Logical Fallacies

Courtesy of: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

What is Fallacy?
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments.
First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can
be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener.
You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in
newspapers, advertisements, and other sources.
Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an
argument is fallacious.
An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak,
somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has
several stages or parts might have some strong sections
and some weak ones.

Hasty Generalization
Definition: Making assumptions about a whole
group or range of cases based on a sample that is
inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just
too small).
Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards,"
"grad students are nerdy," etc.) are a common example of
the principle underlying hasty generalization.

Example: "My roommate said her philosophy

class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All
philosophy classes must be hard!"
Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on
which to base a conclusion.

Missing the Point

Definition: The premises of an argument do
support a particular conclusion--but not the
conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
Example: "The seriousness of a punishment
should match the seriousness of the crime. Right
now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply
be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime
that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty
should be the punishment for drunk driving."
The argument actually supports several conclusions-"The punishment for drunk driving should be very
serious," in particular--but it doesn't support the claim
that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Post hoc (false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc,
ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore
because of this."
Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A
caused B.
Of course, sometimes one event really does cause
another one that comes later--for example, if I register for
a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true
that the first event caused the one that came later. But
sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't
really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't
the same thing as causation.
Examples: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate
of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in
crime.
The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the
rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one
caused the other.

Slippery Slope

Also known as
the Camels
Nose

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction,

usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place,
but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption.

The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the
"slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom;
he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.

Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for

life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and
more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our
society will become a battlefield in which everyone
constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of
civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should
make animal experimentation illegal right now."

Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and
civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that
this chain of events won't necessarily take place.

Weak Analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or
more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being
compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is
a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy
of weak analogy.
Example: "Guns are like hammers--they're both tools with metal
parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be
ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers--so restrictions on
purchasing guns are equally ridiculous."

While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features

(having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for
violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns.
Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large
numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not
share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is
weak, and so is the argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind
between almost any two things in the world: "My paper is like a
mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work
more when I'm stuck inside) and they're both kind of murky." So
the mere fact that you draw an analogy between two things
doesn't prove much, by itself.

Appeal to Authority
Definition: Often we add strength to our
arguments by referring to respected sources or
authorities and explaining their positions on the
issues we're discussing.

If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply

by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing
to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an
expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: "We should abolish the death penalty.

Many respected people, such as actor Guy
Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition
to it."

While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters

having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why
anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is
probably no more of an authority on the death penalty
than the person writing the paper.

Appeal to Pity
Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer
tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them
feel sorry for someone.
Example: "I know the exam is graded based on
performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been
sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really
hard for me to study!"
The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." But the
criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying
the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us
to accept (people who have a hard week deserve A's) is clearly
unacceptable.

Example: "It's wrong to tax corporations--think of all the

money they give to charity, and of the costs they already
pay to run their businesses!"

Appeal to flattery

Dictum simpliciter (unqualified

generalization)

Hypothesis contrary to facts

Appeal to Ignorance
Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says,
"Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand.
Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."
Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God
exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God
does not exist."
Here's an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy:
"People have been trying for years to prove that God does not
exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God
exists."

In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a
positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in
which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used wellthought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they
haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find,
then the fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it
doesn't exist.

Straw Man
(a kind of ad hominem)
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger
is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments
that an opponent might make. The arguer sets up a wimpy
version of the opponents position and tries to score point by
knocking it down.

Example: "Feminists want to ban all pornography and

punish everyone who reads it! But such harsh measures are
surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and
its readers should be left in peace."

The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated--in

fact, most feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or
any punishment for those who merely read it; often, they
propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to
allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and
producers, not readers, for damages.

Red Herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a
tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from
what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the
original issue.
Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair
thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students
and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our premiseconclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor
are getting along well.
Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to
do.

When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer
went off on a tangent--the fact that something helps people get
along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice
sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the
audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing
is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not
given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

False Dichotomy/False dilemma/either

or fallacy
Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up
the situation so it looks like there are only two
choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the
choices, so it seems that we are left with only one
option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in
the first place.

Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either

we tear it down and put up a new building, or we
continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we
shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear
the building down."

The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we

might repair the building or find some way to protect
students from the risks in question--for example, if only a
few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold

Begging the Question

Definition: A complicated fallacy, an argument
that begs the question asks the reader to simply
accept the conclusion without providing real
evidence
the argument either relies on a premise that
says the same thing as the conclusion (which
you might hear referred to as "being circular" or
"circular reasoning"), or simply ignores an
important (but questionable) assumption that
the argument rests on.
Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the
question" as a sort of general criticism of
arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given
very good reasons for a conclusion, but that's
not the meaning we're going to discuss here.

 Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally

acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help
another human being escape suffering through
death." Let's lay this out in premise-conclusion
form:
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help
another human being escape suffering through
death.
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally
acceptable.
If we "translate" the premise, we'll see that the arguer has
really just said the same thing twice: "decent, ethical"
means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable,"
and "help another human being escape suffering through
death" means "active euthanasia." So the premise basically
says, "active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the
conclusion does! The arguer hasn't yet given us any real
reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left
us asking "well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is
acceptable?" Her argument "begs" (that is, evades) the real

Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or

more different meanings of a single word or
phrase that is important to the argument.
Example: "Giving money to charity is the right
thing to do. So charities have a right to our
money."

The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can

mean both something that is correct or good (as in "I got
the right answers on the test") and something to which
someone has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life").
Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily
equivocate, often on words like "freedom," "justice,"
"rights," and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a
mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it's important
that you use the main terms of your argument
consistently.

Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal

to Force or Threat)
This is committed when one seeks to establish a
conclusion by resorting to force or intimidation.

Complex Question
This is asking a question that presupposes an
answer to another question that has not been
asked and answered.

Ad populum (appeal to people)

Can you name this Fallacy?

1) It is ridiculous to have spent thousands of dollars
to rescue those two whales trapped in the Arctic
ice. Why look at all the people trapped in jobs
they dont like.

RED HERRING

Can you name this Fallacy?

2) Plagiarism is deceitful because it is dishonest.

BEGGING THE QUESTION

Can you name this Fallacy?

3) Water fluoridation affects the brain. Citywide,
students test scores began to drop five months
after fluoridation began.

POST HOC (false cause)

Can you name this Fallacy?

4) I know three redheads who have terrible
tempers, and since Annabel has red hair, Ill bet
she has a terrible temper too.

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Can you name this Fallacy?

5) Supreme Court Justice Byron White was an AllAmerican football player while in college, so how
can you say that athletes are dumb?

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Can you name this Fallacy?

6) Why should we put people on trial when we know
they are guilty?

BEGGING THE QUESTION

Can you name this Fallacy?

7) You support capital punishment just because you
want an eye for an eye, but I have several good
reasons to believe that capital punishment is
fundamentally wrong

STRAW MAN

Can you name this Fallacy?

8) The meteorologist predicted the wrong amount of
rain for May. Obviously the meteorologist is
unreliable.

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Can you name this Fallacy?

9) You know Jane Fondas exercise videos must be
worth the money. Look at the great shape shes in.

POST HOC (false cause)

Can you name this Fallacy?

10) We have to stop the tuition increase! The next
thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a
semester!

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Can you name this Fallacy?

11) The book Investing for Dummies really helped
me understand my finances better. The book
Chess for Dummies was written by the same
author, was published by the same press, and
costs about the same amount, so it would
probably help me understand my finances as well.
WEAK ANALOGY

Can you name this Fallacy?

12) Look, you are going to have to make up your
mind. Either you decide that you can afford this
stereo, or you decide you are going to do without
music for a while.
FALSE DICHOTOMY (Dilemma)

Can you name this Fallacy?

13) I'm positive that my work will meet your
requirements. I really need the job since my
grandmother is sick.

APPEAL TO PITY

Can you name this Fallacy?

14) Crimes of theft and robbery have been
increasing at an alarming rate lately. The
conclusion is obvious, we must reinstate the death
penalty immediately.
MISSING THE POINT

Can you name this Fallacy?

15) I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series
"Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take
it from me that when you need a fast acting,
effective and safe pain killer there is nothing
better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my
considered medical opinion.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY