Fallacies of Argument
We live in a culture in which
people tend to glide on the surface of things, seldom pausing long
enough to consider anything very deeply; we live in the age of the
sound byte, the video clip. It is my own belief that this leaves us
very vulnerable to what are called fallacies of argument:
certain “moves” in arguing a claim which by their very nature
are bogus, invalid, and deceiving. Sometimes a writer or speaker
will use a bogus line of argument simply out of ignorance and lack
of experience. But a student can benefit much by realizing that all
too often, writers and speakers use fallacies of argument entirely
by design, from a conscious intent to deceive and manipulate us.
This intent, quite frankly, is particularly true in advertising and
in politics. Thus it pays to learn to detect such fallacies. And
in regards to being an ethical communicator, a person must never
stoop to the dishonest position of using these fallacies
deliberately, in order to manipulate one’s own audience.
In the textbook
Everything’s an Argument by Andrea Lunsford, John Ruszkiewicz,
and Keith Walters, fallacies of argument are subdivided according to
the three classic appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos.
Following their lead, below you will find brief descriptions of the
main types of fallacies having to do with each of the three main
ways a writer appeals to a reader.
FALLACIES OF LOGOS (fallacies of the
logical appeal)
Hasty
generalization: a conclusion drawn from insufficient
evidence.
Example: Because
my mechanic cheated me, all mechanics must be crooks. Hasty
generalization depends on stereotyping. It is a very commonly
used strategy, so much so that many people do this
unconsciously.
To avoid: slow down, study the topic to
get adequate evidence, and if using generalizations, qualify
them with words such as occasionally, in some cases, under
certain circumstances, in my own experience. Certainly, do
not knowingly use vague generalizations to conceal a logical
weakness in your own argument.
Faulty causality:
the assumption that just because one event follows another, it
was caused by the previous event.
This is also called
the post-hoc fallacy. For one thing, there is,
after all, such a thing as coincidence. However, the more
common occurrence of this fallacy is the version in which
someone with a personal or political agenda ignores all probable
causes of something, but the one which casts the opposing
faction in the worst light. Example: the current
stock market and general economic crisis. Liberals point
out the lack of adequate federal regulation as the single cause,
which allowed greedy speculators free rein; conservatives claim
the cause was too much federal interference, specifically
certain rules spelling out how investments must be shown on the
books of investment banks. In most complex situations,
there are multiple causes. Beware of suspiciously
simple claims of causality, and of politically convenient ones.
To avoid: look for and provide evidence or logical
argumentation of the causal relationship; don’t just assume it.
Never try to falsely assign blame by oversimplifying causality.
Begging the question:
any claim made on questionable grounds.
Example: You can’t
flunk that paper; I’m an “A” student! In the example, the
student is disputing the grade on the very basis that is made
questionable by that very grade. This fallacy is a form of
tautology, or circular argument.
To avoid: break
the circle. Support your claim by substantial evidence that is
not a part of the very thing in doubt. In the example, the
student needs to dispute the grade on the merits of the paper
itself. Never deliberately cover up your lack of substantial
evidence by arguing in such a circular way.
Equivocation:
a half-truth, a lie that is given an honest appearance so it
will be accepted.
To equivocate means to
say one thing while seeming to say another. When Bill Clinton
claimed “I never had sex with that woman,” he was equivocating;
the half-truth was that by a certain very limited definition
of “having sex,” he could say that—but he did not reveal,
until pressed, what definition of “having sex” he was going by.
To avoid: Because this fallacy tends to happen either
from confusion or intentionally, avoid confusion by studying
your topic adequately, and avoid intentional equivocation simply
as a matter of personal honesty.
Non-sequitur:
a breakdown in logical connection from point to point; one point
does not follow logically from another.
There is a gap in
logic, in other words. Example: If you really loved me,
you’d buy me that new car. There could be many reasons for
not buying the car, even assuming the deepest love possible.
To avoid: Be careful not to omit steps in your argument.
This is very common; it is the lazy writer’s way of arguing a
claim, and it is also typical of a writer who, on some level,
assumes his reader “gets it” without his having to spell out
each step in the argument. Spell out each step. Assume
nothing. And certainly, never deliberately use a non-sequitur
simply to hide the fact that there is no logical connection
between your points.
Ignoring the
question: simply avoiding answering questions
which one has no good response for.
Basically, this is the
same as changing the subject. Usually, if used as a conscious
strategy, it is not done abruptly, but more subtly. The speaker
or writer will respond, perhaps even using the term or referring
to the question, but instead of answering it, will gradually
drift into some preferred line of argument. An inexperienced
listener or reader may never even notice that the question was
left dangling. On the other hand, a more seasoned debater will
at some point respond by saying You haven’t answered the
question, repeating it and thus pinning the person down. Of
course, a speaker or writer who lacks a disciplined, orderly
mind may often do this quite by accident, rather than
intentionally.
To avoid: learn to organize your
thoughts so as to avoid ignoring key questions or points by
accident, and be informed enough so that you are not tempted to
use this strategy intentionally to hide your lack of knowledge.
Faulty analogy:
an analogy is an extended comparison, okay in itself. But if
taken too far, they can become faulty.
To use Lunsford’s
example, one can think of the mind as a garden; both grow when
nurtured with the proper food. To that point, the analogy is
fine. But when we carry it further, and note that gardens
respond well to horse manure, at that point we have probably
taken it too far.
To avoid: If the two things compared
have more differences than similarities, the analogy is probably
faulty. Never deliberately choose an analogy you know is
flawed, simply to deceive your audience.
Straw man:
when someone pretends he is responding to
the actual position of his opponent, but in reality is
misrepresenting those views in a way that is easy to refute, just as
a man of straw is easier to demolish than a real person.
A common version of this is to twist or
exaggerate the view of the opposing side. Another
variation is to choose to respond only to an extreme member of
the opposition whose words do not adequately or accurately
represent the position of the opposition. Example:
An argument against abolishing the entire Social Security system
does little or nothing to counter concerns about problems with
the way Social Security is financed or administered.
To avoid: Never
deliberately dodge the stronger arguments put on the table by
your opposition. To make sure you are not doing this
through ignorance, you must inform yourself well as to what the
opposition is actually saying. Be very wary of accepting a
version of their position put forward by an extreme member of
your own side in an issue. Research the issue for yourself
by listening to the opposition's arguments firsthand.
Fallacies of Logic, Short Version:
- Hasty generalization:
a conclusion drawn from insufficient evidence.
- Faulty causality: the
assumption that just because one event follows another, it was
caused by the previous event.
- Begging the question:
any claim made on questionable grounds.
- Equivocation: a
half-truth, a lie that is given an honest appearance so it will
be accepted.
- Non-sequitur: a
breakdown in logical connection from point to point; one point
does not follow logically from another.
- Ignoring the question:
simply avoiding answering questions which one has no good
response for.
- Faulty analogy: an
analogy is an extended comparison, okay in itself. But if taken
too far, they can become faulty.
- Straw man:
when someone pretends he is responding
to the actual position of his opponent, but in reality is
misrepresenting those views in a way that is easy to refute,
just as a man of straw is easier to demolish than a real person.
FALLACIES OF PATHOS (fallacies of the
emotional appeal)
Scare tactics:
the exaggeration of possible dangers well beyond their
statistical likelihood, in order to induce people to act in a
certain way.
Example: those who
fear for their jobs are susceptible to scare tactics calling on
us to distrust all immigrants, especially those of a different
race or ethnicity. This tactic tends to close minds and
polarize people into an “us against them” mindset. People who
are scared seldom make rational decisions. Those who use this
tactic deliberately do so in the cynical desire to further their
own self-interests.
To avoid: Usually this strategy is
used deliberately. In the cases where it is not, then the
person using it is simply passing on the fear planted in him or
her by someone else. So to avoid using scare tactics, first
learn to detect them when they are used on you. Then be willing
to bypass such a cheap, unethical way of appealing to your own
audience.
Red herring:
avoiding the issue or some tough question by introducing a
distraction.
Example: We should
not invest money in AIDS research because most AIDS victims
choose to put themselves at risk and they deserve what they get.
This is a red herring, because it distracts the audience from
the real question, whether to invest money to combat a major
disease which has taken the lives of vast numbers of people. It
seeks to blame the victims of the disease, many of whom are
completely innocent, thereby putting many more people at risk.
In this case, the unspoken implication is probably also that
AIDS is a disease affecting only homosexuals—which is of course
not true. Red herrings are bogus emotional appeals which seek
scapegoats to distract from dealing with the issue at hand.
To avoid: As a reader, be focused enough to detect when the
topic is being shifted, and informed enough to detect bogus
scapegoating. As a writer, be organized enough not to become
distracted in this way inadvertently, and be honest enough not
to consciously use such a strategy. Deal with the issue at
hand.
Either/or:
falsely reducing options to only two choices; eliminating
awareness of any middle path.
Then the writer or
speaker paints the preferred choice in the warmest possible
light, while doing just the opposite with the choice he desires
you to reject, portraying it as being sure to cause ominous
consequences. This strategy is often used in combination with
scare tactics. While either/or arguments may be used with good
intent to break a stalemate and gets things accomplished—such as
a parent telling an unresponsive child to either do
such-and-such or face the consequences—this strategy becomes
fallacious when it is used to obscure reasonable alternatives,
thus creating a falsely limited set of options: we must
do this, or else that dire consequence will result. This
strategy preys on ignorance, working well on those who are not
familiar with a topic.
To avoid: as a reader or
listener, inform yourself; be skeptical of either/or choices.
As a writer, do the same thing: inform yourself. Most
situations have various alternative solutions, the best often
being somewhere in the middle ground. Do not deliberately
present an either/or choice when you know there are other
options.
Slippery slope:
an argument that portrays today’s seemingly small concession as
tomorrow’s catastrophe.
As with all of the
emotionally-focused fallacies of argument, this one too plays on
the fear factor. Sometimes, correcting a small error can indeed
prevent greater subsequent errors, as when in the 1990s New York
City cracked down on petty crimes and by doing so, saw a drop in
major crime as well. But not all slippery-slope arguments make
as much sense as fixing loose shingles on a roof so the entire
roof will not begin to leak. For example, in the topic of gun
control, it is probably a “slippery-slope” argument when those
against gun control argue that if a law is passed limiting
ownership of fully automatic weapons such as an AK-47, the
inevitable consequence would be the government battering down
our doors and seizing our hunting rifles.
To avoid: as
both reader and writer, the student must learn to reason through
such arguments to discern probable consequences from wildly
improbable ones. Certainly the student should never knowingly
use this strategy when the predicted consequence seems
implausible.
Sentimental:
arguments that appeal to emotions specifically to distract
the audience from hard facts which go against the writer’s claim.
In this case, as you
know, I have encouraged you to use stories of incidents
involving specific individuals in order to engage the emotions
of your readers. Such specific examples can be said to appeal
to the sentiments of readers. This is a valid, legitimate use
of the emotional appeal, unless the story is told to
distract the reader from data which go against the claim being
made.
To avoid: Never appeal to sentiment to hide a
lack of logical argument. Use this appeal to augment logic, not
distract from it.
Bandwagon:
urgings to follow a course of action simply because the majority
of people are doing so.
The fact is that the
majority is often wrong. Examples: the centuries when this
country practiced and endorsed slavery; more recently, when
seemingly every lending institution jumped on the bandwagon of
sub-prime mortgages, a bandwagon which has gone out of control
and wrecked our entire economy. Bandwagons often, in fact,
careen out of control; another example is how the
anti-Communist, McCarthy era of the 1950s ruined the careers of
many innocent people.
To avoid: Think for yourself!
Inform yourself about an issue and decide the best path,
regardless of what others are choosing. As a writer, do the
same with any topic, and avoid the temptation of throwing
logical argumentation aside in urging your reader to “jump on
the bandwagon.”
Fallacies of Pathos, Short Version:
FALLACIES OF ETHOS (fallacies of the appeal
to authority)
False authority:
persuading the audience by citing some other figure who is
not a knowledgeable, unbiased authority, but simply one of the same
“camp” as the writer.
These days, the most
common use of this fallacy is the widespread blogging and chain
emails associated with the Internet. Much of what is
passed around could even be considered libel, if the targeted
person were to pursue the matter. What typically happens
is that an unscrupulous person with an agenda or axe to
grind--often political--will either exaggerate, twist, or at
times simply fabricate material, and start it circulating.
Those of a similar persuasion are all too happy to pass it on.
Soon, gullible recipients begin to accept the smear as "fact,"
as though it were published in a reputable journal by a
reputable writer--far from the case. In this election
year, Barack Obama is a frequent target: I have seen him
branded as Islamic, which he is not, "not even a U. S. citizen,"
which he is (or by law, could not be elected President), and
even accused of conspiring with jihadist terrorists, which of
course is absurd. On the other side of the political
spectrum, I have read complaints by legitimate liberal female
journalists about the similar mudslinging at Sarah Palin, most
of which targets her simply because she is female. All of
this is completely unethical.
Another variation of this
fallacy is
citing the authority of some body of work, such as a religious
text, which may not hold sway outside the boundaries of the
group that adheres to it. Thus, while citing Christian
scripture may appeal to Christians, it will probably not appeal
to others. The writer must keep this in mind. Yet another
variation of this is to twist the meaning of some cited
authority, so as to portray support for the claim being made,
when a careful examination of the source would open the door to
various other interpretations. The U. S. Constitution is often
cited in this way.
To avoid: As a reader, be suspicious
of citations of “authorities” you never heard of, or who are
noted for being completely on the side of the writer citing
them. And the repeated advice to read written sources for
yourself, rather than relying on the interpretations of others,
is also wise. As a writer, try to choose truly knowledgeable
authorities to cite. When citing written text, do not
“cherry-pick” passages which, when quoted out of context, twist
the meaning of the source.
Dogmatism:
the claim that the issue at hand is beyond argument, that the
solution is self-evident.
The corollary to this
is that since the solution is self-evident, then clearly, anyone
who disagrees must be either stupid or evil—or so the dogmatist
believes. This stance completely blocks communication of any
sort. Religious zealots are especially prone to using such a
strategy, ignoring how usually, even within their own
denomination or group of believers, there may be legitimate
debate about that very issue. Politics is probably the other
broad area in which dogmatism often prevents compromise and
agreement.
To avoid: be suspicious of any assertion
that some particular topic cannot even be debated. This is
very, very seldom the case. As a writer, realize that if you
depend on dogmatism to appeal to readers, you are only
“cheerleading”: appealing only to those who already agree with
you. Even neutral, undecided readers are often turned away by
reliance on dogmatism instead of logic.
Moral equivalence:
suggesting that serious moral wrongs are no different in kind
than minor offenses.
This strategy can work
in either direction. In one direction, someone accused of a
major crime may try to diminish guilt by comparing his/her crime
to some trivial offense, the argument then becoming If I’m
guilty, then everyone else is too. An example of that might
be ex-President Richard Nixon, who insisted the Watergate
break-ins ordered by him, and resulting in his resignation, did
not differ from the behavior of earlier Presidents. In the
other direction, a writer who is trying to gather support
against a “pet peeve”may try to elevate it into a major issue by
comparing it to something vaguely similar which most people do
regard as a serious offense—like arguing for a return to
prohibition of drinking by equating someone who stops for a beer
on the way home from work to a drunkard who can’t even hold a
job because of alcoholism.
To avoid: Yet again the
solution is to inform oneself, whether as writer or as reader.
Only then can you adequately weigh for yourself the relative
magnitude of supposedly “similar” behaviors.
Ad-hominem:
a counter-argument that attacks the opponent’s character, rather
than arguing against his/her position on the issue at hand.
This may occur because
the writer using it is himself too carried away by anger at the
opponent, but it may also occur because the opposing logical
argument is obviously a strong one—so the unethical debater
tries to avoid dealing with it at all, substituting an attempt
to assassinate the character of the opponent. Of course, if
someone is a public figure and is also a womanizer, a drug
addict, an embezzler, etc., then that person should rightfully
expect to lose influence, because character does count.
However, an informed reader learns to be suspicious of personal
attacks people make on their opponents, especially if the attack
refers to a very dated, ancient-history offense, or if it tries
to elevate a trivial matter into a major one (use of the “moral
equivalence” fallacy), or if it dishonestly misrepresents an
innocent action for a reprehensible one.
To avoid: As a
reader, be suspicious of all such attacks; inform yourself of
the facts. As a writer, avoid this strategy in favor of arguing
against the position, rather than against the person.
Fallacies of Ethos, Short Version:
- False authority:
persuading the audience by citing some other figure who is not a
knowledgeable, unbiased authority, but simply one of the same
“camp” as the writer.
- Dogmatism: the claim
that the issue at hand is beyond argument, that the solution is
self-evident.
- Moral equivalence:
suggesting that serious moral wrongs are no different in kind
than minor offenses.
- Ad-hominem: a
counter-argument that attacks the opponent’s character, rather
than arguing against his/her position on the issue at hand.
| 
