my failure. Ex. 2: Ever since Bush came into office, our economy has
tanked; therefore, it’s Bush’s fault.)
Appeal to Emotion: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical
reasons to persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions, including
pride, pity, fear, hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the
advantage of the arguer. (Note: It can help your paper or speech to use emotion, but from
a logical vantage point, if emotion is being substituted for logic or overemphasized to
affect the audience, it’s a problem.)
3
(The following two are somewhat related: With Card-stacking, the speaker is only
bringing up the positive of his/her side, making his/her argument sound better than it is.
With Straw Man, the speaker is misrepresenting his/her opponent and making the
opposing view sound worse.)
Card-stacking: The speaker mentions only the facts that will build the best case
for his or her argument, ignoring other factors or evidence. For example, an
advertisement for a sale on spring clothing doesn’t mention that only 20 items are
on sale, making people believe everything in the whole store is on sale. In
another example, McDonald’s announced a pay raise, but they didn’t make it
clear that the raise would only affect 10% of their restaurants.
Straw Man argument: This fallacy occurs when you misrepresent (or distort)
someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that
misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. Or, Straw man is also explained as putting an opponent’s weak
argument with his stronger arguments and then suggesting that when you’ve
overcome the weak argument, you’ve overcome the opponents’ arguments as a
whole. Example: “Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all
guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.”
Ex. 2: Grouping all those opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as “pacifists”
allows the speaker to refute the group by arguing for war in general. Likewise,
someone might call those who are for the war “warmongers” or “lackeys of the
United States.”
(The following two are very similar. If it’s more of a vague and positive phrase, call it
“glittering generality”; if it’s based on positive word choice, call it “virtue words.”)
Glittering generalities: Oversimplification/favorable generalities are used to
provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military
problems.
The speaker/writer uses clichés; makes broad, sweeping, positive
statements with little or no substance; or otherwise tries to make the audience
accept something by associating it with other things that are values. Another
explanation says: glittering generalities are “emotionally appealing words applied
to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis.” (Ex. 1:
“Good citizens will support new housing developments in our communities.” Ex.
2: “Ford has a better idea.”)
Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which
tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. “Peace,”
“happiness,” “security,” “wise leadership,” and “freedom,” are virtue words. See
Transfer [in Tier 2]. (Ex. 1: A speech mentions phrases/words like “justice for
our children, peace in our lands, virtue in our hearts,” etc.)
4
(The following is related to Virtue Words, but is more often used when the words are
negative or unfair. It’s like the words are suggesting the argument, making it difficult to
argue against the statement.)
Slanting or Slanted Language: This is a form of misrepresentation in which a statement
is made which may be true, but the phrasing, connotations of words, or emphases are
manipulative. For example: “I can’t believe how much money is being poured into the
space program” (suggesting that “poured” means heedless and unnecessary spending).
Ex. 2: Do you really think such a burdensome attendance policy is in the school’s best
interest? (Note that the speaker is not allowing for a neutral conversation. They’ve
slanted the question to their side or their audience to their side by the way they’ve
phrased the question.)
(The following is the question form of Begging the Question [See Tier 2], but it often uses
Slanted Language as well.)
Loaded question or Complex Question: This is a question which implies an argument
within it and often uses slanted language. One example is the classic loaded question:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question presupposes a definite answer to
another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in
cross-examination, when they ask questions like: “Where did you hide the money you
stole?” Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: “Does the Chancellor
plan offer two more years of ruinous privatization?” or “How long will this EU
interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?”
Either/or (also called Black-and-White): The writer asserts that there are only two
(usually extreme) possibilities, when, in reality, there are more. (Ex. 1: Tomorrow is my
chemistry final; therefore, I must study all night, or I will fail the course. Ex. 2: You can
have an unhealthy, unreliable engine, or you can use Brand X oil. Ex. 3: “Either man
was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure
random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so . . . ”). Eithor/or
is similar to Many Questions [see Tier 2]; it’s just that one is in question form.
Slippery Slope: This line of reasoning assumes that if one action is taken, it will lead to
inevitable and extreme consequences. There is no gray area or middle ground. This
argument argues for (or against) the first step because, if you take the first step, you will
inevitably follow through to the last. For example: “If one Aggie sits down during a
football game, soon everyone will; then all our traditions will be ruined.” Ex. 2: “We
can’t allow students any voice in decision-making on campus; if we do, it won’t be long
before they are in total control.” Ex. 3: “If we legalize marijuana, then more people
would start to take crack and heroin, and we’d have to legalize those too. Before long
we’d have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize
marijuana.” Ex. 4: “If we allow PDA in the halls, next thing we know, tons of girls will
be pregnant and then who will be working our stores and running our economy?” (This
last one is pretty similar to what a student wrote in a paper for my class. It is an example
of slippery slope as well as non sequitur.)
5
Tu quoque or Two Wrongs Make a Right: This fallacy is committed when we try to
justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying
assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified.
Example: Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to
U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system. Ex 2: Children sometimes try and avoid
a punishment because their sibling, parent, or teacher committed the same offense, but,
logically, this does not negate their own offense.
Appeal to Authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position,
idea, argument, or course of action. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is
speaking out of his field. For example: “Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in
God.” Other examples include sports stars selling cars or hamburgers, or the actor on a
TV commercial that says, “I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” This line of argument
isn’t always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may
be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you’re
discussing that subject. For example, the following would be pretty good as a piece of
evidence: “Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation.” (Stephen
Hawking is a renowned physicist, and so his opinion seems relevant.) But logicians
would still say that appealing to an authority is not as strong as logically proving
something through reasoning, stats, experiments, etc.
Unrelated testimonials: Authorities in one field are used to endorse a product or
an idea that they lack expertise about. (Ex. 1: A famous basketball player
endorses a political candidate.)
(The following two are similar. The first basically says it’s true because “everyone
knows that.” The second says, “That’s the way it’s always been.” Or “That’s what
we’ve always believed.)
Common Belief: This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true
on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely
believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: “Of course O.J. Simpson
killed his former wife. Everybody knows that.” Ex. 2: “Obviously God exists.
Nearly all Americans know this to be true.”
Past Belief or Appeal to Tradition (a form of the Common Belief fallacy): An
error in reasoning is committed based on what we’ve done in the past. In other
words, asserting that something is good or bad simply because it’s old, or because
“that’s the way it’s always been.” Example: “Everyone knows that the Earth is
flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?” This is the opposite of the
Argumentum ad Novitatem fallacy, which suggests something is better just
because it is newer. Example of Appeal to Tradition: “For thousands of years
Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have
persisted so long even in the face of persecution.” Ex. of Argumentum ad
6
Novitatem: “BeOS is a far better choice of operating system than OpenStep, as it
has a much newer design.”
Non Sequitur: (Latin phrase for “does not follow”). Non Sequitur is a good catch-all. It
is a broader category which can include hasty generalizations, transfers, post hoc, etc.,
but it is especially useful if the lack of logic is apparent—the links in logic seem to be
missing and could cause some head-scratching. A non sequitur is an argument where the
conclusion does not follow from the premise. This fallacy appears in political speeches
and advertising with great frequency. For example: A waterfall in the background and a
beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an automobile’s performance
(This is also “transfer.”). In another example: “Tens of thousands of Americans have seen
lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other
planets is fast becoming certainty!” (Ex 3: Jesse drives a Mercedes. He must have a great
deal of money and live in a mansion. Ex 4: Dr. X is being sued. He must be a terrible
doctor. Ex. 5: I saw some suspicious-looking people in this neighborhood last night.
This must be a dangerous neighborhood.) Note that sometimes the conclusion could be
true—if more clues/data added up to it, but based on the one item, the conclusion seems
to come out of nowhere. Note: Colloquially, “non sequiturs” can refer to a random
statement that someone—such as a character in a movie—says that leaves people
laughing and scratching their head, wondering, “Where did that come from?”
Here are a few things people have said or written in my class that I would call non
sequiturs (in the colloquial sense):
 “I can be in whatever mood I want to be because you’re sitting in my seat.” (and
then: “I don’t care if what I said made sense. You’re sitting in my seat, so it
doesn’t matter.”)
 “Although players had shaved legs, the team unity at the State Meet was high.”
 “Why are there three girls’ choice dances in a row?” “Because the girls soccer
field needs to be re-done.”
Tier 2
You are required to read these fallacies and try to digest them, but they will not appear on the
quiz unless they show up as extra credit.
(The following two are very similar.)
Bandwagon: This form of fallacy/persuasion attempts to persuade the target
audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.”
(Similar to Argumentum ad Numerum, which talks about the numbers/people
behind something.)
Argumentum ad Numerum: This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad
populum or bandwagon. It consists of asserting that the more people who support
or believe a proposition, the likelier that that proposition is correct. For example:
“The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a
7
noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it doesn't in the face of so much
evidence is ridiculous.” Ex. 2: “All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe
in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.”
(The following are somewhat similar. The first means the common person knows best.
The second says the poor know best. And the third argues that the rich know best.)
Common Man: The “plain folks” or “common man” approach attempts to
convince the audience that the propagandist’s positions reflect the common sense
of people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communication
in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use
ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and
audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with
that of the average person. When Obama was running against Romney, he made
big use of “Joe the Plumber” believing in Obama—this is an appeal to the
Common Man (or better said, it suggests that Obama is the best option because
the Common Man is behind him).
Argumentum ad Lazarum: This fallacy assumes that someone poor is sounder or
more virtuous than someone who’s wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the
Argumentum ad Crumenam. For example: “Monks are more likely to possess
insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the distractions of wealth.”
Argumentum ad Crumenam: The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of
correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite
of Argumentum ad Lazarum. An example of Argumentum ad Crumenam:
"Microsoft software is undoubtedly superior; why else would Bill Gates have
gotten so rich?"
Transfer: This fallacy is also known as association; this is a technique that involves
projecting the positive or negative qualities of one person, entity, object, or value onto
another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional
response. Often highly visual, this technique sometimes utilizes symbols superimposed
over other visual images. These symbols may be used in place of words; for example,
placing swastikas on or around a picture of an opponent in order to associate the
opponent with Nazism. Another example is someone running for office with a large
American flag close to him—he’s suggesting that he’s patriotic or he has strong
American values but he doesn’t offer proof of this. Transfer makes an illogical (or
stretched/distorted) connection between unrelated things; for example, if politics is
corrupt, this candidate also is corrupt. Another example: Transfer is used when a soda ad
includes a party or an attractive woman: it suggests that there is some kind of causal
connection between drinking the soda and having a good time or attracting girls, without
ever directly proving the logic of such.
Distraction by Nationalism: A variant on the traditional ad hominem and bandwagon
fallacies applied to entire countries. The method is to discredit opposing arguments by
8
appealing to nationalistic pride or memory of past accomplishments, or appealing to fear
of dislike of a specific country, or of foreigners in general. It can be very powerful as it
discredits foreign journalists (the ones that are least easily manipulated by domestic
political or corporate interests). Example: “The only criticisms of this trade proposal
come from the United States. But we all know that Americans are arrogant and
uneducated, so their complaints are irrelevant.” Ex. 2: “This has worked in France, but
since when do we follow the French? Do we really want to follow the lead of someone
who has been so wrong in so many other aspects of their foreign policy?”
Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature (related to false analogy): This is a common
fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a
particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world—and then stating that the
conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar: “The natural world is
characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of
limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is
simply an inevitable part of human nature. It’s how the natural world works.” Another
form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural
world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is
“unnatural.”
Sweeping Generalization: This occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular
situation. It’s the error made when you go from the general to the specific. For example:
“Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists.”
The following two items (& Circular Definition—See Tier 3) are quite similar.
Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is implied or
already assumed in the premises. Basically, the writer assumes something in his
assertion/premise that really needs to be proved. (Ex. 1: All good citizens know
the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Therefore, a test on the Bill of Rights should be
given to all those registering to vote. Ex. 2: A good Christian would definitely
support the such-and-such act, which bans international prostitution. Therefore,
so-and-so who is arguing for it must not be Christian. Ex. 3: “Our ineffective
mayor should be replaced.”)
Circular Reasoning: This mistake in logic restates the premise (assertion or
argument) rather than giving a reason for holding that premise. (Ex. 1: Science
should be required of all students because all students need to learn science. Ex.
2: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the
Bible. Ex. 3: Conversation in Fletch that goes something like this:
“Who are you?”
“I’m Frieda’s boss.”
“Who’s Frieda?”
“She’s my secretary.”)
9
Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid
argument. For example: “Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government
office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will
lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will
be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold
government office.” Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the
same as the conclusion. An argument like the above supposedly has actually been
cited as the reason for the British Secret Services’ official ban on homosexual
employees. (Note: I’d say this particular example could be categorized as false
premise or begging the question as well.)
Many Questions: This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic)
answer to a complex question. For example: “Are higher taxes an impediment to
business or not? Yes or no?”
Red Herring: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a
diversionary tactic. It takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. (It might be
related to what’s being discussed, but it’s not the exact issue on the table.) For example:
Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind
them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires.
Ex. 2: “You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime—
but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel
when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right
that they should pay for their son’s murderer to be fed and housed?”
The following two fallacies are quite similar.
Appeal to Ignorance / Ad Ignorantium. This occurs when it’s argued that
something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, vice
versa: If you can’t prove that something is true then it must be false. Example:
You can't prove there isn’t a Loch Ness Monster, so there must be one. (Note that
this isn’t the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In
law, for example, you’re generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here
are a couple of examples: Ex. 1: “Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove
otherwise.” Ex. 2: “Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not
exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real.” See also Shifting the
Burden of Proof.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is always on the person
asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
something is true unless proven otherwise. Ex. 1: “Okay, so if you don't think the
grey aliens have gained control of the U.S. government, can you prove it?”
Tier 3
10
You will likely not be required to read these fallacies. They are here in case you are interested, or
in case I want to refer to them.
Circular Definition: The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the
definition. Example: “A book is pornographic if and only if it contains pornography.”
(We would need to know what pornography is in order to tell whether a book is
pornographic.)
(The next two fallacies [& Appeal to Nature—See Tier 2] are quite similar.)
Argument from Analogy or False Analogy: An unsound form of inductive
argument in which an argument is based completely or relies heavily on analogy
to prove its point. Example: “This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches
in the world, it was made in Switzerland.” Ex. 2: “Saddam Hussein had killed
quite a few people. He was another Hitler and if we hadn’t have killed him at this
point, just imagine what he might have done next.”
False Assumption: The assumption that because two things are alike in some
ways, they must be in other ways.
Equivocation: An assertion that falsely relies on the use of a term in two different senses.
The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a
way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: An ad from a
sugar company says “Sugar is an essential component of the body, a key material in all
sorts of metabolic processes, so buy some P&R sugar today.” The word “sugar” is being
used with two definitions that the ad does not acknowledge. Ex. 2: “What could be more
affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do
what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that it will always be
freely redistributable.” One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology
carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid/take care with words like “free”
which have many meanings. (Or define/be clear with your terms.)
Argumentum ad Nauseam: Tireless repetition. An idea, especially a slogan, once
repeated enough times, is taken as the truth. Used especially by the media. Employs
constant repetition in asserting something, or saying the same thing over and over again,
to try and wear down the audience/make you convinced.
11