3.2 Fallacies of Relevance

bandwagon (argumentum ad populum)

Everybody believes such- and-such or does such-and-such; therefore, you should believe or do such-and-such, too.

appeal to vanity (observer approach)

linking love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of. often used by advertisers, parents, and people in general.

4. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

occurs in three forms: 1.) ad hominem abusive 2.) ad hominem circumstantial 3.) tu quoque. ad hominem abusive: the second person responds to the first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person. Example: nonsense. arguments and irrelevant the argument ad hominem circumstantial: begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent's argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously. Tu quoque ("you too") fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first ap- pear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.

appeal to tradition (variety of the indirect appeal to the people.)

occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for some conclusion. The claim that something is a tradition is basically synonymous with the claim that a lot of people have done it that way for a long time.

7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn. Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is beingcommitted, he or she should be able to identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply. This conclusion must be significantly different from the conclusion that is actually drawn.

Appeal to Snobbery (ad Populum)

the crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way-more wealthy, more powerful, more cul- turally refined, more intelligent, and so on. As the argument goes, if the listener wants to be part of this group, then he or she will do a certain thing, think in a certain way, or buy a certain product.

2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity

appeal to fear (direct approach ad Populum)

trumps up a fear of something and uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion.

3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

(loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others.) Uses these desires to get the reader/listener to accept a conclusion. 1.) direct approach Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality. 2.) indirect approach The arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of those individuals' relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, the appeal to snobbery, and the appeal to tradition.

1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum:Appeal to the "Stick")

Poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.

5. Accident

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.

8. Red Herring

arguer diverts attention by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.

6. Straw Man

distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished.