Fallacies

Review

• What LopesWrite report percentage do you need to stay below?
• What are some methods for correcting your essay when it is above the percentage?
• What happens when my LopesWrite score is above the percentage?
• How many words do you need for the cause and effect essay?

Today's Scripture

• Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you. Deuteronomy 31:6

Fallacies

• an error in reasoning or logic, or a faulty argument
• violations of the rules for critical discussion
• they are moves that hinder the participants’ ability to settle a conflict

Think of an argument like a chess game: If one player makes moves that violate the basic rules of the game, a reasonable outcome is impossible.

Formal Fallacy

• understood as an argument that has a certain form
• can be detected by analyzing the argument’s logical form
• flawed based on its form, which can be articulated using formal logic

Informal fallacy

• understood as an error in reasoning related to the content of an argument
• it cannot be articulated easily using formal logic
• flawed based on its content, which is not easily detected.

Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional

• Intentional.. is intended to deceive
• Unintentional...comes from an error in argument, reasoning, or a false belief

categorized as deductive

• Intended to guarantee the truth of the argument’s claim if its premises are true

for example

• "If Susan is sick, she will not be able to come to class. Susan is sick today, so Susan will not be able to come to class today."
• This statement can be dissected into an equation: If A, then B. A, therefore B.

categorized as inductive

• establish the probability, rather than a guarantee, that the claim is unlikely to be false if the premises are true

For example

• "The last time Susan missed class, she had the flu. Susan isn’t in class today, so she must be sick."
• Cannot be turned into an equation, so it cannot be assessed based on its form
• Only able to establish the probability of the truth of the claim
• Therefore, they are harder to assess, and more difficult to identify.

Common Logical fallacies

• Informal fallacies that are common in rhetoric and composition, and those likely to be encountered in everyday argument
• These are based on inductive logic, are based on the content and not the structure of the argument

Ad Hominem

• An argument that takes the form of an attack against the opponent rather than his or her position on an issue.
• Ex. "You should not donate to the animal welfare organization because the people who run it are communists."

Abusive Ad Hominem

• A form of ad hominem in which the attack against the opponent concerns his or her background or personal characteristics.
• Ex. "The candidate cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of the office; he was injured last year, and there are rumors he might have suffered brain damage."

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

• A form of ad hominem that takes the form of an attack on the opponent’s irrelevant personal circumstances.
• Ex."The Senator is obviously soft on terrorists, since he has been seen socializing with all those bleeding-heart liberals at public events. "

Appeal to Authority

• Claiming that an argument is supported by what some authority says on the subject without proof that the authority is credible.
• Ex. "Experts agree that chewing gum increases your ability to concentrate. "

An appeal to authority is not fallacious, but it is important to evaluate the situation before drawing a conclusion. The following questions can help make such an assessment:

#1

• Does the person have sufficient expertise on the subject in question? How can one make this determination? Students should make sure to investigate claims of expertise before drawing a conclusion. Of course, what exactly constitutes expertise is subjective, but it is important to know who is making the claim in order to evaluate its credibility.

#2

• Is the argument being made relevant to the person’s area of expertise? Just because a person is an expert on a particular subject does not mean one should assume that all of his or her claims are credible.

#3
Is there agreement among other experts on the subject? If a subject or discipline has widespread disagreement among experts, an appeal to authority that deals with the subject might be fallacious. Most disciplines have some disagreement among experts in some areas of the field but tend to agree about many things, while others are known for their foundational disputes. For example, economists hold widely varying and incompatible theories and frequently assert wildly opposing claims to explain certain phenomena.

#4

• Is the person significantly biased? While no person is entirely objective, it is important to understand if a person is making a claim based on bias and a desire to further some agenda, or if the claim is being made after careful consideration based on expert knowledge.

#5

• Is the person’s area of expertise widely accepted as a legitimate discipline? If someone claims to be an expert in a discipline or field of study that is not accepted as legitimate, his or her claims about a given subject should be approached skeptically.

#6

• Is the authority in question identified? Sometimes people make claims based on information from unnamed experts: “Scientists say,” “The experts have found,” or “I read in a book.” This is a subfallacy of Appeal to Authority: Appeal to Unnamed Authority.

Appeal to UNNAMED authority

• A form of appeal to authority in which the alleged authority that supports the claim is not named (e.g., “Experts say … ”).

Bandwagon Appeal

• Arguing that a claim is correct because it is what many others believe.
• Distinguish between claims that are widely accepted because they have been studied and a reasonable conclusion has been arrived upon, and claims that are gaining popularity without any understanding of their quality

example

• Everyone is buying this new diet pill, so it must be effective.

Circular reasoning

• An argument that begins with the claim the arguer intends to prove.
• Quite common and often difficult to recognize; it looks like a valid argument, but what it really does is reassert the claim using different words

example

• He speaks effectively because he is a good communicator.

False Dilemma

• Too few choices are presented as the only options available
• These fewer choices than are actually available and then suggests that a choice must be made among these limited options to force the hand of the audience
• If the audience were given access to all possible options, the arguer’s claim might seem less desirable

Example

• The government should either invest in scientific discovery or education.

Genetic Fallacy

• When a claim is discredited solely because of its origin
• Focuses on the origin (i.e., genesis) of an argument when such information is not relevant to its validity

example

• The Volkswagen Beetle was designed by Hitler’s army, so it must be evil.

Hasty Generalization

• When a conclusion is drawn based on too small a sample.
• Ex. Several politicians were caught in finance scandals this year; people in politics are greedy and unethical.

Moral Equivalence

• Comparing minor misdeeds to major atrocities for dramatic effect.
• Ex. Making people buy health insurance is like Nazi Germany.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

• Drawing a causal conclusion based on correlated events.
• “After this, therefore because of this.”
• correlation between two phenomena is too hastily argued to be evidence of a causal relationship

Untitled Slide

• one event follows another event closely, an assumption might be made that the first event caused the second event; however, this assumption cannot be argued on mere proximity but must be researched fully before the conclusion can be drawn

“The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%” (Schlafly, 2000).

“ … [E]vidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work. For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business. The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%” (Handgun Control, Inc., as cited in Curtis, 2014).

Both examples make claims about the reduction in crime, but for opposing reasons: Schlafly argues to expand gun rights, while Handgun Control argues to restrict. Both draw a causal conclusion when the evidence is most likely correlative, meaning the phenomena has only been proven to coincide in time.

Red Herring

• An attempt to draw the focus away from the issue at hand with irrelevant information.
• occurs when an arguer attempts to distract the audience from the relevant information.

example

• We should increase the admissions standards for the university’s graduate students. After all, we are in a budget crisis and our jobs are at risk here!

Slippery Slope

• Suggesting that one small step will lead to a series of smaller steps that will ultimately lead to something bad.
• Occurs when an arguer claims that a first step in a causal chain of mostly exaggerated results will ultimately lead to something disastrous. Even if each step in the causal chain has a high probability, the final step is not guaranteed

Example

• If we legalize physician-assisted suicide, we will end up with death panels that decide when people should be euthanized.

straw Man

• Oversimplifying and mischaracterizing an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute.
• Occurs when an arguer recasts an opponent’s position in a way that is easily refuted (e.g., oversimplifies it, makes it seem stupid) and then attacks that mischaracterization of the opponent’s position.

Untitled Slide

• Works best when the audience is uninformed; if the audience is knowledgeable in the real opposition argument, the intentional Straw Man argument will backfire and make the arguer look uninformed or malicious

Example

• People who do not support the increase in minimum wage hate working-class Americans.

Tu Quoque

• Discrediting an opponent’s argument against something because he or she has previously taken part in it.
• Translates to “You, also.”
• Arguer notes an opponent’s argument against something is invalid because the opponent himself or herself has done it

The hypocrisy or inconsistency of an arguer may be reason to be suspicious of his or her reasoning, but it is often irrelevant

examples

• Person 1: “It is morally wrong to use animals for food and clothing.” Person 2: “How can you say that? You are wearing leather shoes

Fallacies Conclusion

• Errors in reasoning, happen in every day communication in many different situations, including personal, professional, business, and political communication.
• Formal or informal, intentional or unintentional, and deductive or inductive

Because most real-world debate involves informal fallacies of inductive reasoning, by understanding fallacies, students will be better able to identify them in the arguments you encounter and in their own arguments.

It is important to recognize fallacies in numerous contexts to be a more critical consumer of information and to create better arguments.

"Common Fallacies In Reasoning" Worksheet
Work In Pairs