READING 1 FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS

From Cooper, S. & Patton, R. (2000). Writing logically, thinking critically (3rd ed.).
New York: Longman.

What is a Fallacious Argument?

A fallacious argument is an argument that is persuasive but does not logically support its
conclusion. Because fallacious arguments are both appealing and abundant, we as critical
readers and writers must guard against them. The first step in this defence is to familiarize
ourselves with the most common fallacies. Fallacious reasoning may be intentional, as is
sometimes the case with unscrupulous merchandisers and politicians, or it may be an innocent
mistake resulting from fuzzy thinking or unexamined bias. In any case, if we are familiar with
fallacies we can avoid them in our own thinking and writing. We can also spot them in the
arguments of others, a skill that makes us wiser consumers and citizens.
There are many fallacies, a number of which tend to overlap we offer a list of the more
common fallacies (here), presented in alphabetical order for easy reference.
Appeal to Authority
The opinion of an authority can support an argument only when it reflects his special area of
expertise; the authority must be an expert on the subject being argued, as is the case in the
following example:
The Surgeon General warns that smoking is injurious to health.

But, if the appeal is to an authority who is not appropriate, the appeal is fallacious, as is the
case in the following example:
Abortion to save the life of a mother is an irrelevant issue because a former
surgeon general, a well-known paediatric surgeon, claimed that in all his years of
surgical practice he had never seen a case in which such a dilemma had arisen.

The problem here is that a paediatric surgeon is not an appropriate authority on an issue
involving obstetrics, a different medical specialty.
Keep in mind that fallacious appeals to authority should not cause us to doubt all authorities
but rather should encourage us to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.

Equivocation
Equivocation is the shifting of the meaning of a given term within a single argument. This
fallacy stems from the often ambiguous nature of language. A term may be ambiguous
because it has more than one meaning; for instance, the word "affair" may mean a party, a
controversial incident, or an extramarital relationship. Look at this example:
We are told by the government that to discriminate against a person in employment or
housing is wrong and punishable by law. But we must discriminate when we hire an
individual (Does he have the necessary experience?) or rent an apartment (Does he have
sufficient income?). Discrimination is a necessary part of making such decisions.

57

The word "discriminate" is the culprit. In the first sentence, -discriminate- refers to prejudice,
to denying an individual employment or housing because of his or her race, sex, or religion.
In the second sentence, "discriminate" refers to making careful distinctions between
applicants on the basis of relevant issues.

False Analogy
One creative way to mount an argument can be through analogy. An argument by analogy
compares two or more things, alike in certain respects, and suggests that since they share
certain characteristics, they probably share other characteristics as well.
But in a false analogy, one compares two things in which the key features are different. A
mountain climber offers this analogy to minimize the danger of his sport:
I don't want to die failing off a rock.... But you can kill yourself failing in the bathtub, too.
-JOHN BACHAR

He is comparing two extremely dissimilar acts: climbing a mountain and taking a bath, one a
sport, the other a daily routine. And while it is possible to kill oneself slipping in the bathtub,
if we were to compare the number of deaths in proportion to the number of bathers and the
number of mountain climbers, we would surely find a higher incidence of deaths in mountain
climbing than in bathing. To construct a more convincing analogy, the mountain climber
should compare the risk in mountain climbing with that in another high-risk sport such as
race-car driving.

False Cause
The fallacy of false cause assumes a cause-effect relationship between two events because
one precedes another. It claims a causal relationship solely on the basis of a chronological
relationship. Look at the following example:
Governor Robinson took office in 1998.
In 1999, the state suffered a severe recession.
Therefore, Governor Robinson should not be re-elected.

(Hidden assumption: The governor caused the recession.)

Elected officials are often credited with the success or blamed for the failure of the economy.
But in fact, anything as complex as the economy is affected by numerous factors such as
inflation, environmental changes, the laws of supply and demand, just to name a few. Elected
officials may indeed affect the economy but are unlikely to be the sole cause of its success or
failure.

False Dilemma
A false dilemma presents two and only two alternatives for consideration when other
possibilities exist. For this reason, a false dilemma is often referred to as either/or reasoning.
Either you are in favor of recalling the mayor, or you are a supporter of his political
platform.

58

We are presented with only two positions when in fact we may hold neither. We may want the
mayor to continue in office because we believe him to be a strong administrator, but we may
object to his proposal to encourage big business by lowering the business tax.
Narrowing to two choices is a strategy designed to forestall clear thinking and force a quick
decision. This kind of reasoning can be seductive because it reduces the often difficult
decisions and judgments we must make by narrowing complex problems and issues to two
simple options.

Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on a sample that is too small or in some other
way unrepresentative of the larger population.
Students in Professor Hall's eight o'clock freshman composition class are often late.
There's no doubt that people are right when they claim today's college students are
irresponsible and unreliable.

In this case the sample is both unrepresentative and too small; unrepresentative because we
would expect an eight o'clock class to have more late students than classes offered later in the
day, and too small because one section can't represent an entire freshman class.
It is impossible to avoid making generalizations, nor should we try to. But we must examine
the basis for our generalizations to determine their reliability.

Straw Man
In a straw man argument, a person creates and then attacks a distorted version of the
opposition's argument.
The democratic candidate wants the federal government to house everyone, feed
everyone, care for everyone's children, and provide medical care for everyone. And he's
going to take 50 percent of every dime you make to do it.

This argument overlooks the candidate's proposal to reduce defence spending to meet his
goals. Hence, this is an unfair presentation of the opposing view, but one that could be
extremely effective in discouraging votes for the democratic candidate. And this is the
purpose of a straw man argument: to frighten supporters away from the opponent's camp and
into ones own.

A caution: German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer [1788-1860] pointed out that It

would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously
appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once
be reproved for it." Fallacies provide us with those short and appropriate names for tricks
or errors in reasoning, but we must not assume that all such errors can be labelled.
Whenever we find fault with a particular line of reasoning, we should not hesitate to
articulate that fault, whether or not we have a label for it. On the other hand, we must be
careful not to see fallacies everywhere, perhaps even where they don't exist. We must
read critically, informed by our knowledge of fallacies; at the same time we should avoid
tedious witch hunts on the charitable assumption that most arguments are offered in good
faith.

59

More faulty arguments

No need to memorize the terms; just read and learn.
Term

Description

Example

Fallacious
argument

Persuasive but does not

logically support its
conclusion.

Snob appeal

Appeals to peoples desire

for prestige and
exclusivity.
Implicitly threatens the
audience.
Attempts to win
sympathy.

Senator Smith was expelled from college for

cheating on an exam. His wife divorced him
because of his numerous affairs. Therefore, he
is a man without honor, a politician who
cannot be trusted, and we should not support
his National Health Bill.
Pamillas not for everyone. The best never is.

Appeal to fear
Appeal to pity

Begging the
question

Loaded
question
Questionbegging epithet
Personal attack

Tu quoque

Poisoning the
well

Slippery slope

Special
pleading

1. Offers no actual
support; may restate as a
premise the conclusion in
different words.
2. Asks a question that
contains an assumption
that must be proven.
3. Uses a single word to
assert a claim that must be
proven.
1. Attacks the person
representing the argument
rather than the argument
itself.
2. Discredits an argument
because the behavior of
the person proposing it
does not conform to the
position hes supporting.
Makes an assertion which
will intimidate the
audience and therefore
discourage an open
discussion.
Claims that an action
should be avoided because
it will lead to a series of
extremely undesirable
consequences.
Judges and labels the same
act differently depending
on the person or group
who performs the act.

Will there be a job waiting when you leave

college?
Professor Hall, I must get an A in your course.
If you dont give me an A, I wont be able to
go to law school.
Students like rock music because it is the most
enjoyable music around.

Have you started to pay your fair share of

taxes yet?
Reactionary, negligent, warmonger, deadbeat.

Because she is extremely wealthy, our mayor

cannot properly represent this city.

A teenager to his father: Dont tell me not to

drink. You drink all the time.

Every patriotic American supports legislation

condemning the desecration of the flag.

What seems like reasonable restrictions on

guns with no legitimate civilian purpose will
lead inevitably to total prohibition of gun
ownership that ends in virtual slavery at the
hands of a totalitarian regime.
The supplying of weapons to Central America
by the Russians was an act of aggression. Our
military aid to the region, however, helped the
Freedom Fighters in their quest for peace.

60