WHAT ARE FALLACIES?

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and
others’ writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and
hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: first, fallacious arguments are very,
very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual 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. The goal of this handout,
then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look
critically at your own arguments and move them away from the “weak” and toward the “strong”
end of the continuum.
So, what do fallacies look like?
For each fallacy listed, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip on how to avoid
committing the fallacy in your own arguments.

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 too small). Stereotypes about people (“librarians are
shy and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” 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.
Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions or
experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider
whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the
example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes are hard for some students”
would not be a hasty generalization.)

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.
Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what
conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask
yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if
you’ve actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme
conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you’re claiming something big.

POST HOC (ALSO CALLED 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.
Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the
process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. And that’s
what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have
something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later.

SLIPPERY SLOPE
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 partway 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. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of
respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which
things stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not
yet been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal
experimentation illegal right now.
Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of
events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here’s an example that doesn’t
seem fallacious: “If I fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate. If I don’t graduate, I probably
won’t be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or flipping burgers
for the next year.”
Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and if B,
then C,” and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

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 would 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 can
draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.
Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare
fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an
adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are good or not
depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the properties that
give adult humans rights? If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the
potential for a life full of human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so
the argument and the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to
survive on one’s own, adult humans and fetuses don’t share it, and the analogy is weak.
Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see whether the two
things you’re comparing both share those properties.
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.
Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the
authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying
“Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence
that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on
than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral
or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

AD POPULUM
Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several versions of
the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people
have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept
his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the
arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else
(supposedly) does.
Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the opinion of
most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn’t
determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a substantial number of Americans
were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The
arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with
other Americans.
Tip: Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your readers believe your conclusion because
everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe
it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one.

AD HOMINEM AND TU QUOQUE

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the
person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on
arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t
believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is
either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the
arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.
Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women.
But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?” Dworkin’s appearance and
character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the
strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.
In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or
she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Here’s an
example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve
given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I
won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it,
too!” The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the
premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive),
so your response is fallacious.
Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents’ reasoning, rather than on their personal
character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone’s
character—if your conclusion is “President Jones is an untrustworthy person,” premises about
her untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

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.
Examples: “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. The information the
arguer has given might feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the
conclusion—but the information isn’t logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious.
Here’s another 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!”
Tip: Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making
them feel sorry for someone.

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 well-thought-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.
Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a
conclusion from that lack of evidence.

STRAW MAN
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in
advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets
up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But
just as being able to knock down a straw man (like a scarecrow) isn’t very impressive, defeating
a watered-down version of your opponent’s argument isn’t very impressive either.
Example: “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at it! But such
harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans 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 view it or
approve of it; often, they propose some restrictions on particular things like child porn, or
propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers—not viewers—for
damages. So the arguer hasn’t really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.
Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and
sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent’s
argument, then you’ve really accomplished something.

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
premise-conclusion 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.
Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do
you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the
conclusion?

FALSE DICHOTOMY
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. But often there are really many
different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to
pick the one the arguer recommends.
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 classes in those rooms.
Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two
options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are
other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although
there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when
really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

BEGGING THE QUESTION

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than
many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, 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 something pretty similar to “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 question.
Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to
make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia
is morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active euthanasia is murder.” And that is a
debatable premise—again, the argument “begs” or evades the question of whether active
euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on
the uncontroversial premise, “Murder is morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.
Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in
a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from
one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that
would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you’ve just glossed over them, you
might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says
the same thing as the conclusion (but in different words). If so, you’re probably begging the
question. The moral of the story: you can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the
very thing you’re trying to prove.

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.
Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether
they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren’t slipping and sliding
between those meanings.
So how do I find fallacies in my own writing?
Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:
Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the argument would
now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to
strengthening those parts.
List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and
evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a particular
claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you’re using.
Learn which types of fallacies you’re especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in
your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on weak
analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there’s a particular
kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.
Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words
like “all,” “no,” “none,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “no one,” and “everyone” are sometimes
appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words like
“some,” “many,” “few,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth.
Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are
accurate and fair.