(III) Exercises 3.4
No Fallacy
Each and every brick in the completely brick-faced Wainright Building has a reddish brown color. Therefore, the Wainright Building has a reddish brown color. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Each and every brick in the completely brick-faced Wainright Building has a reddish brown color. C) Therefore, the Wainright Building has a reddish brown color. No Fallacy: Arguer rightly transfers the attribute (has a reddish brown color) from the parts (each and every brick in the completely brick-faced Wainright Building) onto its whole (the Wainright Building); the conclusion is a class statement (the Wainright Building has a reddish brown color); e.g. Fleas are numerous; not a particular statement; e.g., Fleas are small.
equivocation
Good steaks are rare these days, so don't order yours well done Fallacy of ambiguity: Arguer draws conclusion that depends on a shift in meaning of the word "rare": In the premises "rare" means hard to find, but in the conclusion takes "rare" to mean undercooked? Are the steaks being undercooked or are they hard to find?
No Fallacy
Rhubarb pie is a dessert. Therefore, whoever eats rhubarb pie eats a dessert.
equivocation
A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better than true love. Therefore, a crust of bread is better than true love. ______________________________________________________________________________ P1) A crust of bread is better than nothing. P2) Nothing is better than true love. C) A crust of bread is better than true love. Fallacy of Ambiguity; arguer draws a conclusion that depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase; In one sense "nothing" means having nothing to eat; in the other it means nothing at all, or nothing in existence.
composition
A line is composed of points. Points have no length. Therefore, a line has no length. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of grammatical analogy: Arguer wrongly transfers the attribute (has no length) from the parts (a point) to its whole (a line).
complex question
Are you in favor of the ruinous economic policy of the Democratic Platform Committee? __________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of presumption: Arguer asks a question that is really two or more question or answers such a question with a simple answer; arguer presumes that a question can be answered with a simple "yes," "no," or Multiple questions are concealed in a single question. fallacy usually intended to trap a respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge; presumes that a question can be answered by a simple ''yes,'' ''no,'' or other brief answer when a more sophisticated answer is needed; the correct response lies in resolving the complex question into its component questions and answering each separately: Are you real? Do you believe that the economic policy of the Democratic Platform Committee is ruinous? Are you in favor of the economic policy of the Democratic Platform Committee?
division and equivocation
California condors are rapidly disappearing. This bird is a California condor. Therefore, this bird should disappear any minute now. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) California condors are rapidly disappearing. P2) This bird is a California condor. C) This bird should disappear any minute now. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy: Arguer wrong transfers the attribute (are rapidly disappearing) from the class of California condors to its one of its members (this bird); the premise is a class statement; e.g. Fleas are numerous; not a particular statement; e.g., Fleas are small. Fallacy of ambiguity: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on a shift in meaning of the word "disappearing," which has two distinct senses: In one sense it means "shrinking from existence" and in the other it means "vanishing from sight."
begging the question/petitio principii - request of the source
Criminals are basically stupid, because anyone who isn't basically stupid wouldn't be a criminal. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Anyone who is not basically stupid / would not be a criminal. C) Criminals are basically stupid. Fallacy of presumption: Arguer creates that illusion that the arguer's inadequate premises provide adequate support for the arguer's conclusion by restating the conclusion as a premise, and reasoning in a circle; arguer presumes that premises of the argument provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not; begs the question: How do you know that people who are not stupid would not commit crime?; How you know that criminals are basically stupid?
false cause/oversimplified cause
Domestic terrorism (e.g., the bombing in Oklahoma City) is on the increase nowadays. Apparently those right-wing radio talk shows are starting to bear fruit. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Domestic terrorism (e.g., the bombing in Oklahoma City) is on the increase nowadays. C) Apparently those right-wing radio talk shows are starting to bear fruit. Fallacy of Weak Induction: A multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect (domestic terrorism), but the arguer selects just one of these (minor) causes (right-wing talk radio shows), and represents the minor cause (right-wing talk radio shows) as if (right-wing talk radio shows) were the sole cause (of domestic terrorism) for the purpose of blaming the right-wing talk shows; usually motivated by self-serving interests 1. to take undeserved credit for himself 2. to give undeserved credit to some movement with which he or she is affiliated 3. to heap blame on an opponent 4. to shift blame from himself or herself onto some convenient occurrence.
missing the point/ignoratio elenchi - ignorance of the proof
Dozens of species of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it. Clearly, we should repeal the Endangered Species Act. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Dozens of species of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it. C) Clearly, we should repeal the Endangered Species Act. Fallacy of relevance: Arguer draw a conclusion different from that supported, or implied by the arguer's premises; The point is we should strengthen or reform the Endangered Species Act, not repeal it. P1) Dozens of species of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it. C) Therefore, we should strengthen or reform the Endangered Species Act.
suppressed evidence
During the fifty years that Mr. Jones worked, he contributed $90,000 to Social Security. Now that he is retired, he stands to collect $200,000 from the system. Obviously he will collect much more than he contributed. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) During the fifty years that Mr. Jones worked, he contributed $90,000 to Social Security. P2) Now that he is retired, he stands to collect $200,000 from the system. C) Obviously he will collect much more than he contributed. Fallacy of presumption: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion; arguer presumes that important evidence has not been overlooked by the premises when in fact it has; Suppressed Premise SP) Mr. Jones is 65 now, so he will collect the money from the system until he dies, which could prevent him from collecting the entire $200,000. That is, Mr. Jones might not live long enough to collect the entire $200,000.
false dichotomy
Either the government imposes price controls on the cost of prescription drugs, or the pharmaceutical companies will continue to reap huge profits. Therefore, price controls must be imposed, because we cannot tolerate these huge profits any longer. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of presumption: Arguer's draws a conclusion that depends on a disjunctive (Either/or) statement that hides additional alternatives; arguer presumes that the disjunctive (either/or) statement presents mutually exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not; arguer presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative were possible); one of these alternatives is preferred by the arguer; when the arguer then proceeds to eliminate the undesirable alternative, the desirable one is left as the conclusion.
false dichotomy
Either we have prayer in our public schools or the moral fabric of society will disintegrate. The choice should be obvious. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Either we have prayer in our public schools or the moral fabric of society will disintegrate. P2) We don't want the moral fabric of society to disintegrate. C) We should have prayer in our public schools. Fallacy of Presumption: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on a disjunctive (either/or) statement that hides additional alternatives; arguer presumes that the disjunctive (either/or) statement presents mutually exhaustive alternatives when in fact the disjunctive statement does not; arguer presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative were possible); one of these alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer; when the arguer then proceeds to eliminate the undesirable alternative, the desirable one is left as the conclusion; The moral fabric of our society could get better or stay the same.
composition
Every member of the Delta Club is over 70 years old. Therefore, the Delta Club must be over 70 years old. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Every member of the Delta Club is over 70 years old. C) The Delta Club must be over 70 years old. Fallacy of grammatical analogy: Arguer wrongly transfers the Attribute (is over 70 years old) from the parts (members of the Delta Club) to its class (Delta Club); conclusion is a class statement; e.g. Fleas are numerous; not a particular statement; e.g., Fleas are small.
red herring
Gay and lesbian groups have argued in favor of legislation to prevent their people from being discriminated against. But we must remember that a genetic basis for homosexuality has yet to be discovered. Granted, some studies indicate that homosexuality has a biological origin, but these studies are too limited to be conclusive. Thus, the safest policy right now is to take no action at all on these questions. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Gay and lesbian groups have argued in favor of legislation to prevent their people from being discriminated against. P2) But we must remember that a genetic basis for homosexuality has yet to be discovered. P3) Granted, some studies indicated that homosexuality has a biological origin. P4) But, these studies are too limited to be conclusive. C) Thus, the safest policy right now is to take no action at all on these questions. Fallacy of relevance: Arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject of the argument and then ends by presuming that some conclusion has been established; the original issue is favoring legislation that prevents discrimination against gay and lesbian groups. The arguer changes the subject to the question to the possibility of a genetic cause for homosexuality.
straw man
Humanitarian groups have argued in favor of housing for the poor. Apparently what they want is another high-density project. Unfortunately, these projects have been tried in the past and have failed. In no time they turn into ghettos with astronomical rates of crime and delinquency. Chicago's Cabrini-Green is a prime example. Clearly, these humanitarian arguments are not what they seem. _____________________________________________________________________________ P1) Humanitarian groups have argued in favor of housing for the poor. P2) Apparently what they want is another high-density project. P3) Unfortunately, these projects have been tried in the past and have failed. P4) In no time they turn into ghettos with astronomical rates of crime and delinquency. P5) Chicago's Cabrini-Green is a prime example. C) Clearly, these humanitarian arguments are not what they seem. Fallacy of Relevance: Arguer distorts the opponent's original argument (humanitarian groups in favor of housing for the poor) by exaggerating the opponent's argument or making it look more extreme that it really is (equating the opponent's argument with humanitarian groups favoring high-density projects or ghettos) for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the opponent's original argument has been demolished: Clearly, these humanitarian arguments are not what they seem.
weak analogy
If someone rents a piece of land and plants crops on it, the landlord is never permitted to come and take those crops for himself when harvest time arrives. Similarly, if couples enlist the services of a surrogate mother to provide them with a baby, the mother should never be allowed to welch on the deal and keep the baby for herself once it is born. Evaluating an argument having this form requires a two-step procedure: (1) Identify the attributes a, b, c, . . . that the two entities A and B share in common, and (2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c, ... If some causal or systematic relation exists between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak. I _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) If someone rents a piece of land and plant crops on it, the landlord is never permitted to come and take those crops for himself. C) Similarly, if couples enlist the services of a surrogate mother to provide them with a baby, the mother should never be allowed to welch on the deal and keep the baby for herself once it is born. Entity A has attributes, a human being, rents, (land), plants crops (e.g., corn), landlord, is not allowed, to come and take, the corn, for the landlord Entity B has attributes, a human being, rents, (human being's body), (bodylord), is not allowed, to keep, the baby, for herself. A section of land is not comparable to a human body. A crop such as corn is not comparable to a baby. Fallacy of weak analogy: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the existence of a similarity between two things or states of affairs when the similarity is not strong enough to support the arguer's conclusion.
argument against the person/argumentum ad hominem - circumstantial
In his History of the American Civil War, Jeffry Noland argues that the war had little to do with slavery. However, as a historian from Alabama, Noland could not possibly present an accurate account. Therefore, his arguments should be discounted. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) In his History of the American Civil War, Jeffry Noland argues that the war had little to do with slavery. P2) Jeffery Noland is a historian from Alabama. P3) Noland could not possibly present an accurate account of the American Civil War. C) Jeffry Noland's arguments should be discounted. Arguer ignored the substance of Noland's argument (to what extent did slavery influence the Civil War), and then alluded to the circumstance (Jeffery Noland is a history from Alabama) that predisposed Noland from arguing this way for the purpose of discrediting Noland's argument. _____________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of relevance; arguer ignores the substance of the opponent's argument and then allude to certain circumstances that predispose the opponent to argue this way for the purpose of discrediting the opponent's argument; The issue is the degree to which slavery influenced the Civil War; the arguer ignores the substance of Noland's argument and the then attempts to discredit Noland's argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect Noland.
composition
Molecules are in constant random motion. The Statue of Liberty is composed of molecules. Therefore, the Statue of Liberty is in constant random motion. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Molecules are in constant random motion. P2) The statue of Liberty is composed of molecules. C) Therefore, the Statue of Liberty is in constant random motion. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy: Arguer wrongly transfers an attribute (are in constant random motion) from the parts (molecules) onto its whole (the Statue of Liberty); also, the conclusion (the Statue of Liberty is in constant random motion) is a class statement; e.g., Fleas are numerous, not a general statement; e.g., Fleas are small.
equivocation
Motives and desires exert forces on people, causing them to choose one thing over another. But force is a physical quantity, governed by the laws of physics. Therefore, human choices are governed by the laws of physics. _ ______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Motives and desires exert forces on people, causing them to choose one thing over another. P2) But force is a physical quantity, governed by the laws of physics. C) Therefore, human choices are governed by the laws of physics. Fallacy of Ambiguity: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase; The arguer's premise takes "force" to mean the psychological influences of various motives and desire on the determination of a course of action, but the conclusion takes "force" to mean one thing moving or striking another in a mechanical sense.
appeal to force/argumentum ad baculum - appeal to the stick
Mr. Prime Minister, I am certain you will want to release the members of our National Liberation Group whom you currently hold in prison. After all, I'm sure you will want to avoid having car bombs go off in the centers of your most heavily populated cities. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Mr. Prime Minister, either you release the members of our National Liberation Group or we will have car bombs go off in the centers of your most heavily populated cities. P2) I'm sure you will want to avoid having car bombs go off in the centers of your most heavily populated cities. C) Mr. Prime Minister, I am certain you will want to release the members of our National Liberation Group. Fallacy of relevance: Arguer threatens the psychological, emotional, and physical well-being of reader listener for the purpose of getting the reader or listener to accept the arguer's conclusion; while the arguer provides no genuine evidence that the arguer's premises support the arguer's conclusion, the arguer does provide evidence that someone might be injured.
amphiboly
Mr. Wilson said that on July 4 he went out on the veranda and watched the fireworks go up in his pajamas. We conclude that Mr. Wilson must have had an exciting evening. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Mr. Wilson said on July 4 he went out on the veranda and watched the fireworks go up in his pajamas. C) Mr. Wilson must have had an exciting evening. Fallacy of Ambiguity: arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the arguer's wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement. Did the fireworks go off in Mr. Wilson's pajamas?
appeal to ignorance/argumentum ad ignorantiam
No one has ever proved that taking vitamins actually improves a person's health. Therefore, we can conclude that vitamins are simply a waste of money. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of weak induction: Premises report that nothing is known or proved one way or another about (taking vitamins), and then the arguer draws a definite conclusion that provides no positive evidence about that thing.
appeal to ignorance/argumentum ad ignorantiam
No one has ever proved that the human fetus is not a person with rights. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) No one has ever proved that the human fetus is not a person with rights. C) Abortion is morally wrong. Fallacy of Relevance: Arguer's premises report that nothing is known or proved one way or the other that the human fetus is a person with rights, and then the arguer, while providing no positive evidence for the arguer's conclusion, draws a definite conclusion that abortion is morally (or normally) wrong.
begging the question/petitio principii - request for the source
Of course animals have rights. Just look at how powerless they are in comparison with modern humans. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Just look at how animals are powerless in comparison to modern humans. P2) Of course animals have rights. Fallacy of Presumption Begs the question: Does the mere fact that animals look powerless in comparison to humans imply that the animals have legal rights? Key Premise: An animal's powerless in comparison to modern humans implies the animals have rights. Arguer uses some form of linguistic device to help the arguer create the illusion that the arguer's premises provide adequate support for the arguer's conclusion by leaving out the Key Premise: "An animal's powerless in comparison to modern humans implies the animals have rights" while creating the illusion that nothing more is required to establish the arguer's conclusion, by using rhetorical phraseology "Just look at how," and "of course."
appeal to the people/argumentum ad populum - bandwagon argument
Of course you should eat Wheaties. Wheaties is the breakfast of champions, you know. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Wheaties is the breakfast of champions, you know. C) Of course you should eat Wheaties. Fallacy of Relevance: Arguer ignores legitimate or positive evidence in support of the arguer's conclusion, and instead plays on the reader's or listener's desire to feel part of a group for the purpose of getting the reader or listener to accept a conclusion
hasty generalization/converse accident
On Friday I took Virginia out to dinner. She told me that if I wasn't interested in a serious relationship, I should forget about dating her. On Saturday I took Margie to a film. When we discussed it afterward over a drink, she couldn't understand why I wasn't interested in babies. Women are all alike. All they want is a secure marriage. ______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of weak induction: Arguer draws a conclusion from an atypical sample (too small) that is not representative of the whole group.
complex question
Paul, it was great to see you at the party the other night. Everyone there was doing crack. Incidentally, how long have you been dealing that stuff? ____________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of Presumption: Aguer asks a question that is really two or more questions or answers such a question by applying a single answer; arguer presumes that the arguer's question can be answered with a simple "yes," "no" or brief answer when a more sophisticated answer is needed; intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge; the correct response lies in resolving the complex question into its component questions and answering each separately: Do you deal crack? If so, how long have you been dealing crack?
amphiboly
Pauline said that after she had removed her new mink coat from the shipping carton she threw it into the trash. We conclude that Pauline has no appreciation for fine furs. _____________________________________________________________________________ P1) Paulin said that after she had removed her new mink coat from the shipping carton she threw (it) into the trash. C) We conclude that Paulin has no appreciation for the fine furs. Fallacy of ambiguity: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the arguer's wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement; does the pronoun "it" refer to the mink coat or the shipping carton? Did Pauline throw the shipping cart or the fur into the trash?
false cause/nonexistent causal connection - post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore
People are driving their cars like maniacs tonight. There must be a full moon. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) A full moon causes people to drive like maniacs. P1) People are driving their cars like maniacs tonight. C) There must be a full moon. Fallacy of weak induction: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the arguer's presupposition that just because one event (a full moon) precedes another (people driving their cars like maniacs), the first event (a full moon) causes the second (people driving like maniacs). Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the arguers mistaking a set of coincidental events (a full moon and people driving like maniacs) as one (a full moon) being the cause of the other (people driving like maniacs).
appeal to unqualified authority/argumentum ad verecundiam
Pope John Paul II has stated that artificial insemination of women is immoral. We can only conclude that this practice is indeed immoral. ______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Pope John Paul II has stated that artificial insemination of women is immoral. C) We can only conclude that his practice is indeed immoral. Fallacy of Weak Induction: Arguer cites the testimony of an untrustworthy authority or witness in support of the arguer's conclusion; there are some areas in which practically no one can be considered an authority. Such areas include politics, morals, and religion. For example, if someone were to argue that abortion is immoral because a certain philosopher or religious leader has said so, the argument would be weak regardless of the authority's qualifications.
appeal to pity/argumentum ad misericordiam
Professor Andrews, surely I deserve a B in logic. I know that I have gotten F's on all the tests, but if you give me an F for my final grade, I will lose my scholarship. That will force me to drop out of school, and my poor, aged parents, who yearn to see me graduate, will be grief-stricken for the rest of their lives. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) I know that I have gotten F's on all the tests. P2) If you give me an F for my final grade, I will lose my scholarship. P3) If I Lose my scholarship, I will be forced to drop out of school. P4) If I drop out of school, my poor, aged parents, who yearn to see me graduate, will be grief-stricken for the rest of their lives. C) Professor Andrews, surely I deserve a B in logic. Fallacy of Relevance: arguer elicits pity from the reader or listener by citing the arguer's real or imagined set of pathetic circumstances for the purposes of getting the reader or listener to accept the arguer's conclusion.
appeal to unqualified authority/argumentum ad verecundiam
Professor Glazebrooks's theory about the origin of the Martian craters is undoubtedly true. Rudolph Orkin, the great concert pianist, announced his support of the theory in this morning's newspaper. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Rudolph Orkin, the great concert pianist, announced his support of Professor Glazebrooks's theory about origin of the Martian craters in this morning's newspaper. C) Professor Glazebrooks's theory about the origin of the Martian craters is undoubtedly true. Fallacy of relevance: Arguer cites the testimony of a untrustworthy authority or witness; the cited authority lacks the requisite expertise.
weak analogy
Raising a child is like growing a tree. Sometimes violent things, such as cutting off branches, have to be done to force the tree to grow straight. Similarly, corporal punishment must sometimes be inflicted on children to force them to develop properly. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) When growing a tree, sometimes violent things, such as cutting off branches, have to be done to force the tree to grow straight P2) Similarly, when raising a child, sometimes violent things, such as inflicting corporal punishment on the child, have to be done to force the child to develop properly. P) Entity A has attributes: (a) being a tree (b) being alive (c) growing a tree (d) needing support to grow straight or develop properly (e) needing to do violent thing to the tree (f) cutting off branches, (g) forcing a tree to grow straight P2) Entity B has attributes: (a) being a human being (b) being alive (c) raising a child (d) needing support to grow straight or developing properly (e) needing discipline C) Therefore, Entity B probably has the attributes: (f) doing violent things to the child (g) inflicting corporal punishment. Because (b) being alive (d) and needing developmental help have nothing to do with (e) needing to force discipline through violent acts of corporal punishment this argument is fallacious. Fallacy of weak induction: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the existence of a similarity between two things or states of affairs when the alleged similarity is not strong enough to support the conclusion; the conclusion depends on a defective analogy; the arguer is emotionally motivated to protect his or her presuppositions about corporal punishment, claiming that corporal punishment is comparable to pruning a tree.
weak analogy
San Diego has the same latitude as Yuma, Arizona, and San Diego enjoys moderate temperatures through the summer months. Therefore, probably Yuma enjoys moderate temperatures through the summer months. ______________________________________________________________________________ P1) San Diego has the same latitude as Yuma, Arizona, and San Diego enjoys moderate temperatures through the summer months. C) Therefore, probably Yuma enjoys moderate temperatures through the summer months. Entity A has attributes, a. San Diego, b. same latitude as Yuma, Arizona, c. enjoys moderate temperatures through the summer months. Entity B has attributes, a. Yuma, Arizona, b. same latitude as San Diego, c? Fallacy of weak induction: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the existence of a similarity between two things or states of affairs when the similarity is not strong enough to support the conclusion; the analogy doesn't take into account other important factors (besides latitude) such as longitude, rainfall, or how close the cities are to the ocean.
argument against the person/argumentum ad hominem - abusive and circumstantial
Senator Kennedy's arguments in favor of health care for the poor and aged should be ignored. Kennedy is a do-gooder who supports this kind of legislation only to get his name in the newspapers. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Senator Kennedy has argued in favor of health care for the poor and aged. P2) But, Kennedy is a do-gooder who supports this kind of legislation only to get his name in the paper. C) Senator Kennedy's argument should be ignored. Fallacy of Relevance: arguer ignores the substance of the opponent's argument and then verbally abuses the opponent while alluding to certain circumstance that predispose the opponent to argue this way for the purpose of discrediting the opponent's argument; arguer ignores the substance of the opponent's argument (legislation favoring of health care for the poor and aged), and then verbally abuses the opponent (using the epithet - do-gooder) while alluding to certain circumstance (Kennedy's motive to be recognized by getting his name in the paper) that predispose the opponent to argue this way for the purpose of discrediting the opponent's argument; the substance of the argument involves favoring health care for the poor and aged. Whether or not whether Kennedy is a do-gooder or self-promoter is irrelevant to whether Kennedy's premises support his conclusion.
appeal to unqualified authority/argumentum ad verecundiam
Television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart has said that sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest. Given Swaggart's expertise in these matters, we have no alternative but to abolish these classes. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart has said that sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest. C) Given Swaggart's expertise in these matters, we have no alternative but to abolish these classes. Fallacy of Weak Induction; arguer cites the testimony of an untrustworthy authority or witness in support of the arguer's conclusion; There are some areas in which practically no one can be considered an authority. Such areas include politics, morals, and religion. For example, if someone were to argue that abortion is immoral because a certain philosopher or religious leader has said so, the argument would be weak regardless of the authority's qualifications.
begging the question/petitio principii - request for the source
The Book of Mormon is true because it was written by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith wrote the truth because he was divinely inspired. We know that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired because the Book of Mormon says that he was, and the Book of Mormon is true. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of presumption: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a key premise, by restating the premise as a conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle; arguer presumes that his or her premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they does not; begs the questions: How does one really know that the Book of Mormon is true? How does one know that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired?
argument against the person/argumentum ad hominem - tu quoque
The Japanese argue that our import restrictions on steel, autos, and textiles are protectionist and threaten a trade war. What hypocrisy! The Japanese use hundreds of covert schemes to block the import of dozens of products, including supercomputers, rice, beef, lumber, and citrus fruits. _________________________________________________________________________ P1) The Japanese argue that U.S. import restrictions on steel, autos, and textiles are protectionist and threaten a trade war. P2) But, the Japanese use hundreds of covert schemes to block the import of dozens of products, including supercomputers, rice, beef, lumber, and citrus fruits. P3) We should ignore the Japanese's argument. Fallacy of relevance: Arguer ignores the substance of the opponent's argument and then shifts the burden of responsibility or guilt onto the opponent for the purpose of discrediting the opponent's argument; "You Too" or "two wrongs" fallacy; he arguer ignores the Japanese's argument, and instead focuses on the Japanese themselves, attempting to shift the responsibility or guilt onto the Japanese.
false cause/slippery slope
The farmers of our state have asked that we introduce legislation to provide subsidies for soybeans. Unfortunately, we will have to turn down their request. If we give subsidies to the soybean farmers, then the corn and wheat growers will ask for the same thing. Then it will be the cotton growers, citrus growers, truck farmers, and cattle raisers. In the end, the cost will be astronomical. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) The farmers of our state have asked that we introduce legislation to provide subsidies for soybeans. P2) But, If we give subsidies to the soybean farmers, then the corn and wheat growers will ask subsidies. P3) Then it will be the cotton growers, citrus growers, truck farmers, and cattle raisers who ask for subsidies. P4) In the end, the cost will be astronomical. C) Unfortunately, we will have to turn down the farmer's of our state request for us to introduce legislation to provide subsidies for soybeans. Fallacy of weak induction: Arguer attempts to trump up support for the arguer's emotional position (or cause) (not to introduce legislation to provide subsidies for soybeans) by citing all sorts of dire consequences (or effects) that will result if the position (or cause) is not accepted.
hasty generalization/converse accident
The idea that black people in this country live in poverty is ridiculous. Look at Bill Cosby. He's a millionaire. And so are Denzell Washington and Oprah Winfrey. ______________________________________________________________________________ P1) Bill Cosby is a black millionaire. P2) Denzell Washington is a black millionaire. P3) Oprah Winfrey is a black millionaire. C) The idea that black people in this country live in poverty is ridiculous. Fallacy of Weak Induction: Arguer draws a conclusion about all members of a group (black people) from a sample that is not representative of the whole group. (the sample lists only three instances.)
division
The students attending Bradford College come from every one of the fifty states. Michelle attends Bradford College. Therefore, Michelle comes from every one of the fifty states. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of grammatical analogy: Attribute (come from every one of the fifty states) is wrongly transferred from the class (students attending Bradford College) onto one if its parts (Michelle). The premise is a class statement; e.g., Fleas are numerous; not a general statement; e.g., Fleas are small.
amphiboly
The travel brochure states that walking up O'Connell Street, the statue of Parnell comes into view. Apparently that statue has no trouble getting around. _______________________________________________________________________________ P) The travel brochure states that walking up O'Connell Street, the Statue of Parnell comes into view. C) Apparently that statue has no trouble getting around. Fallacy of ambiguity: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement; Is it the tourist or statue who is supposed to be walking up O'Connell Street? The conclusion is based on a missing adverbial modifier "when" between "that" and "walking up"; inserting the missing modifier then changes the statement to: The travel brochure states that (when) walking up O'Connell Street, the Statue of Parnell comes into view.
composition
The twenty-story Carson Building is constructed of concrete blocks. Each and every concrete block in the structure can withstand an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale. Therefore, the building can withstand an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy: _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) The twenty-story Carson Building is constructed of concrete blocks. P2) Each and every concrete block in the structure can withstand an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale. C) The building can withstand an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy: Aguer wrongly transfers the attribute (can withstand an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale) from the parts (each concrete block) to its whole (building); the conclusion is a class statement; e.g., Fleas are numerous; not a particular statement; e.g., Fleas are numerous.
missing the point/ignoratio elenchi or suppressed evidence
The vast majority of car accidents occur within twenty miles of one's home. Apparently it is much more dangerous to drive close to home than far away from home. ______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of relevance: Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by the premises. The point is drivers should be more careful when driving close to home, not that it's more dangerous. Fallacy of presumption: Arguer ignores important evidence (cars are driven more frequently closer to home) that requires a different conclusion; arguer presumes that no important evidence has been left out by the premises when in fact it has.
red herring
This administration is not anti-German, as it has been alleged. Germany is a great country. It has contributed immensely to the world's artistic treasury. Goethe and Schiller made magnificent contributions to literature, and Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, and Brahms did the same in music. _________________________________________________________________________ P1) This administration is not anti-German, as it has been alleged. P2) Germany has contributed immensely to the world's artistic treasury. P3) Goethe and Schiller made contributions to literature. P4) Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, and Brahms made contributions in music. C) Germany is a great country. Fallacy of Relevance: Arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject of the argument to a different but sometimes subtly related issue, and the arguer finishes by drawing a conclusion about this different issue, by presuming some conclusion has been established, or by merely presuming to have won the argument by having succeeded in leading the reader or listener off track; in this argument, the Arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject of the original argument (This administration is not anti-German) to a different but subtly related issue (Germany's artistic contributions) and then finishes by drawing a conclusion (Germany is a great country) about this different issue.
suppressed evidence
This letter from the National Gift Distribution Center says that we have definitely won a free gift, and to claim it we need to call the phone number given in the letter. Apparently if we call that number, they will send the gift rightaway. _______________________________________________________________________________ 18. Suppressed Evidence Chapter 1 explained that a cogent argument is an inductive argument with good reasoning and true premises. The requirement of true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Consider, for example, the following argument: This letter from the National Gift Distribution Center says that we have definitely won a free gift, and to claim it we need to call the phone number given in the letter. Apparently if we call that number, they will send the gift rightaway. P1) This letter from the National Gift Distribution Center says that we have definitely won a free gift, and to claim it we need to call the phone number given in the letter. C) Apparently if we call the number, they will send the gift right away. If the arguer ignores the fact that nearly every ad neglects to mention certain negative features of the product advertised and that by calling or giving personal information to the National Gift Distribution Center in order to claim the gift, that the National Gift Distribution Center could apply charges to arguers credit card or sell or share the arguer's personal information (such as the arguer's address, email address, credit card information, etc.), then the argument commits a suppressed evidence fallacy; that is, if the observer takes letter at face value and uses it as the basis for such an argument, the argument will be fallacious. The suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to the form of begging the question in which the arguer leaves a key premise out of the argument. The difference is that suppressed evidence leaves out a premise that requires a different conclusion, while that form of begging the question leaves out a premise that is needed to support the stated conclusion. However, because both fallacies proceed by leaving a premise out of the argument, there are cases where the two fallacies overlap. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of Presumption: a group of informal fallacies that occur because the arguer's premise presumes what they purport to prove. Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion. The arguer presumes that he or she has not overlook important evidence when in fact he or she has overlooked important evidence that requires a different conclusion.
begging the question/petitio principii - request for the source
We know that induction will provide dependable results in the future because it has always worked in the past. Whatever has consistently worked in the past will continue to work in the future, and we know that this is true because it has been established by induction. (1) We know that induction will provide dependable results in the future because (2) it has always worked in the past. (3) Whatever has consistently worked in the past will continue to work in the future, and we know that this is true because (4) it has been established by induction. (4) ------>(3)------->(2)--------->(1) (P1)----->(P2)------>(P3)-------->(C)------->(P1)------>etc. p1) Induction establishes that if (something) has consistently worked in the past, then (something) will work in the future. P2) If something has consistently worked in the past, then (something) will continue to work in the future. p3) Induction has always worked in the past. C) Induction [which establishes that if (something) has consistently worked in the past, then (something) will work in the future] will provide dependable results (or will work) in the future since P3) induction has always worked in the past. Fallacy of presumption: Arguer uses some form of linguistic device to help create the illusion that the arguer's inadequate premises provide adequate support for the arguer's conclusion by leaving out the key (true) premise while creating the illusion that nothing more is need to establish the arguer's conclusion, by using rhetorical or emotively charged phraseology, by restating the conclusion (in a slightly different language) as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle arguer; arguer presumes that the arguer's premises provide adequate support for the arguer's conclusion when in fact the arguer's premises do not provide adequate support of the arguer's conclusion. Arguer creates the illusion that the arguer's inadequate premises [(p1) Induction establishes that if (something) has consistently worked in the past, then (something) will work in the future. (P2) If something has consistently worked in the past, then (something) will continue to work in the future. (P3) Induction has always worked in the past.] provide adequate support for the arguer's conclusion [(C) Induction will provide dependable results in the future] by leaving out a key (true) premise (k/p): The fact that induction has consistently worked in the past implies that induction will work in the future. Begs the question: How do you know that just because induction has consistently worked in the past that induction will consistently work in the future? By restating the conclusion as the premise(s): P1) Induction establishes that if (something) has consistently worked in the past, then (something) will work in the future. P2) Induction has consistently worked in the past. C) Therefore, induction will consistently work in the future. P/C) Induction will consistently work in the future because induction has worked in the past because. We know that induction will provide dependable results in the future because it has always worked in the past. Whatever has consistently worked in the past will continue to work in the future, and we know that this is true because it has been established by induction. Or by reasoning in a circle: The truth-value of the aguer's key premise (induction establishes that whatever has consistently worked in the past, will consistently work in the future) depend on the truth-value of the arguer's conclusion: Induction will work in the future. The arguer hopes to create the illusion that the stated premise, by itself, provides adequate support for the conclusion when in fact it does not by using the rhetorical devices: 1. by leaving out the key premise while presuming no other support is needed 2. by changing the language of the proposition: "will provide dependable results in the future" means the same thing as "will work in the future." 3. by restating the conclusion as a premise 5. by using circular reasoning and by using the rhetorical phraseology: "We know" and "has always worked" Arguer restates the conclusion a premise: "induction will provide dependable results in the future because induction has provided dependable results in the past" is the same thing as saying "Induction has always provided dependable results in the past" as a premise (Induction has always worked in the past) and reasoning in a circle. Begs the question: How does one know that just because something has worked in the past, that it will continue to work in the future?
accident
What goes up must come down. The price of gold has been going up for months. Therefore, it will surely come down soon. _______________________________________________________________________________ Fallacy of Relevance (the arguer's premises are irrelevant to the arguer's conclusion) Accident The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion. Two examples: What goes up must come down. The price of gold has been going up for months. Therefore, it will surely come down soon. P) What goes up must come down. P) The price of gold has been going up for months. C) The price of gold will surely come down soon. In this case, the general rule is that (what goes up must come down), and the specific case is (the price of gold). Because (the price of gold normally remains fairly constant), the general rule doesn't apply. The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that the specific case exhibits some attribute, or ''accident,'' that prevents the general rule from applying. In this case, the "accident" is that the price of gold normally remains fairly constant. Summary: Fallacy of Relevance - Accident Arguer wrongly applies a general rule (what goes up must come down) to an atypical specific case (the price of gold which normally remains relatively constant) that the general rule was not intended to cover. The "accident" is (the price of gold normally remains relatively constant).
weak analogy
When a car breaks down so often that repairs become pointless, the car is thrown on the junk heap. Similarly, when a person becomes old and diseased, he or she should be mercifully put to death. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) When a car breaks down so often that repairs become pointless, the car is thrown on the junk heap. C) When a person becomes old and diseased, he or she should be mercifully put to death. Fallacy of Weak Induction: Arguer draws a conclusion that depends on the existence of a similarity between a car and the human body when the similarity is not strong enough to support the arguer's conclusion. A car can be replaced, but a human body is indispensable.
division
White sheep eat more than black sheep (because there are more of them). Therefore, this white sheep eats more than that black sheep. _______________________________________________________________________________ P1) White sheep eat more than black sheep (because there are more of them). C) Therefore, this white sheep eats more than that black sheep. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy: Arguer wrongly transfers the Attribute (eat more than black sheep) from the class (of white sheep) into its parts (this white sheep); the premise (White sheep eat more than black sheep) is a class statement; e.g., Fleas are numerous; not a particular statement; e.g., Fleas are small.
