leadership

 

Humanities 1B

Fallacies

and

Non-Rational Persuasion

1. Fallacious Appeals

2. Ad Hominem Attacks

3. Fallacious Generalizations

4. Post Hoc Reasoning

5. Straw Man Fallacy

6. Shifting the Burden of Proof

7. Circular Reasoning

8. Loaded Questions

9. False Dilemma

10. Unfair Fallacies

1. Introduction to Fallacious Appeals

We often make legitimate appeals in support of arguments. For example, to support a statement about the relationship between energy and mass, Danielle might appeal to Albert Einstein’s theories as an authoritative source. To support a claim dealing with guns and gun control, Janelle might appeal to the Bill of Rights. And to support an argument on immigration, Claudelle might appeal to the humanity or generosity of her audience. As long as Einstein is an authority on Danielle’s topic, as long as the Bill of Rights deals with Janelle’s topic, and as long as the generosity of her audience is directly related to Claudelle’s topic, each of these appeals would be perfectly acceptable.

However, what if Danielle had appealed to Einstein as an authority on rap music, or if Janelle had used the Bill of Rights to support a claim about which store has the best prices, or if Claudelle had appealed to the generosity of the judges in evaluating her performance in gymnastics? We would probably have a puzzled reaction, since these appeals would seem to have little or nothing to do with the claims they were used to support.

The problem is that fallacious appeals are not always as obvious as these last three, and it necessary for the critical thinker to determine, in each case, whether an appeal is appropriate or not. Generally speaking, fallacious appeals can be divided into two groups: misdirected appeals and emotional appeals.

In a misdirected appeal, an otherwise legitimate appeal is misapplied by being used to support an unrelated claim. Danielle’s use of Einstein, who was an authority but not on rap music, and Janelle’s use of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees some things but not which store has the best prices, are examples of misdirected appeals.

By itself, an emotional appeal is never a legitimate strategy in an argument, because it is based on emotions rather than verifiable or evaluative support. Claudelle’s appeal to the generosity of her audience in an argument about immigration, for example, would be appropriate as long as she was discussing that generosity as a value related to the subject. However, an appeal to the generosity of the judges at a gymnastic meet is merely a play on their emotions (probably an appeal to their pity); anyway, the value of generosity has nothing to do with the evaluations the judges would render. Thus, Claudelle’s appeal to the judges’ generosity would be a fallacious emotional appeal.

The following are some of the most common fallacious appeals. Popular variations on the names are also listed.

Misdirected Appeals

A. Appeal to Authority , or Appeal to Questionable Authority

· Appeal to Information

B. Appeal to Common Belief , or Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Popular Belief

C. Appeal to Common Practice , or Appeal to Tradition

· Two Wrongs Make a Right

D. Appeal to Indirect Consequences , or Slippery Slope, Domino Theory

· Appeal to Wishful Thinking

Emotional Appeals

E. Appeal to Fear , or Scare Tactics, Appeal to Force

F. Appeal to Loyalty , or Peer Pressure, Bandwagon, Ad Populum

G. Appeal to Pity , or Sob Story

H. Appeal to Prejudice , or Appeal to Stereotypes

I. Appeal to Spite , or Appeal to Hatred, Appeal to Indignation

J. Appeal to Vanity , or Apple Polishing

Misdirected Appeals

A. Appeal to Authority. Ideally, we reach our decisions by reviewing information and arguments, and coming to our own conclusions. But because knowledge is very specialized, none of us has the time and ability necessary to understand fully all the fields in which we need to make informed decisions. As a result, we often rely on the opinions of experts–people who have the knowledge necessary to evaluate very specialized information. In accepting or rejecting expert opinion, we usually forgo some or all of the usual analysis of evidence and claims, relying on the expert’s explanations or evaluations of the material for us. Obviously, then, we need to be confident of the expertise of the individual on whom we are relying.

As the name suggests, a misdirected appeal to authority usually cites some person or thing (a book, for example) as a source to be trusted on a subject, when in fact that person or thing is not authoritative on that specific subject. As a result, this fallacy is also known as an appeal to questionable authority. One common way to make such an illegitimate appeal more persuasive is to appeal to a recognized authority on a matter outside the area of that authority’s expertise.

Celebrity endorsements of commercial products or political positions are often used as fallacious appeals to authority. Just because a person is successful or knowledgeable in one area–say, acting, music, or sports–is no reason to accord his or her claims or opinions added weight in an unrelated area–such as health care, diet, or investments. There is nothing wrong with using a celebrity to attract attention to a cause or product, but the decision about whether the product or cause is indeed worthwhile should be made without regard to the celebrity endorsement.

Appeal to Information. This fallacy is related to the appeal to questionable authority , and may be best remembered as an appeal to questionable information. The fallacy functions by getting you to assume the information presented is creditable, when that may be in question. You have already read about some forms of an appeal to questionable authority, in the section on statistics.

* * *

B. Appeal to Common Belief. As explained in the section on Statements , claims made in argumentation can be divided into those of verification, evaluation, and advocacy. Surveys of common beliefs and popular opinions are a legitimate way to support some evaluative statements, but they can never be used to argue the accuracy of most statements of verification. Such fallacies are also called appeals to opinion, to belief, and to popular belief. Consider the following claims:

1. Spitting on the sidewalk is illegal.

2. Spitting on the sidewalk is disgusting.

Now consider two ways of substantiating each of these claims: looking in a book, and taking a public opinion poll. In the case of legality, which is a claim of verification, we can readily imagine finding conclusive support in the form of a statute in a law book. But even if 100% of the people responding to a poll said spitting was illegal, it might not be, because legality is determined by laws enacted, not people’s opinions. In the other case, however, it seems there can be no definitive answer. Whether we look in a book or do a survey, something is disgusting only if you think it so; and if enough people agree with you, then that opinion is generally accepted in your culture or society.

The point is that using popular opinions to support a claim that must be verified in another manner is a fallacious appeal to common belief. Supporting an evaluative statement with factual evidence would be just as fallacious, but much less common. We might call that an appeal to plausible facts.

* * *

C. Appeal to Common Practice. Your mother has probably said it to you more times than you can remember: “If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you jump off the bridge, too?” Well, mothers can be great critical thinkers, and this is one of the best replies to a fallacious appeal to common practice, in which an action is justified because “everyone is doing it.” In a sound argument, the action must be justified on its own merits, and what others are doing, and the conclusions they may have reached, are of little or no consequence. Just because “everyone is doing it” (a claim that is often unsupported, exaggerated, or vague in the first place), doesn’t make it right to do. Consider the following examples of fallacious appeals to common practice:

· It’s ok to copy someone else’s homework. Everyone does it once in a while.

· You can pretty well ignore the speed limit in California. Everyone else does.

· Why can’t I have my tongue pierced? All the other kids in school are doing it?

· It’s ok to cheat on your taxes. I saw a survey that showed more than half of all taxpayers lie about something on their returns.

Appeal to Tradition. Another form of “common practice” is a fallacious appeal to tradition. Instead of using the justification, “Everyone is doing it,” in appeal to tradition, the rationalization is, “We’ve always done it that way.” So, for example, everything from two-hour lunches to discrimination on the basis of race or gender can be explained away because “we’ve always done it that way.” Traditions can be very important to us, but it’s hard to imagine a harmful action that could be justified solely by the fact that it is traditional.

Two wrongs make a right is a fallacy closely related to appeal to common practice. In this case, the argument is it’s acceptable to do something, not because other people are doing it, but because they are doing other things just as bad. Notice that “two wrongs” carries the implicit assumption that the action is wrong, but its commission is acceptable in the circumstances, while in “common practice” the suggestion is that a questionable action is made right by the frequency of its commission. Notice also that claim of the other’s “bad” action is often unsupported, exaggerated, or theoretical–not that its verification would make a second wrong right. In addition, there is often an element of retribution in “two wrongs”–it’s not just that other people are doing something wrong, but that they are doing it to you, that seems to excuse what, in another situation, you would likely recognize as unacceptable. Here are a few examples:

· I’m not telling the checker that she forgot to charge me for those oranges–this store has been gouging me for years.

· Sure, I’m going to keep those tools I borrowed from Harold. Hell, he’d do the same thing in my position.

· I’m going to cut the jerk ahead of me off, the same way he just cut me off!

· Sure, this prison is cruel and unusual punishment. These guys are criminals, after all.

* * *

D. Appeal to Indirect Consequences. In the fallacy of an appeal to indirect consequences, also known as a slippery slope or domino theory, remotely possible but usually very negative effects are presented as the automatic consequences of a course of action or belief, with the idea that the sheer negativity of those possible effects will be sufficiently persuasive to ensure the rejection of that course of action or belief. In other words, if I can make it seem that your decision, however justified in itself, will produce certain and unavoidably negative outcomes, you will probably change that decision. The issue in a fallacious appeal to indirect consequences, therefore, is how certain and unavoidably negative these effects are. Let’s consider some examples of arguments about smoking.

· Jay says that Maya should quit smoking because it leaves an unpleasant odor on her breath, hair, and clothes.

· Kay says that Maya should quit smoking because it has been associated with serious illness and death.

· Ray says that Maya should quit smoking because the inability to overcome an addiction is indicative of a personality unable to meet the stresses and responsibilities of a job or a relationship, and eventually Maya will end up broke, unhappy and alone.

Jay’s consequence–the odor–is certainly the most automatic and unavoidable (though smokers are sometimes unaware of the smell themselves, and things can be done to minimize it). Though the consequence is negative, Jay’s argument is not fallacious, and Maya should make her decision here on the relative importance to her of smoking and stinking.

Kay’s consequences are more dire–illness and death–and more remote. These consequences don’t always happen to smokers, and even if they do happen to Maya, the onset may be years off (depending, perhaps, on how much Maya smokes and for how long). Yet there is an impressive body of scientific evidence that almost everyone is aware of, which establishes a causal link between smoking and serious illness. At the very least, then, when dealing with Kay’s argument, Maya would have to confront the strong probability that smoking is at least increasing her chances of contracting a serious illness significantly, and make her decision accordingly.

No one wants to end up “broke, unhappy and alone,” but Ray’s argument is obviously the most tenuous of the three. Notice the steps necessary to accept Ray’s argument: that the connections are automatic, first between an addiction and a personality disorder, then between having that disorder and succumbing to pressure, then between succumbing to pressure and losing one’s job and personal relationships, and finally between losing those relationships and ending up broke, unhappy, and alone. Those many questionable steps are what gives this fallacy its popular names, “slippery slope” and “domino theory,” because once you begin accepting its tenuous connections, it’s downhill or unstoppable from then on. Ray’s argument, then, is a good example of a fallacious appeal to indirect consequences.

Of course, not everything with a long series of consequences is a fallacy; you must learn to differentiate between a chain argument and a fallacious appeal to indirect consequences. Both can have the form “If P then Q, then R, then S, then T . . .” but a chain argument is built on plausible causation and is confirmed a step at a time. In a slippery slope fallacy, the plausibility of its causal links is ignored, and the focus is entirely on the dire results at the end.

* * *

Emotional Appeals

Emotional appeals all have two things in common:

1. They attempt to elicit an emotional response that will serve as the basis of any decision made, instead of presenting an argument and relying on its soundness.

2. As a result, they are never acceptable in an argument, though they can be quite effective in arousing non-rational responses.

Fallacious appeals to emotions are effective because it’s easier for most people not to think critically, but to rely on their gut reaction; and it’s easier for the person making the appeal to excite his listeners’ emotions than to construct a persuasive argument. As a result, those who try to persuade us most often–politicians and advertisers– tend to rely on emotional appeals in order to motivate us to do things that we might not for purely rational reasons.

Fallacious appeals can target almost any emotion, but some are more common than others. In this section, we will be focusing on seven different ones: appeals to fear , loyalty , pity , prejudice , spite , and vanity , and the special case of sex appeal .

* * *

E. Appeal to Fear. Fear and love are two of the strongest emotions, and this sort of non-rational persuasion is usually designed to tap into both of them, by threatening the safety or happiness of ourselves or someone we love. As a result, it’s often called scare tactics or appeal to force because the threats of force are intended to scare us into agreement or action. Consider the following appeals:

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you give me a ticket, I’ll have to call my friend the mayor and and have a long talk.”

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you give me a ticket, you better make sure your family is in a really safe place.”

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you even start to give me a ticket, I’m going to shoot you with this gun.”

Notice that the first threat is the most veiled, carried in the implication that the speaker has a powerful friend that can adversely affect the officer’s career. The second threat is also veiled–the speaker never says he or she will do anything, and in some situations the advice to ensure the safety of one’s family might be considered downright neighborly. But the second appeal is, in other ways, more powerful than the first, because it threatens the officer’s family with violence. The threat in the third example is so direct–the speaker has apparently pulled a gun on the officer–that it might not be considered a fallacy at all. Certainly caution would be the best response in each of these cases but, generally speaking, most of the threats encountered in critical thinking are less direct and less violent than these examples.

Remember that, while all appeals to fear involve negative outcomes, not all negative outcomes necessarily derive from fallacies. When the doctor tells you to change your diet or you’ll die young, and when the dentist tells you to floss better or you will lose your teeth, they are probably not engaging in a fallacious appeal to fear. Instead, they are explaining to you the demonstrable consequences of your actions, not as a threat but as information upon which they hope you will act.

* * *

F. Appeal to Loyalty. Since humans are social beings, one of our strongest emotions involves attachment to a group, and there are several different ways to appeal to that emotion. One is the general appeal to loyalty, which operates on the notion that one should act in concert with (what is claimed to be) the group’s best interests, regardless of the merits of the particular case being argued. Chauvinistic slogans, like “My country, right or wrong,” are good examples of this sort of non-rational emotionalism, and such appeals are often known by the Latin name for this fallacy, ad populum, meaning that it is direct “to the people.” But appeal to loyalty can utilize one’s attachment to things other than a country, because we also feel loyalty to our friends and family, schools, cities and towns, teams, favorite authors and musicians, and so on.

A variant on the appeal to loyalty is the fallacious use of peer pressure. In this case, one’s agreement is sought, not on the basis of what is good for the group as in appeal to loyalty, but on the basis of what others in that group would or do think. Peer pressure, then, usually requires a closer relationship with the group connection being exploited than does appeal to loyalty, though both involve the (often implicit) knowledge of what is expected by the group. Bandwagon, another variant of appeal to loyalty, is different because it doesn’t involve that knowledge of what action is expected by the group. Instead, “getting on the bandwagon” is an expression which indicates that an individual has willingly begun to support a group’s goals or arguments or beliefs, merely to be part of a large group, especially if its members are perceived as somehow successful or “winners.” Thus, voting for someone because you’ve read or heard that candidate was by far the most popular, or supporting a ballot initiative because you’ve read or heard it was supposed to pass overwhelmingly, is an example of bandwagon.

Consider these three examples:

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but we cops have to stick together.”

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but what would they say about you down at the stationhouse if they knew you were giving out tickets to other cops?”

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but you’ve got to get with the program. Everyone else lets other cops off with just a warning.”

“Sticking together,” in the first example, rather than reaching a conclusion based on the merits of the case, shows how appeal to loyalty works. Wondering what others will think, especially those in a defined group who are in close contact with you, is an example of peer pressure. Finally, doing something because everyone else is doing it is an example of bandwagon. Notice, incidentally, that bandwagon differs from the misdirected appeal to common practice, in that common practice’s “everyone is doing it” is given as the reason why the thought or action is proper, but in the bandwagon fallacy there is no necessity for the thought or action to be considered proper, only that the individual would think or do it in order to become part of that large group.

* * *

G. Appeal to Pity. A fallacious appeal to pity, also known as a sob story, is different from a simple (and perfectly legitimate) appeal to pity in one significant way: it is used to replace logic, rather than to support it. As far as critical thinking goes, it can be perfectly legitimate for someone to say, “Please give me some money to buy food. I haven’t eaten in days.” Certainly, this would be an appeal to pity, but as long as the appeal is made in such a way as not to preclude logical consideration of the situation (such as whether the request is appropriate for the problem, whether you can reasonably afford or provide whatever is requested, and so on), it need not be fallacious. When the fallacy does occur, it is usually exhibits either a greatly exaggerated problem or an inappropriate request. Most of all, however, a fallacious appeal to pity uses emotion in place of reason to persuade. Consider these examples:

“Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but please don’t give me a ticket. I’ve had a hard day, and I was just trying to get over to my aged mother’s hospital room, and spend a few minutes with her before I report to my second full-time minimum-wage job, which I have to have as the sole support of the seventeen members of my family.”

“Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but please don’t give me a ticket. If you do, they’ll suspend my license, I’ll lose my insurance, I won’t be able to work, and my kids will go hungry.”

In neither case are there any reasons given as to why the individual should escape punishment, or why the “pitiful” condition caused the illegal left turn. In the first example, if the description is accurate (often a question in a fallacious appeal to pity), the individual certainly has a difficult life, but none of that means that normal traffic laws should be suspended. The second example seems to mix an appeal to pity with an appeal to indirect consequences , making this a “slippery slope sob story” in which receiving the ticket will be the first step in a terrible decline of fortunes. In fact, the first step was the illegal left turn, and there’s no reason to expect the consequences solely of getting the ticket to be as dire as suggested.

One oddity about an appeal to pity–fallacious or otherwise–is that it often fails because the emotion is mostly on the side of the one making the argument. If perceived as such, the desire to be pitied, for good reasons or bad, can turn off a listener’s emotions, rather than elicit them. Often, a dispassionate but accurate accounting of one’s plight is more effective than a tear-filled and self-pitying narrative of the wrongs one has suffered.

* * *

H. Appeal to Prejudice. A prejudice is a predisposition to judge groups of people or things either positively or negatively, even after the facts of a case indicate otherwise. This fallacy is also called an appeal to stereotypes, but be sure to distinguish this appeal to a pre-existing prejudice from stereotyping , the sort of generalizations which create stereotypes.

By appealing to a prejudice in the listener, the person making the argument attempts to ensure a favorable reaction. Most often, such an appeal works on negative images, and extreme cases can be classified as so-called “hate speech” when directed against a group defined by race, ethnicity, or gender. However, some appeals to prejudice are devoid of the hatred that is a requisite for a different emotional fallacies–apppeal to spite. Consider this example:

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but there ought to be special laws for those of us proud to be American and driving American cars on American streets, instead of making us follow the same rules as those foreign-made cars that have ruined the economy and put so many of us good Americans out of work.”

Conceivably, this statement could be made without hatred, though perhaps some measure of indignation is necessary. Instead, our scofflaw has mixed prejudice with wishful thinking to produce the image of how the world would be if people with a prejudice against foreign-made cars were in control.

* * *

I. Appeal to Spite. Appeals to spite, to hatred, and to indignation attempt to tap into the animus a person feels about an individual or group of people or things. They differ from appeal to prejudice in the sense that prejudice works on a pre-existing belief, which may be positive or negative, but spite can be elicited by the attempt at persuasion itself, and is always negative. Of course,we can imagine a case in which there is an appeal to both spite and prejudice. But consider the following example of appeal to spite alone:

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but you know how it feels when you are unappreciated and your work is ignored, while someone else is given the rewards that should really be yours! It seems like there are signs saying “No this” and “No that” everywhere–but just for you–and at some point you just have to end that cycle of mistreatment and show the world you can’t be pushed around any more.”

This isn’t an appeal to pity, because the speaker is inviting the officer into joining him or her in outrage, rather feeling any pity. And it isn’t an appeal to prejudice, because the basis for the anger here is more frustration than anything else (though it may also be a combination of various emotions).

* * *

J. Appeal to Vanity. Also known as apple-polishing, the strategy behind this fallacy is to create a predisposition toward agreement by paying compliments. The success of the strategy depends on a combination of the vanity of the target and the subtlety of the compliment, and it is usually more effect when the compliment is somehow related to the issue at hand. Consider these two examples:

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but you certainly look handsome in your uniform.”

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but it was certainly perceptive of you to notice. You deserve a commendation.”

Admittedly, for either of these appeals to succeed in the attempt to avoid a ticket, the officer would have to be remarkably vain. The second example would seem slightly more subtle and relevant, and therefore perhaps more effective, or at least less embarrassing when the officer writes the ticket anyway.

* * *

K. Sex Appeal. Perhaps the most familiar of all emotional appeals, the appeal to (or of) sex is firmly rooted in our biological urges. Like all appeals to emotion, sex appeal has a perfectly acceptable function: it is a powerful reason for making a date, for example. But is it such a good reason for buying a car?

Before answering that, we need to make clear what we mean by “sexy.” We think a person is sexy if he or she appeals to our sexual desires. An object can be considered sexy if it heightens or increases the sex appeal of a person (real or hypothetical); in that sense, a sheer negligee, a well-tailored suit, or a stylish car can all be sexy accessories. So, if it is important to you for a car to make you feel sexy, then its sex appeal might be a good reason for buying a specific car. (Of course, it might also be a good reason to take a hard look at your values, and try to put the shallowness of our material culture behind you!)

So there are at least two types of sex appeal when it comes to automobile advertising. Sexy styling, while possibly shallow, is nevertheless a legitimate consideration for some in buying a car. However, a second kind of sex appeal–say, the cleavage of the model in a car ad–is an illegitimate appeal to emotions, which functions by trying to excite someone in a way that impacts on rational decision-making. And it works! As a result, that is exactly the sort of advertising we will be getting, until we collectively refuse to be persuaded by celebrity endorsements, sexy models, and other sorts of emotional manipulations, and demand intelligent and informative ads.

You can, no doubt, imagine many scenes in which sex appeal is used to avoid a ticket. Let’s consider this one:

· “Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn. Let me get my license for you.”

“What are you doing, ma’am?”

“Oh, it’s okay. I keep my license tucked away here in my brassiere.”

Notice that, in appeal to vanity, the speaker makes the most of someone else’s appearance, while in sex appeal the persuader (often wordlessly) trades on his or her own features. Note, too, that no offer of sex (or anything else) is being made here–whatever suggestiveness there may be in where the woman keeps her license. That is important, for sex appeal as well as all other emotional appeals, because once the attempt at persuasion goes beyond a simple appeal to the emotions, and involves a tangible reward or exchange, then it ceases to be a fallacy, and becomes a bribe.

2. Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies

One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem–or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an “argument against the person” (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically. Consider a few examples:

· A political candidate is gaining support by proposing a tax change. So her opponent argues that the candidate herself would be one of the chief beneficiaries of that tax change.

· Your doctor tells you to lose some weight. But why should you listen to a doctor who is himself overweight?

· A friend has recommended a new investment opportunity, but your significant other rejects the recommendation with the remark, “How could you possibly value the advice of that idiot?”

In each of these cases, there is an argument (concerning taxes, health, or investments); and in each, the argument is given less importance than something about the person making that argument. And that’s what is wrong with ad hominem appeals. After all, if the tax proposal is an improvement, if the medical diagnosis is sound, if the investment opportunity is worthwhile–then what difference does it make who is presenting the argument–or even why?

Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember–it doesn’t really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4.

Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on:

· personality, traits, or identity:

· “Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?”

· “Of course she’s in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?”

· affiliation, profession, or situation:

· “What’s the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They’re always against any increase.”

· “Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great–until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con.”

· inconsistent or contradictory actions, statements, or beliefs:

· “How can you follow a doctor’s advice if she doesn’t follow it herself?”

· “Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite.”

· source or association for ideas or support:

· “Don’t vote for that new initiative–it was written by the insurance lobby!”

· “You can’t possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking–it was paid for by the tobacco industry.”

The point is that each argument must be evaluated in its own right. Information or suspicions about vested interests, hidden agendas, predilections, or prejudices should, at most, make you more vigilant in your scrutiny of that argument–but they should not be allowed to influence its evaluation. Only in the case of opinions, expert and otherwise, where you must rely not on the argument or evidence being presented but on the judgment of someone else, may personal or background information be used to evaluate the ideas expressed. If, for example, a used car vendor tries to prove to you that the car in question is being offered at lower than the average or “blue book” price, you must ignore the fact that the vendor will profit from the sale, and evaluate the proof. If, on the other hand, that used car vendor says, “Trust me, this is a good deal,” without further proofs or arguments, you are entitled to take into account the profit motive, the shady reputation of the profession, and anything else you deem to be relevant as a condition of “trust.”

3. Fallacious Generalizations

Generalizations can be a valid method of argument. Inductive reasoning , in particular, is based on the ability to generalize from repeated experiences or observations. The soundness of an inductive generalization can usually be determined by asking the following questions:

· Do we have a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion?

· Is the breadth of the conclusion drawn supported by the evidence?

· Are the terms of the conclusion consistent with the terms of the evidence?

Fallacies result if any of these questions can be answered in the negative.

A hasty generalization is one in which there is an insufficient number of instances on which to base the generalization. Consider the following examples:

1. Jana has been to San Diego several times, and the sky was always blue and the temperature ideal. The weather must be perfect in San Diego all the time.

2. Tina bought a used camera while she was up in Portland, and got a great deal. Portland must be a good place to buy used cameras.

3. I read where there have been no reported cases of HIV infection in Liberty Lake. The people of Liberty Lake must be free of the HIV virus.

In the first two examples, generalizations were made on the basis of little evidence–several days in San Diego, one camera purchased in Portland. These clearly provide an insufficient basis for the conclusions they are used to support, and are therefore examples of hasty generalizations.

The third example is a little different. There, a generalization is made on the basis of no evidence at all. The lack of evidence to the contrary should never be used as sufficient grounds for any generalization. For example, the absence of a suspect’s fingerprints on the murder weapon is not sufficient in itself to prove his innocence, nor is the lack of any evidence of life in soil samples taken so far on Mars sufficient in itself to prove that no life exists there. This is a special case of hasty generalization, usually known by its Latin name, argumentum a silentio, or argument from silence, because instead evidence to support the argument, all we hear is silence.

The problem in each of these cases should be obvious: without more data, we have no way of knowing if the evidence presented is representative or not. Maybe Jana happened each time to visit San Diego during unusually good weather, maybe Tina was really lucky to get a good deal on the camera, maybe people are reluctant to reveal that they are HIV-positive in Liberty Lake. Without sufficient support for the generalization, these are just anecdotes.

A sweeping generalization is one in which there seems to be sufficient evidence offered to draw a conclusion, but the conclusion drawn far exceeds what the evidence supports. Consider these examples:

1. The profit margin on HP’s printer line has been a steady 25% for two years. We can assume, then, that the profits company-wide have also been 25%.

2. The poll from Orange County shows the governor winning in a landslide. I guess he will also win across the state just as easily.

In each example, the conclusion drawn far exceeds what the evidence would support. For all we know, the printer line is part of HP’s profitable personal computer division, and we might be able to extend the findings to similar products in HP’s line, but not to the full line itself without a great deal more information. In the second example, we could certainly conclude that the governor will win in Orange County, and perhaps we might be willing to conclude that the governor should be favored in similar counties, though the nature of the similarity may not, at first, be very apparent–if geographical, demographic, political, and economic, and so on. But assuming that the entire state is somehow similar to Orange County, which is an assumption that you would have to accept to make this argument, is stretching the evidence of similarities well beyond the limit.

The third question about a generalization asks about consistent terms. Consider the following examples:

1. I used only delicious ingredients, so this sauce must be delicious.

2. The 49ers are the best team, so they must have the best players.

The problem in both is that non-equivalent terms have been substituted: the parts (ingredients) for the whole (sauce) in the first example, and the whole (team) for its parts (players) in the second. Notice how this fallacy usually involves the replacement of a plural noun, such as “ingredients” and “players,” with a singular, collective noun, such as “sauce” and “team.” And, generally speaking, the whole (the collective noun) is often more or less than the sum of its parts (the plural noun). Substituting the whole for its parts, the sauce for its ingredients, is sometimes called the fallacy of composition. Substituting the parts for the whole, or the players for the team, is sometimes called the fallacy of division.

4. Post Hoc Reasoning

One of the rules of causal arguments is that the cause must precede the effect in time. In other words, for A to cause B, it is necessary for A to precede B in time. But it is not sufficient. Just because A precedes B in time–and even if A precedes B every time–does not prove that A causes B. Arguing that “A preceded B, and therefore A caused B” is a fallacy called post hoc or false cause reasoning. The former term is short for the Latin phrase, post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” Consider the following examples:

1. Whenever Fyodor strikes the flint with iron, he makes a spark.

2. Whenever John thinks he is going to hiccup, he takes a deep breath.

3. Whenever Nkrumah enters this line of code, his program crashes.

4. Alison always wins whenever she wears her lucky headband.

5. The barometer drops whenever it is going to rain.

In the first case, the apparent cause (striking the flint with iron) occurs before the apparent effect (the spark), as is true in both causation and post hoc reasoning. To argue that this is not merely post hoc, then, requires some causal connection between the striking and the spark. Since one of the physical properties of flint is that it produces a spark when struck by iron, we can conclude that striking the flint with iron caused the spark. Notice that this is only valid if we assume that we have accounted for all relevant details. If, for example, we also know that a live electric wire is arcing near the iron, the cause of the spark may be in doubt.

In the second case, it may seem at first as though the hiccup is causing John to take a deep breath, and therefore that the effect (breath) actually precedes the cause in time. But what really causes John to take that breath is his thinking that he is about to hiccup.

The third case may be our first example of post hoc reasoning. Inserting the code precedes the crash, but to know that it causes the crash Nkrumah would have to have a relevant explanation of how the crash occurs. Otherwise, it is just as possible that a bug somewhere else in the program is causing the crash, but that the crash only occurs once this line is entered because the only way that the section with the bug in it is accessed is by this line.

Alison may be superstitious, but is she wrong to believe that her headband causes her to win? Since there is probably no likely physical explanation of the causal link between winning and the headband (such as, “she can see better because her hair is out of her eyes”), we may be inclined to consider this a post hoc fallacy. And it remains a post hoc fallacy even if we consider a psychological explanation: like Dumbo’s feather, Alison’s headband gives her confidence, and that confidence enables her to win. Because such a psychological explanation seems secondary, it needs to be discussed explicitly before the conclusion, that the headband caused the winning, can be accepted, and even then it would probably be one of many “indirect” causes.

Notice that many superstitions are post hoc fallacies, and are often phrased so vaguely that they will almost inevitably be fulfilled in the normal course of events. Bad luck, for example, may happen to someone who walks under a ladder, but good and bad things happen to almost everyone with regularity, and there is nothing to link the act (walking under the ladder) and the supposed consequence (some particular instance of misfortune).

The reason the barometer drops is that the atmospheric pressure it measures has dropped. And an atmospheric low often leads to rain. So there is a common cause for the barometer drop and the rain, but it would be a post hoc fallacy to argue that the barometer change causes the rain. If that were true, we could avoid rain by physically forcing a barometer’s indicator higher.

5. Fallacy: Straw Man

Politician: My opponent believes that higher taxes are the only way to pay for needed improvements. She never met a tax she didn’t like. But I have a better idea: let’s cut waste in government first.

Why are politicians always so willing to tell you what the other side thinks? One reason is that, in explaining someone else’s views, we have a chance to oversimplify and even falsify them. In the example above, is it really likely that the opponent prefers raising taxes to cutting waste in government? Probably, her position is much more complex than that, and makes better sense. But in oversimplifying her position, this politician makes it seem the choice between them is obvious. And that is the purpose of this technique, which we call “straw man” (like a scarecrow) because it relies on the creation of a false image of someone else’s statements, ideas, or beliefs.

A “straw man” is rarely based on actions, instead of comments or beliefs. Usually actions are too unambiguous to suffer the oversimplification of a “straw man,” and simple mischaracterization is not a fallacy, but a weakness in the support of a claim. For example, claiming someone has voted for raising taxes, when the vote was really in favor of a bill raising some taxes but cutting many more, would not be a “straw man” in itself, but might be used in combination with mistatements of the person’s comments and policies to create a false-image fallacy.

Politics provides lots of examples of the “straw man” fallacy, some fairly subtle. In the 1988 vice-presidential debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen, Quayle made the mistake of deflecting questions about his youth and inexperience with the observation that John F. Kennedy was even younger when he ran for president. Then Bentsen, in a famous retort that was the most telling moment of the debate, said to Quayle, “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” This proved to be an effective and memorable remark–but did Quayle ever say he was a “Jack Kennedy”? Did he really intend to compare himself to Kennedy, or was he using Kennedy merely as an example that one’s age doesn’t necessarily determine one’s qualifications? Bentsen, obviously a consummate debater, was able to create a false image of his opponent’s remarks with the man still standing there in front of a national television audience.

One person’s account of the statements or views of another is not always a case of a “straw man” fallacy. But you can judge such an account in the same way you judge any authority or expert testimony: by who that authority is, by the apparent accuracy of the account, and–in the case of straw man–by the likelihood that the person being discussed would agree, for the most part, with the description of his or her statements or views.

6. Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that’s ridiculous!

Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn’t happen, you’ll just have to accept it as true.

The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an argument? In the section on “Validity, Truth, and Soundness,” we discuss the concept of a burden of proof , which is defined there as “how much each side of a dispute needs to prove in order to win someone’s agreement.” Sometimes, however, whoever is carrying the heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side–as Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens, he carries a much greater burden of proof, because we normally consider alien-abduction stories as incredible; as a result, it is up to Mulder to produce proof of his claim. But in the dialogue above, he shifts that burden to Scully, creating the fallacious impression that, if Scully can’t prove it false, Mulder’s alien-abduction story must be true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an incredible claim, it is up to him to support it.

In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a claim which would be very difficult to support.

7. Fallacy: Circular Reasoning

What’s the difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy? In the case of the fallacy of circular reasoning, the difference is not be as obvious as you might expect. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that’s also true for all valid deductions, where the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) is derived from the premises or assumptions. This difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises. Consider the following exchanges:

Deductive Reasoning (Valid)

Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world?

Sports Fan #2: Because it is the fastest and highest scoring form of football, and whatever is the fastest and highest scoring form of football must be the most exciting sport in the world.

Circular Reasoning (Fallacious)

Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world?

Sports Fan #2: Because it is.

In both examples, the conclusion has been assumed in the premises. But the first argument follows a valid pattern: If P (fastest and highest scoring), then Q (most exciting). Aussie Rules Football is P (fastest and highest scoring), therefore Aussie Rules Football is Q (most exciting). But in the second example, the one for circular reasoning, the conclusion has been assumed entirely (or almost entirely) in a single premise. As a result, the conclusion of a circular argument can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It’s like saying, “A is B, therefore A is B.”

Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said “I think,” he’d already implied “I am” (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later.

8. Fallacy: Loaded Questions and Complex Claims

1. Your father: Did you enjoy spoiling the dinner for everyone else?

2. Your mother: Well, I hope you enjoyed making a fool of me in front of all my friends.

3. Your boss: Can you begin to appreciate this wonderful opportunity I’m making available to you?

4. Your significant other: Have you finally stopped flirting with Dana?

5. Your critical thinking instructor: Aren’t you ashamed about how little effort you’ve made in this class?

Complex claims and questions–that is, ones that combine two or more questionable terms–present a special problem, if they are constructed in such a way that agreement or disagreement with one term seems to imply agreement with the second. In the first example above, the reply, “No I didn’t,” can be taken to mean, “I didn’t enjoy it, but I did spoil the dinner,” when it may actually be intended as a denial that the dinner was spoiled.

Questions like the one in the first example are usually called loaded questions, because, like loaded dice, they seem to produce a predictable outcome: as long as the response to a complex question or claim is simple, usually just “yes” or “no,” then the person responding seems to be assenting to something he or she normally would not.

The impulse to give a simple response is strongest in reply to certain questions, and so loaded questions are the more common form of this fallacy. But complex claims can have the same effect, as in the second example above. You might protest, “Mom! No, I certainly didn’t,” but that would only sound as though you made a fool out of her in front of her friends, and didn’t even enjoy it!

The relationship between the speaker and the responder, and the situation in which the question is asked, greatly affects the “success” of a loaded question. But just as important is that the question must be constructed in a way that clearly prompts a “yes” or “no” answer, and that the least agreeable element of complexity be buried in the sentence. Consider the third example. Since you would want to appear properly appreciative to your boss, you might answer this question affirmatively before considering whether such a response would commit you to agreeing that the opportunity is, in fact, wonderful, and that your boss has, in fact, made it available to you.

In the same way, the fourth example seems to demand a quick denial, but saying simply “No,” suggests not only that you have been flirting with Dana, but that you are continuing to do so. But would you ever answer “yes”?

Finally, the fifth example shows that critical thinking instructors are not above fallaciously promoting a little guilt to get students to study harder. Answering the question as asked, with “yes” or “no,” would only accept or deny the claim that you are ashamed, but in either case it would also seem to acquiesce in the notion that you haven’t made much of an effort.

The solution to this fallacy is simple: A complex question or claim requires a complex response. Do not allow the question to dictate your answer. Instead, without prefacing your response with “yes” or “no,” indicate whether you agree or disagree with the characterization implied by each term in succession: “Dad, I didn’t mean to spoil the dinner, I don’t think I did, and I certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed it if I thought I had”; “Mom, I hope I didn’t make a fool of you, in front of your friends or at any other time, and I certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed it had I done anything that might make you think that”; “Boss, I do appreciate the opportunity, but I just don’t think it’s very wonderful”; “Honey, I wasn’t flirting with Dana, so I can’t stop something I wasn’t doing”; “Professor, aren’t you ashamed of yourself, fallaciously attacking my self-esteem with an intentionally loaded question?” Sometimes, answering a loaded question with another loaded question is the best reply.

9. False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy, Black and White Fallacy).

As explained in the section on options , whenever you are presented with two possibilities, it is crucial to establish whether those possibilities are contradictions, contraries, or choices. Presenting two options as if they were contradictions or contraries, when in fact they are not, is the common fallacy of false dilemma–so called because the “dilemma,” or hard choice between two options, is “false,” because other options than the two offered are possible. This fallacy is also known as the “either-or fallacy” because it makes you think that your options are limited to either one or the other. Consider the following “patriotic” examples:

1. America: love it or leave it.

2. My country right or wrong.

3. Better dead than red.

All three examples simplify the issues they concern. “America: love it or leave it” offers only two options, but there are plenty of others. Staying but not loving it, and leaving but still loving it, are only two of the many possibilities. Notice the difference between this false dilemma and the similar claim, “America: if you don’t love it, you ought to leave it.” The latter is a statement of advocacy, and while the options seem to be the same (loving or leaving), the result is quite different. “You ought to leave it” does not imply this is the only alternative, only that it is the most proper alternative. The claim thereby suggests there are good reasons for advocating the option of “leaving,” instead of limiting consideration, as does the fallacy, to “leaving” as the only other option.

The second example, “My country right or wrong,” is not a false dilemma. The phrase means something like, “It’s my country, whether the country acts properly or not.” There are no options involved; and this example serves as a good reminder not to assume that every claim containing an “or” is necessarily an option, let alone a false dilemma.

Finally, “Better dead than red,” a Cold War slogan meaning that someone would rather die fighting than live under Communism, is another example of a false dilemma. There are, no doubt, some instances where one must choose between those two alternatives, and no others; context is often necessary to make a definitive judgment on a fallacy. But most contexts in which the phrase was used had many other options.

As you can see, you must be especially careful any time an argument seems to be presenting you with only two options. Yet the way such attempts at persuasion are worded, we often feel compelled to respond in those terms. Imagine someone asking, “Are you with us or against us?” You might be tricked into deciding between those two options, but the best response would be to say, “Wait a minute! Those are not the only two possibilities.”

Your first response, then, should be to establish whether A and B, the two options you’ve been given, are either contradictory or contrary in the context. The following questions should help:

· Does rejecting A necessarily mean accepting B? If so, A and B are contradictory.

· Does accepting A necessarily mean rejecting B? If so, A and B are either contrary or contradictory.

But a simpler way would be to ask:

· Are any other pertinent responses possible?

If there are, you are dealing with a false dilemma.

10. The Unfair Fallacy

· Student: Elder’s essay was better, because he gave both sides of the issue. Oppenheimer’s was more one-sided, so it wasn’t as persuasive.

· Poll Results: When asked whether they believed the Republicans’ estimate of $3 billion, or the Democrats’ estimate of $6 billion, most Americans gave a figure somewhere in between.

It is important to be fair in making judgments, but equal treatment of good and bad arguments makes no sense. Just because there are two sides to every dispute doesn’t mean that there is always something worthwhile to say on both sides. In effect, to require someone to be “fair” by presenting both sides of a dispute, as in the first example, or by splitting the difference between two sides, as in the second, is to make a judgment about the dispute before evaluating the validity and soundness of the arguments being made–and that, by definition, is a fallacy.

We can distinguish between two kinds of “unfair fallacies,” corresponding to the two examples above:

· False Equity

· False Compromise

The fallacy of false equity, or evenhandedness, can be committed either by someone making an argument, or someone analyzing one. While it is often a good strategy to cover both sides of an argument (without, of course, oversimplifying one side or the other into a “straw man” ), such a strategy is never a necessary requirement of a good argument; and we also should not be swayed by someone simply because he or she does cover both sides. For example, in a debate on legalizing murder, would we be any more likely to reject the anti-murder argument just because the debater found nothing good to say about murder? Or would we be any less likely to reject the pro-murder argument just because the person making it finds a few nice things to say about non-violence?

The fallacy of false compromise usually occurs when we don’t know or care much about the terms of the debate. In that case, we are often willing simply to split the difference, rather than learn enough to make an informed judgment. That solution may be expedient, but it’s not necessarily the right one. If Johnny thinks that two plus two equals four, and his friend Petey thinks they equal six, splitting the difference and saying they equal five is obviously erroneous. Without looking at the arguments being made, we can never rule out the possibility that one side is completely right, and the other side is completely wrong. If the issues under debate are too complicated or specialized for us to make an informed decision, then we should suspend judgment, rather than create a false compromise.

Appendix #2A: Examples of Fallacies

Misdirected Appeals

Appeal to Authority: This must be a great investment—Kim Basinger has already put in a lot of money.

Appeal to Common Belief: Is the American economy improving? Most people don’t think so.

Common Practice: I’m not going to tell them about the error on my bill. No one else would.

Two Wrongs Make a Right: I’m not going to tell them about the error on my bill. They’ve been overcharging me for years!

Appeal to Indirect Consequences/ Slippery Slope: If we let the Giants move to Florida, it will be the first step in the decline of the Bay Area as an economic, social, and cultural center.

Wishful Thinking: “Yes, officer, I know it’s illegal to make a left turn there, but wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to have so many laws to regulate our lives?”

Emotional Appeals

Appeal to Fear: Can you really afford to support gun control? What about the nights your wife is home alone with the children?

Appeal to Loyalty: “You’ve grown up in this town, George. You’re one of us. How can you put those damned spotted owls ahead of the livelihood of your neighbors?”

Appeal to Pity: “Yes, officer, I know it’s illegal to make a left turn there, but my husband will kill me if I get a ticket.”

Appeal to Prejudice: “Yes, officer, I know it’s illegal to make a left turn there, but I’d been following a woman driver for blocks, and you know what they’re like.”

Appeal to Spite: “Yes, officer, I know it’s illegal to make a left turn there, and aren’t you just a little tired of having some faceless bureaucracy control your life with senseless rules like that? Join me in crushing them!”

Appeal to Vanity: “Yes, officer, I know it’s illegal to make a left turn there, but you certainly look handsome in that uniform!”

Generalizations

Sweeping Generalization: Professional athletes don’t care about anything but their obscene salaries.

Hasty Generalization: My brother graduated last year and still hasn’t found a job. I guess a BA isn’t worth much any more.

Argument from Silence: I’ve never heard anyone say a bad word about Julia. She must be a wonderful person.

Fallacious Substitutions:

Parts for the Whole: America is a great country. That’s why I’ve never met an American I didn’t like.

Whole for the Parts: We know that each and every one of you employees is hard working and honest, which is why this company is itself hard working and honest.

Argumentum ad Hominem

Attacking the Individual: “Sure, Clinton says he won’t raise taxes on poor and middle-income families. But he’s a liar!”

Attacking the Source: I just know I’m not going to have a good time on this trip. It was my parents’ idea.

Attack by Association: Why bother to ask whether students are in favor of higher tuition? You know they’re always against paying more.

Attack on Prior Actions, Interests, or Statements: I can’t accept Shelby Steele’s arguments against affirmative action. He probably benefitted from affirmative action programs himself!

Other Fallacies

Post Hoc: The recession must be Bush’s fault–he was in president when it began.

Burden of Proof: We’ve only heard speculation about the cause of AIDS; no one has ever seen the disease transmitted between two humans.

Loaded Question: Did you enjoy ruining the dinner for everyone else?

False Dilemma: Who’s responsible for California’s economic crisis—the governor or the legislature?

Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question: Of course I’m willing to investigate charges of police brutality–providing we protect the good name of the men in blue!

Straw Man: Pete Wilson is proposing to tax working people more, and let the filthy rich off without paying their share! That is economically irresponsible and morally indefensible!

Unfair Fallacies

False Equity: “Look, officer, you’ve explained why you think it’s illegal to make a left turn there, and I’ve explained why I think it’s all right. I think my reasons are better—at least I take into account your point of view as well as my own! ”

False Compromise: Sure, you’ve got a point. But there wouldn’t be all those other people disagreeing with you if they didn’t have good reasons, too.

Exercise #2-1: Fallacies

1. If you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen them all.

–Part for the whole?

2. The Cardinals are a great team. They have won every game this season. Dennis plays first base, so he must be a great player. –Whole for the part?

3. I better file my taxes on time. Otherwise, I’ll be audited, and my accountant told me that I don’t want to be audited.

–Appeal to indirect consequences?

4. Carl Lewis is the fastest man in the world. After all, he holds the world record.

–Circular Reasoning?

5. Of course he is attacking affirmative action programs. Can’t you see he is a white male!

–Ad hominem?

6. If you don’t vote for Clinton there will be tremendous inflation.

–Appeal to Fear?

7. If you don’t brush and floss your teeth everyday, they will fall out.

–Appeal to Fear?

8. Because preschool programs help children form social relationships, Nancy and George Smith should send their daughter Anita to nursery school.

–Hasty generalization?

9. We must choose between life and death, between total disarmament and nuclear war. There can be no neutrality on this issue.

–False dilemma?

10. Every time a Republican is elected president, a recession follows. If we want to avoid another recession, we should elect a Democrat.

–Post hoc?

11. I saw the AA instructor drinking at the local pub last night after his class.

–Ad Hominem?

12. Yes, I know you think lottery tickets are a waste of money, but wouldn’t it be nice to be a millionaire?

–Wishful thinking?

13. Going to class at 7:30 am is such an effort that I should be allowed to speed if I am late.

–Appeal to Pity?

14. You have to decide if you want a better environment or jobs in this country. Think of that before you vote.

–False dilemma?

15. I know that the essay is due on Friday, but I’m sure my teacher will understand if I turn it in a day late. After all, I have two other essays due this week!

–Appeal to Indirect Consequences?

Exercise #2-2: Fallacies, Etc.

1. I shall lose no time in reading your paper.

2. The place is so crowded that nobody goes there any more.

3. What is hell? Come to church next Sunday and listen to our new minister!

4. Since it is right to speak the truth, therefore it is right to tell our friends exactly what we think of them.

5. There are two kinds of the people–the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

6. Which one of you left the door open?

7. W.C. Fields said he knew a sure cure for insomnia–a good rest.

8. This proposal ought to be deplored by all right-thinking individuals.

9. America: love it or leave it.

10. This radical plot has been hatched by un-American agitators.

11. If your idea were any good, someone would have thought of it already.

12. No breath of scandal has ever touched the senator. Therefore, he must be incorruptibly honest.

13. You are in a strange town, strolling aimlessly down a street. You could–if you don’t fully understand your rights–wind up in jail for the night. (Advertisement for the Time-Life Family Legal Guide.)

14. The Golden Rule is basic to every system of ethics ever devised. Everyone accepts it in some form or other. It is, therefore, an undeniably sound moral principle.

15. In the last presidential debate, Bush implied that Clinton can’t be trusted. So I guess that anyone who votes for Bush just doesn’t trust Clinton.

16. You know Perot can’t win. Nobody else wants to vote for him.

17. You can’t expect Clinton to really balance the federal budget. His wife handles all his personal finances, so he doesn’t even have experience balancing his own check book!

18. Bush can’t win this election. If he did, then the economy would just go deeper into recession.

Exercise #2-3: Examples from Students

1. If you don’t study and get your degree, you will end up like your uncle. Do you really want to be a bum like him for the rest of your life?

2. a. The speed limit should be kept at 55 miles per hour. Studies have shown that accidents that occur over 55 mph have a higher fatality rate.

b. If the speed limit is raised, then more people will die on the roads.

3. I owned a Ford once and it broke down on me. They are terrible cars and I will never buy one again.

4. Everyone seems to support the changes in the vacation policy, and if everyone likes them, they must be good.

5. Yes, I know that it is illegal to gamble if you are under 21, but that is dumb because you can buy cigareetes at 18.

6. a. Please don’t give George an F—he put so much effort and sweat into that report.

b. Failure to turn the paper in tomorrow will result in an F for the course.

7. Everyone is buying a new bike, so why can’t I?

8. Did you enjoy breaking your aunt’s heart by being late for dinner?

9. I know I was wrong to make fun of the teacher, but didn’t everyone enjoy watching me?

10. a. How could you possibly want to see the Green Day concert? They’re just another stupid punk band.

b. Why would you want to hear him speak? He’s a flaming liberal who doesn’t care about anything except saving trees in the rain forest.

11. If Pete Wilson is elected President, you won’t see any more Hispanics or Mexicans in California.

12. Since being bilingual can help you to get a good job, I’m going to study a third language—so I can get a great job!

13. Margaret says that all blonds are airheads, but I wouldn’t listen to her—even though her hair looks red, her natural color is blond.

14. Are you coming to the mall with the rest of us? Everyone who hangs out at the mall is cool.

15. I’ve been working at the same video store for the last 2 years and I only make $5.95 an hour! My boss is such a cheap jerk!

16. a. The Rolling Stones are the best rock and roll band ever. All my friends agree.

b. Paul McCartney must be a fabulous singer, because he used to be a Beatle, and the Beatles were fabulous.

17. Those James Bond movies are so predictable—if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all!

18. Sure, he’s opposed to banning handguns—he’s a bullet manufacturer!

19. Why did Newt Gingrich try to cut Medicare and Social Security? He must want old people to starve.

Exercise #2-4: More Student Fallacies

1. A smart person like you should understand my point.

2. Everyone knows that O.J. is guilty.

3. The 1996 electoral campaign will start soon, and you’ll hear President Clinton claiming that the economy has improved under his administration. Don’t listen to him—he’s just trying to get re-elected.

4. Please don’t flunk me. It will bring down my GPA to where I’ll be on probation. And if that happens twice, I’ll have to drop out of school, and that will be the end of any career hopes I have, and I might as well be dead.

5. I’ll never trust Boris Yeltsin. He’s president of Russia, and all presidents in the world are addicted to power.

6. Of course he’s a 49ers fan. He’s from San Francisco.

7. I can’t believe you eat three eggs a day. Everyone knows what that does to your cholesterol.

8. Legalizing marijuana will mean increased availability, leading to increased drug use by teenagers, more addiction, more drug-related crime, more deaths of young people, the destruction of our public school system, and eventually the collapse of our society. So how can you even consider its legalization?

9. Should rapists be given parole? Your wife or daughter could be the next victim!

10. Harvard is an intellectually superior institution. That’s why a Harvard student has a superior intellect.

11. If I let you borrow my class notes this time, you’ll start depending on them, and you’ll never show up for class, and eventually you’ll fail the course. So, for your own good, you can’t have them.

12. I can’t believe you eat red meat. Everyone knows what it does to your heart!

13. a. If you love your family, you’ll buy this new stealth security system.

b. Stephen, if you don’t stop smoking, you are going to die!

Exercise #2-5, Fallacies from Students

1. I know I broke your favorite cup but, Dad, you look great this morning!

2. Because the defendant was the only person there last night, it is evident that he committed the crime.

3. That business conference isn’t going to be fun at all. The store manager is making everyone go to it!

4. I cheated on my test because I saw everyone else cheating on theirs.

5. Did you enjoy laughing at my expense?

6. Lawyers don’t care about anything except winning and their salaries.

7. Bobby’s suicide was all Circuit City’s fault—they fired him two years ago, and he really never recovered from that.

8. A smart guy like yourself should see that I’ve worked hard enough to deserve an A.

9. A child, caught riding a stolen bicycle, says:

a. “Some other kid stole my bike, so I stole someone else’s.”

b. “If you punish me, you’d better be careful where you go.”

c. “You can’t blame me. I grew up poor!”

10. Of course Anna will vote pro-choice. She had an abortion less than a year ago!

11. SJSU is a good school, so the students here must be good students.

12. Cigarettes are not addictive. After all, 90% of all smokers say they can quit any time they want!

13. Did you fall asleep during my lecture again?

14. That must be a good car, since Jerry Seinfeld owns one.

15. a. If you don’t exercise daily, you will gain weight and have a heart attack.

b. If you don’t exercise, you will gain weight, and then you’ll have a heart attack and die.

16. The Toyota RAV4 is the best new car available because Steve Young of the Forty-Niners has promoted it in recent television commercials.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For Your Thoughts

1. This weekend everybody from my class is going to Great America, so I am going, too. Common practice?

2. If you love your family, you will buy our insurance. Appeal to fear?

3. The students all agree this answer should be worth 10 points, but the teacher thinks it should only be worth 5. So compromising at 7.5 points would be the easiest solution. False compromise?

4. Do you want this pizza, or shall I eat it? Loaded question?

5. I saw Mike, a vegetarian, at Burger King after the dance, eating a hamburger. Ad hominem?

6. SJSU students are fine, outstanding people. That’s why I’ve never met a student I did not like. Fallacious substitution?

7. This must be a great soft drink because Michael Jackson danced next to it. Appeal to authority?

8. You can’t get a credit card unless you have credit, and you can’t get credit unless you have a credit card. Circular reasoning?

9. Basketball is a game that relies on defense. Shifting the burden of proof

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"