Logic, Chapter 4: Informal Fallacies

Notes on Fallacies Based on Emotional Appeals:

- Is fallacious because it relies only on the arousal of a strong emotional state or psychological reactions - Relies solely on emotion, no factual claims. - Used by tyrants and bigots, psychologically and horribly; to a less, horrible extent, advertisements. - Appeals to mob mentality/us vs. them thinking. - Covers the desires to belong to a group that is admired or a sense of pity and mercy or fear and force.

Notes on Fallacies Based on False Cause Fallacies:

False cause fallacies occur when a causal connection is assumed to exist between two events when none actually exists, or when the assumed causal connection is unlikely to exist. Trends are temporary unless there is a definitive cause-effect relationship discovered that would explain it! "Correlation is not causation!" - Tulip van Olsen

Informal fallacies include mistakes of relevance, assumption, ambiguity, and diversion. They can be persuasive because they involve emotions, like:

Fear, anger, pity, or even admiration.

In contrast to fallacious arguments, good arguments have premises that are:

Relevant (strengthens an argument) and establish logical, reasonable ties to the conclusion.

Fallacies can suffer from...

"irrelevancy" in many, different ways. Therefore, the use of small groups is meant to help you recognize a characteristic common to all members of a group, and to distinguish the specific characteristics of each group member.

Weak Inductive Argument Fallacies:

*Generalization Fallacies* (Makes a generalization when it is not warranted.) • Rigid application of a generalization. • Hasty generalization. • Composition. • Division. • Biased sample. *False Cause Fallacies* (A causal connection is assumed to exist between two events when none actually exists.) • Post hoc. • Slippery slope.

Poisoning the well (fallacy based on personal attacks/ad hominem):

*A person is attacked before they have a chance to present their case.* A trick to remembering this is that the poison is the attack prior to trying the argument which is the "well water". A reason why this is fallacious is that a person's character does not *validate* the argument's truth value, strength, also *avoids logical analysis of validity and soundness*, and paints a negative picture of the person before you even hear them out. An example of this is: • Before you read their article, "Stop Wars", you should know the author was arrested six times for protesting in front of the Pentagon and White House. The author was also investigated by the FBI for possible ties to peace movements in other countries, some of which ended in violence. It is crystal clear these people are dangerous and want to destroy our Constitution and take away our freedom, we cannot let them.

Ad hominem circumstantial (fallacy based on personal attacks/ad hominem):

*An argument is rejected based on the person's life circumstances.* A trick to remembering this is that it is circumstantial and it is also a personal attack. A reason why this is fallacious is that a person's circumstances does not *validate* the argument's truth value, strength, and also *avoids logical analysis of validity and soundness.* Examples of this are: • You told us why you are against raising taxes. But, we know the real reason is that you are a billionaire, and you want to hold on to as much money as you can. • I heard your argument against euthanasia. But, you failed to point out the true reason: You are a physician, so you make money only if terminally ill people are kept alive as long as possible.

Tu quoque (fallacy based on personal attacks/ad hominem):

*An argument's issue is avoided by claiming the argument-maker is a hypocrite.* A trick to remembering this is that it means you too, or look who's talking, and occurs when one points out the disanalogy between a person's claim and their actions. A reason why this is fallacious is that it does not set up any rational rebuttals of the argument. Examples of this are: • You have been lecturing me about not joining a gang. But, you were a gang member, and you never went to jail. So, I'll make my own decision about joining one. • The senator should look in his backyard. What about the complete disregard of the universal rights of people whom the US government incarcerates without any recourse to courts or a lawyer? The senator should not throw rocks when he lives in a glasshouse. Let me remind him that "whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone." • I don't know why you keep pressuring me to give up smoking. You keep showing me statistics that it is bad for my health, shortens life and costs too much money. But, you started smoking at my age and only recently quit, so how can you honestly tell me to stop?

Ad hominem abusive (fallacy based on personal attacks/ad hominem):

*An attack on alleged character flaws of a person instead of their argument.* A trick to remembering this is that ad hominem means against the person. A reason why this is fallacious is that a person's character is *irrelevant* to the truth value or strength of their argument and *avoid logical analysis of validity and soundness.* Examples of this are: • You should not believe what they say about our economy because they are a left=learning, card-carrying liberal. • They are old, out of touch with reality, and were probably previously psychiatrically hospitalized. So, you cannot accept their advice on marriage. • Don't listen to their criticism of our governor. After all, they are too young and probably experimented with drugs.

*Summary of Fallacies Based on Personal Attacks (or Ad Hominem):* Fallacies based on personal attacks occur when someone's argument is rejected based solely on an *attack against the person* making the argument, not on the merits of the argument itself, such as:

1) *Ad hominem abusive:* An attack on alleged character flaws of a person instead of the person's argument. 2) *Ad hominem circumstantial:* An argument is rejected based on the person's life circumstances. 3) *Poisoning the well:* A person is attacked before they can present their argument. 4) *Tu quoque:* A person attempts to avoid the issue at hand through claiming the argument maker is a hypocrite.

Summary regarding fallacies: An argument can go wrong in three ways:

1) By having false premises, 2) By having a bad form, 3) Or by making an error that is not due to having false premises or bad form.

Ad hominem fallacies follow a similar pattern (excluding poisoning the well):

1) Person X presents an argument. 2) Person Y attacks the character or circumstances of Person X. 3) Based solely on the attack against Person X, Person Y rejects Person X's argument.

Fallacious appeals to emotion follow a similar pattern (that illustrates the importance of recognizing when premises are irrelevant, they fail to support the conclusion), and it is:

1) Person X uses psychological methods known to arouse strong emotions: appeals to group solidarity; jumping on the bandwagon; the desire to belong to an admired group; a sense of pity; and fear or the threat of force. 2) Person Y is expected to accept the consequence solely on the emotional appeal.

*Summary of Weak Inductive Argument Fallacies, False Cause Fallacies:* A false cause fallacy occurs when a causal connection is assumed to exist between two events when none actually exists, or when the assumed causal connection is unlikely to exist. There are two individual fallacies in this group.

13) *Post hoc:* The fallacy occurs from the mistaken assumption that just because one event occurred before another event, the first event must have caused the second event. 13a) *Common cause, post hoc:* One event is believed to cause the second when both events are caused by the same, common cause. 14) *Slippery slope:* An argument that attempts to connect a series of occurrences such that the first link in a chain leads directly to a second link, and so on, until a final, unwanted situation is said to be the inevitable result.

Summary of Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumptions: (Fallacies of unwarranted assumption are arguments that assume the truth of some unproved or questionable claim.)

15) *Begging the question:* In one type, the fallacy occurs when a premise is simply reworded in the conclusion. In a second type, called circular reasoning, a set of statements seem to support each other with no clear beginning or endpoint. In a third type, the argument assumes certain key information that may be controversial or is not supported by facts. 16) *Complex question:* The fallacy occurs when a single question actually contains multiple parts and an unestablished hidden assumption. 17) *Appeal to ignorance:* An argument built on a position of ignorance claims either that: (1) a statement must be true because it has not been proven to be false. (2) a statement must be false because it has not been proven to be true. 18) *Appeal to an unqualified authority:* An argument that relies on the opinions of people who either have no expertise, training, or knowledge relevant to the issue at hand, or whose testimony is untrustworthy. 19) *False dichotomy:* The fallacy occurs when it is assumed that only two choices are possible, when in fact others exist.

Summary of Fallacies of Diversion: (A fallacy of diversion occurs when the meanings of terms or phrases are changed within the argument, or when our attention is diverted from the issue at hand.)

20) *Equivocation:* The fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument relies on a shift in the meaning of a term or phrase in the premises. 21) *Straw man:* The fallacy occurs when an argument is misrepresented in order to create a new argument that can be easily refuted. The new argument is so weak that it is "made of straw". The arguer then falsely claims that his opponent's real argument has been defeated. 22) *Red herring:* The fallacy occurs when someone completely ignores an opponent's position and changes the subject, diverting the discussion in a new direction. 23) *Misleading precision:* A claim that appears to be statistically signification but is not. 24) *Missing the point:* When the premises that seem to lead logically to one conclusion are used instead to support an unexpected conclusion.

Summary of Fallacies Based on Emotional Appeals): Fallacies based on emotional appeals occur when an argument relies solely on the arousal of a strong emotional state or psychological reaction to get a person to accept the conclusion, such as:

5) *Appeal to the people:* An argument manipulates a psychological need or desire, such as the desire to belong to a popular group, or the need for group solidarity, so that the reader or listener will accept the conclusion. 6) *Appeal to pity:* An exclusive reliance on a sense of pity or mercy for support of a conclusion. 7) *Appeal to fear or force:* A threat of harmful consequences (physical or otherwise) is used to force acceptance of a course of action that would otherwise be unacceptable.

To further understand generalization fallacies, here are definitions of some terms...

A sample is part of a population. A population is any group of objects, not just humans. A representative sample occurs when the characteristics of a sample are correctly identified and matched to the population under investigation.

*Summary of Weak Inductive Argument Fallacies, Generalization Fallacies:* Generalization fallacies occur when an argument relies on a mistaken use of the principles behind making a generalization. There are five individual fallacies in this group.

8) *Rigid application of a generalization:* When a generalization or rule is inappropriately applied to the case at hand. The fallacy results from the mistaken belief that the generalization or rule is universal (meaning it has no exceptions). 9) *Hasty generalization:* An argument that relies on a small sample that is unlikely to represent the population. 10) *Composition:* There are two forms of the fallacy: (1) the mistaken transfer of an attribute of the individual parts of an object to the object as a whole, and; (2) the mistaken transfer of an attribute of the individual members of a class to the class itself. 11) *Division:* There are two forms of the fallacy: (1) the mistaken transfer of the object as a whole to the individual parts of an object, and; (2) the mistaken transfer of a class itself to the individual members of a class. 12) *Biased sample:* An argument that uses a nonrepresentative sample as support for a statistical claim about an entire population.

(Notes on Fallacies Based on Personal Attacks or Emotional Appeals) When an argument is rejected based solely on an attack against the person making the argument, not on the merits of the argument itself, then (and only then), what occurs?

A fallacy occurs.

A formal fallacy is: This is an example: All beagles are dogs. (T) All poodles are dogs. (T) Therefore, all beagles are poodles. (F)

A logical error that occurs in the form or structure of an argument. It is restricted to deductive arguments. This example is the form of a formal fallacy, the form is "messed up." This form is "bad."

An informal fallacy is: This is an example: The moon is round. Therefore, the moon is round.

A mistake in reasoning that occurs in ordinary language and concerns the content of the argument rather than its form. This is a mistake that doesn't occur in the form of the argument. (This example is begging the question.)

When the ad hominem fallacy does not occur:

An instance is the occurrence of catching one lying under oath. Under these objective circumstances, one has factual basis to question the truth of this person's arguments that are not based on an emotional, unsupported attack. Another exception is when an argument is not being rejected and considered, though their character is being described. Here is an example: Bernard Madoff is guilty of one of the most infamous financial frauds in history. The evidence against him was so strong that he plead guilty to 11 felonies, including money laundering, perjury, and wire fraud. It is safe to say he will spend the rest of his life in prison because he would be over 200 years old when he is eligible for release in the year 2139. The perjury charge means that he is a liar. He is also a cheat and a person without conscience, with no sympathy for his victims. By any moral sense, Madoff is a most despicable character.

(Notes on Fallacies Based on Personal Attacks or Emotional Appeals) We can reject an argument if we base our criticism on logical analysis and truth-value analysis. An example of doing so is how...

The argument might be invalid (deductive) or weak (inductive). On the other hand, the argument might be valid but unsound, or else it might be strong but uncogent.

Why study fallacies?

There are many reasons to. One of which is that if one is aware of fallacies and understand their nature, they can identify examples in their day-to-day life.

Notes on Fallacies of Diversion:

These occur when the meanings of terms or phrases are changed or our attention is diverted from the issue (such as changing the subject)! These fallacies depend on the fact words and phrases have a variety of meanings and context is key to understanding them. Ambiguity, vagueness or any unclear use of the term may severely affect the understanding of an argument.

Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption or Diversion Notes:

They assume a questionable or claim that is not proven is true, as its fallacious reasoning becomes clear when its weak points, assumptions and lack of support are shown.

Begging the question (Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption):

This is when: 1, 2, or 3 occurs. *1) A premise is simply reworded in the conclusion.* Example: • The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. So, it is safe to say no band has ever been better than the Beatles. *2) In circular reasoning, a set of statements support each other without a clear beginning or end.* Example: • You can believe her because she never lies. Furthermore, since she always tells the truth, she is someone you can believe. *3) The argument assumes certain important information that may be controversial/unsupported by facts.* Example: • We are justified in going to war to defend our country from foreign aggression. It follows that we should go to war with Syria. A way to remember it is: Petito principii, that means assume at the beginning. It is fallacious because the truth has been assumed. It does not occur when an argument has not assumed something that needs more support.

Appeal to the people (fallacy based on emotional appeal):

This is when *an argument manipulates a psychological need or desire, such as the desire to belong to a popular group, or the need for group solidarity, so that the reader or listener will accept the conclusion.* A way to remember it is how it relies on people's needs and desires, that it has three types, and is used by poll questions to manipulate its results. It is fallacious because the avoidance of objective evidence for emotion is not rational truth-value analysis. Here are some examples: *Group solidarity/rallying the troops (desires to belong to a group):* • We must not let our country be taken over by illegal aliens. After all, they knowingly and *brazenly broke the law* by entering illegally, so they are *nothing but criminals*. They will continue to *flout our laws*, steal our jobs, and *threaten our very way of life.* *The bandwagon effect (desires to fit in):* An attempt to get a person to accept a claim or course of action because "everyone's doing it." - Fallacious because the number of those who believe in something is outside of its truth. • PlayBox 6 is the number one game console in America. Your friends probably own them. Why wait to use theirs? Ask your parents to get you one today. *Exclusive/elite group (desires to belong):* • You work hard. You deserve more from life. Don't get stuck in a boring routine. Driving the new turbo-charged Zephyer will have everyone looking at you. Get one and turn heads.

Complex question, loaded question (Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption):

This is when: *A single question actually contains multiple parts and an unestablished hidden assumption.* A way to remember it is: that it asks a question that is complex, or multifaceted. It is fallacious because: it allows the questioner to make an argument that strengthens the truth of the hidden assumption they are wanting to confirm. Here are some examples: • Do you still cheat on your taxes? • Aren't you going to do something about their terrible behavior? It does not occur when a question that is being asked is not trying to hide any assumptions or in certain legal settings such as, "Did you see anyone enter the building after the defendant left?"

Slippery slope (False Cause Fallacies):

This is when: *an argument attempts to connect a series of occurrences that the first link is a chain reaction until the final unwanted situation is the inevitable result. A way to remember it is: that the slippery slope illustrates the messy, chain reaction. It is fallacious because it is a post hoc where there is no specific, objective evidence for each step in the causal chain. To counter this fallacy, to connect and establish it, one needs thorough research and logical evidence. Here are some examples: • If you start smoking marijuana for pleasure, then you will need more to achieve the high. You will rely on it when you are depressed. Then, you will experiment with higher, harder, faster, and longer-lasting drugs. Your addiction will lead to a lack of motivation, self-esteem, good health, and social ties. Therefore, you should not start smoking weed. • If we allow the government to remove Confederate statues from public places, then it's a short road to the government trying to erase and censor history. Next thing you know, all our history textbooks will be altered to remove the truth. You don't want the government telling you what to think is true, do you?

Appeal to an unqualified authority (Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption):

This is when: *arguments rely on the opinion of people who have no expertise, training, relevant knowledge, and/or whose testimony is untrustworthy.* A way to remember it is: that the argument relies on unwarranted expertise. It is fallacious because: the affirmation and support of the argument are supported with irrelevancy. Here is an example: • I'm McFamous Quarterback for Sports Team. I've been eating Cereal for breakfast since I was young. Cereal tastes great, and they have all the nutrition kids need. You should get some for your kids today. A counterexample to this is how each scientific statement must be proven with objective evidence. Also, there must be an authority in the subject, must fall in the authority's expertise, trustworthy and reliable.

Common cause; post hoc (False Cause Fallacies):

This is when: *one event is believed to cause the second when both events are caused by the same, common cause.* A way to remember it is: the two events share a common cause. It is fallacious because determining a true causal relationship requires being able to isolate one factor as the cause and eliminating all other possible explanations for the effect. Here is an example: • That girl is the most successful, popular student in all our class. That's why students in most of our school hate her. Post hoc and common cause fallacies have an exception to it occurring when there is an apparent cause, such as throwing a rock and seeing the window break.

*Composition (generalization fallacy):* (Feel free to re-read pages 146-148, if needed, as it is quite complex.)

This is when: *one, there is a mistaken transfer of an attribute of the individual parts of an object to the object as a whole, and two, the mistaken transfer of an attribute of the individual members of a class to the class itself.* A way to remember it is a mistaken transfer of either parts or members to a whole. It is fallacious because: it equates parts to a whole, in other words, parts = whole. (Parts =/= whole.) Here are some examples: • *Parts to a whole:* Each ingredient you are using tastes delicious. Therefore, the cake has to taste delicious. • *Individual members to the class itself:* All the members of my club are high school seniors. Therefore, my club is a high school senior. An exception of this is that not every argument from parts to a whole is fallacious, such as the deduction that since every piece of my sewing machine is steel, so my sewing machine is steel.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause Fallacies):

This is when: *the fallacy occurs from the mistaken assumption that just because one event occurred before another event, the first event must have caused the second event.* A way to remember it is: post hoc means after the fact, and it is also known as ergo propter hoc. It is fallacious because: it mistakenly assumes because one event occurred after another, the first must cause the second. Here are some examples, as well as the pattern: - X occurred before Y, therefore X caused Y. • Last week, I bought a new car, and today I found out that I am being laid off. I should not have bought the car; it brought me bad luck. • Researchers have discovered that, for over 30 years, there has been a definite pattern connecting the party affiliation of the US president and specific soft drink sales. During the years when a Democrat was President, Dr. Pepper topped all drink sales. When a Republican was President, Coca-Cola was number one. If you are an investor, we advise you to invest in the brand based on the President's party.

Misleading precision (Fallacies of Diversion):

This is when: a claim seems to be statistically significant, yet is not. A way to remember it is: how mathematical is precise and stats can be misleading. It is fallacious because: it is misleading and that falsity is stated as an unsupported proof. Here are some examples: • Our Nutrisystem cookies contain 30% less fat, so you should start eating them if you want to lose weight. • The full moon affects people in strange ways. We have found that you have a 100% chance of being more emotional than usual during a full moon than during any other time of the month.

Missing the point (Fallacies of Diversion):

This is when: a premise tries to logically lead to a conclusion that is unexpected and misleading. A way to remember it is: that the conclusion completely misses the point of the premises. It is fallacious because: it fails to prepare one for the arguer's conclusion and diverts them from the conclusion. Here are some examples: • Coca-Cola is the best-selling in Canada. Therefore, it will be a top hit in United States. • I read that it can take years to find the black boxes that contain crucial flight information regarding an airplane crash, and sometimes they are never found. Given this, all air travel should be suspended. • The Affordable Care Act has been difficult to implement. There were system failures in which people could not log on to the government website, and even cases of people's private information being compromised. Therefore, we should never let the government try to solve social problems.

Appeal to ignorance (Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption):

This is when: an argument is built on a position of ignorance claims either that, 1, a statement is true because it is not proven false, or, 2, a statement is false because it is not proven true. A way to remember it is: the statement is proven either true or false depending on if it is proven or not. It is fallacious because: the claims are unjustified and make assumptions without logical evidence. Here are some examples: • UFOs must exist because no one has proven they do not exist. • There is certainly no life anywhere else in the universe. This follows from the fact that we have never received signals from any part of space. It does not occur in scientific arguments, as they are usually good when they are inductively strong (not definitive truth value); and in instances of declaring a defendant as not guilty since their guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (reasonable doubt is not being assumed).

False dichotomy (Either/or, Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption):

This is when: it is assumed that only two choices are possible, when in fact, more exist. A way to remember it is: di rhymes with bi, bi mean two, and two is the either-or fallacy, or the false dichotomy. It is fallacious due to the reason: it forces the person to choose between two choices. Here are some examples, as well as its framework: G or L. Not L. G. • Either we give up some traditional basic freedoms or we lose the war on terror. • He was born on a Monday or a Thursday. He was not born on a Thursday, so he was born on a Monday. • Either you agree with our country's policies or you should go to live in another country. You don't agree with our country's policies. Therefore you should go live in another country. The fallacy does not occur when the two options are both factually true and/or the two options available truly are the only ones to choose from.

Red herring (Fallacies of Diversion):

This is when: someone completely ignores an opponent's position, the question, or issue at hand by changing the subject and diverting the discussion in a new direction. A way to remember it is: a red herring, like the fish itself, is used to throw off one's scent, an act of diversion in a new way. It is fallacious because: it diverts one attention from the true argument and has no bearing on an opponent's argument. Here are some examples: • Many people criticize TV as turning America into an illiterate society. How can we criticize the very medium that is the envy of countries all over the world? The entertainment quality and variety of TV programs today are greater than ever before, not to mention the enormous number of cable options available to members of the viewing audience. Thus, the critics are wrong. • It appears that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, so he cannot become President. Having proof of his birth certificate will prove that he is a US citizen. Upon seeing his birth certificate, it is evident that his father is African. Since Obama may have had dual-citizenship at birth, this means that he does not meet the Constitution's definition of a natural-born citizen, no?

Straw man (Fallacies of Diversion):

This is when: someone's argument is misrepresented to create a new, easily refutable argument that is so weak it is made of straw. The arguer then falsely claims the opponent's real argument is defeated. A way to remember it is: that the argument is made so weak it is made of straw. It is fallacious because: it uses diversion and masks the truth of the original argument. Here are some examples: • She is against the new law that mandates teaching intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution. It should be obvious to anyone that she really wants to eliminate religious beliefs. She wants to destroy one of the basic principles of the Constitution of the United States. • The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Equivocation (Fallacies of Diversion):

This is when: the conclusion of an argument relies on a shift in the meaning of the term/phrase in the premises. A way to remember it is: vocation is similar to vacation, and its correct definition/understanding is on vacation when there is a fallacy. It is fallacious because: it shifts the usage's meaning. Here are some examples: • My sibling tries to be cool. I told them they have a personality of a cucumber. Since the refrigerator is a good place to keep things cool, they should spend some time in there. • She said she had a hot date last night. Her apartment can get hot unless she uses the AC. Therefore, her AC must have been non-working.

(Notes on Fallacies Based on Personal Attacks or Emotional Appeals) We can reject a statement if we have credible, objective evidence that contradicts the claim. (However...)

We should not reject a statement merely because we have a strong opinion against it.

Hasty generalization (generalization fallacy): (This is a specific example of a certain type of argument, argument by enumeration: drawing a general conclusion based on listing occurrences of said conclusion; not to be confused with rigid generalization.)

This is: *a generalization based on a few instances.* (In other words, an argument that relies on a small sample that is unlikely to represent the population.) A way to remember it is that it goes from specific to general and that it is also referred to as reverse or converse accident. It is fallacious because: a small sample is improbable to represent a whole population; to counter this, the higher the instances, the stronger the argument becomes. Here are some examples: • I saw a fraternity guy act rudely to a fast-food employee. Probably most fraternity and sorority members are rude and arrogant. • The first two students got an A on the exams I graded. Thus, I expect all 50 students to get A's too. An exception is made when: it is applied to identical and extremely similar objects, such as the reasoning behind car recalls.

Appeal to fear or force (fallacy based on emotional appeal):

This is: *a threat of harmful consequences (physical or otherwise) used to force acceptance of a course of action that would otherwise be unacceptable.* A way to remember it is: that the power of the argument is derived only from fear or force. It is fallacious because it is a threat that has no logic, objective, or rational base. The threat is used instead of supportive evidence for the conclusion and forces a lack of rational decision-making. Here are some examples: • If the workers of this company do not agree to a quarter of their pay cute, then the company may have to shut down. Therefore, the workers must agree to the cut. • You better get straight A's on your next report card. If you don't we will have to punish you, and you will not be allowed to go out with your friends for a month.

Appeal to pity (fallacy based on emotional appeal):

This is: *an argument that exclusively relies on a sensation of pity and/or mercy to support a conclusion.* A way to remember it is that it relies on pity. It is fallacious because when pity is used instead of evidence and law, it is fallacious; also, any cause worthy of support should have rational, legitimate reasons. Also, we shouldn't accept claims as true because they evoke an emotional response. Here are some examples: • Your honor, before you sentence my client for the murder of his parents, I ask you to consider his situation. He is an orphan. Perhaps, you can give him the lightest punishment possible. (It is ironic.) • Many charities do so, like with the sad-sad commercials and phone calls, even when they get support.

Biased sample (generalization fallacy):

This is: *an argument that uses a non-representative sample as support for a statistical claim about an entire population.* A way to remember it is: it uses a skewed sample. It is fallacious because: it uses a *non*representative sample of a population and does not provide good evidence for the conclusion. Here are some examples: • Recently, a sample of 1,000 members of the LGBT community revealed that 85% believe that there is not enough positive representation of themselves in media. Therefore, evidence shows that around 85% of all Americans believe that there is not enough positive representation of the LGBT community in media. • A survey of 100 seniors at our university showed that 90% do not oppose a parking fee increase that will go into effect next year. Therefore, we can report that almost all students do not oppose a parking increase.

Division (generalization fallacy):

This is: *one, there is a mistaken transfer of an attribute of the object as a whole to the individual parts of an object, and two, the mistaken transfer of an attribute of a class to the individual members.* A way to remember it is: the reverse of composition, in other words, composition's opposite. It is fallacious because it erroneously applies that one's whole: Here are some examples: • *Whole to parts:* The cake (as a whole) tastes delicious. Therefore, each of the ingredients has to taste delicious. • *Class itself to individual members:* My club of high school seniors is celebrating its 10th birthday. Therefore, my club member, Guy, must be a 10-year-old high school senior. An exception of this is that not every argument from a whole to parts is fallacious, such as the deduction that my sewing machine is steel, so my sewing machine parts must be made of steel.

Rigid application of a generalization (generalization fallacy):

This is: *when a generalization or rule is inappropriately applied to the case at hand.* A way to remember it is: exceptions to the rule are sometimes called "accidental circumstances", so the fallacy is also called the fallacy of accident. It is fallacious because it results from the rigid application of a rule; in other words, the belief that the generalization or rule is universal, and has no exceptions. Here are some examples: • I cannot believe the police did not give the driver of the ambulance any citations because he was speeding went through a red light and swerved without using turn signals. • My cousin's illegal drug supply was stolen. Luckily, the thief was caught. Therefore, the police have to return my cousin's stash.

Notes on Fallacies Based on Personal Attacks or Emotional Appeals: (Each kind of argument employ psychological tactics that draw on group solidarity, or the desire to belong to a group.) (Describe when it occurs, why it is fallacious, what the truth of the statement should be judged on, and if there are any objections.)

This occurs when an attack is on a person rather than their argument or claim. Fallacious because character is usually irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a person's claims or merits of an argument. The truth of a statement and the strength of an argument should be judged on objective grounds. Not all personal attacks are fallacious.

(Notes on Generalization Fallacies) A generalization fallacy occurs when an argument relies on a mistaken use of the principles behind making a generalization.

When the premises rely on an unrepresentative sample, then they fail to provide relevant objective evidence for the conclusion and creates a fallacy of weak generalization.

Although fallacies have reasoning flaws, they can be psychologically persuasive while other kinds of fallacies rely on...

assumptions that have not been justified. These fallacies assume the truth of a claim that has not been supported.

Arguments purport to offer evidence for a conclusion,

but they can fail, and some special cases of failure are classified as fallacies.

All ad hominem falliacies rest on the same kind of reasoning errors,

the rejection of an opponent's argument by criticizing a person's character or circumstances, and the absence of any logical or factual analysis of the opponent's argument.

The term "fallacy" derives from a Latin word meaning:

to deceive. A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone. Even a valid argument can be fallacious.

Fallacies Based on Personal Attacks

• Ad hominem abusive • Ad hominem circumstantial • Poisoning the well • Tu quoque

Fallacies Based on Emotional Appeals

• Appeal to the people • Appeal to pity • Appeal to fear or force

Examples of Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption:

• Begging the question • Complex question • Appeal to ignorance • Appeal to an unqualified authority • False dichotomy

Examples of Fallacies of Diversion: (To avoid this type of fallacy is to keep consistency.)

• Equivocation • Straw man • Red herring • Misleading precision • Missing the point