(III) Exercise 3.3 Fallacies of Relevence and Weak Induction
red herring
Angela complains that the problems on the algebra test were too hard. But have you ever seen the way Angela flirts with that good-looking quarterback on the football team? She's constantly batting those long, black eyelashes at him, and her tight-fitting sweaters leave nothing to the imagination. Angela should pay more attention to her studies.
No Fallacy
Animals and humans are similar in many ways. Both experience sensations, desires, fears, pleasures, and pains. Humans have a right not to be subjected to needless pain. Does it not follow that animals have a right not to be subjected to needless pain? Conclusion depends on a good, strong analogy.
appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum - appeal to snobbery)
As a businessperson you certainly want to subscribe to Forbes magazine. Virtually all the successful business executives in the country subscribe to it. Arguer plays on reader's/listener's need to feel superior. The message is that, you, too, will be a successful, admired, and respected just like the people who subscribe to Forbes magazine.
missing the point (ignoratio elenchi)
Certainly Miss Malone will be a capable and efficient manager. She has a great figure, a gorgeous face, and tremendous poise, and she dresses very fashionably.
missing the point (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Dear Internal Revenue Service: I received a notice that my taxes are being audited for last year. But you have no right to do this. The deadline for filing a return was April 15, and I filed my tax return on April 12—a full three days before the deadline.
Straw man
Ellen Quinn has argued that logic is not the most important thing in life. Apparently Ellen advocates irrationality. It has taken two million years for the human race to achieve the position that it has, and Ellen would throw the whole thing into the garbage. What utter nonsense! Arguer distorts opponents argument equating it with irrationality, and then attacks the distorted argument.
red herring
Environmentalists accuse us of blocking the plan to convert Antarctica into a world park. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Antarctica is a huge continent teeming with life. It is the home of millions of penguins, seals, sea birds, and sea lions. Also, great schools of finfish and whales inhabit its coastal waters. Arguer leads reader/listener off track. The arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject from (blocking a plan to convert Antarctica into a world park) to a different but sometimes subtly related one (the variety of wildlife in Antarctica) He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the argument.
No Fallacy
Extensive laboratory tests have failed to prove any deleterious side effects of the new pain killer lexaprine. We conclude that lexaprine is safe for human consumption. If qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon (side effects of lexaprine) within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists (that no deleterious side effects exist), this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about the question.
Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem - circumstantial)
For many years, Senator Phil Gramm has argued in favor of increased expenditures for NASA. But remember that NASA is situated in Houston, in Gramm's home state. Obviously he supports these expenditures. In view of these considerations, we should ignore Gramm's arguments. Arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to argue this way. The author of this argument ignores the substance of the Phil Gramm's argument and attempts to discredit it by calling attention to certain circumstances that affect the Senator Gramm—namely, that the expenditures will help his home state. But the fact that the Phil Gramm happens to be affected by these circumstances is irrelevant to whether his premises support his conclusion.
accident
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Therefore, your friend was acting within his rights when he shouted ''Fire! Fire!'' in that crowded theater, even though it was only a joke.
appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
India is suffering a serious drought, thousands of children are dying of starvation in their mothers' arms, and homeless beggars line the streets of the major cities. Surely we must give these poor downtrodden people the chance of bettering their condition in America, the land of wealth and opportunity.
No Fallacy
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has promised to treat the Kurds and Suni Muslims in Iraq with respect and dignity. Also, he has promised to abandon his earlier plans for becoming the dominant power in the Middle East. However, Hussein is a notorious liar and an outright murderer. Therefore, we should not trust these promises for a minute. If an arguer attempts to discredit a promise by pointing out that the person making the promise is a liar, then the arguer does not commit an ad hominem fallacy.
argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem - tu quoque)
It is ridiculous to hear that man from Peru complaining about America's poverty. Peru has twice as much poverty as America has ever had.
Appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum - appeal to the stick)
Johnny, of course I deserve the use of your bicycle for the afternoon. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't want your mother to find out that you played hooky today. Arguer threatens psychological well-being of listener. This argument involves a psychological threat to Johnny. While the threat doesn't provides any genuine evidence that the conclusion is true, it does provide evidence that Johnny might be psychologically injured.
argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem - abusive)
Marge Schott, minority owner of the Cincinnati Reds, has argued that professional baseball should be exempt from federal antitrust legislation. But consider this: Schott is a disgusting racist bigot who speaks approvingly of Adolf Hitler. Clearly, we should ignore her antitrust arguments. Arguer verbally abuses other arguer. Because Schott's being a so called disgusting racist bigot who speaks approvingly of Adolf Hitler is irrelevant to whether the premises of his argument support the conclusion (whether professional baseball should be exempt from federal antitrust legislation), this argument is fallacious.
no fallacy
Members of the jury, you have heard Shirley Gaines testify that she observed the entire scene and that at no time did the defendant offer to perform acts of prostitution for the undercover police officer. But Gaines is a known prostitute herself and a close friend of the defendant. Also, only a year ago she was convicted of twelve counts of perjury. Therefore, you should certainly discount Gaines's testimony.
argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem - circumstantial)
Mr. Flemming's arguments against the rent control initiative on the September ballot should be taken with a grain of salt. As a landlord he would naturally be expected to oppose the initiative.
weak analogy
No one, upon encountering a watch lying on a forest trail, would expect that it had simply appeared there without having been made by someone. For the same reason, no one should expect that the universe simply appeared without having been made by some being.
appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Nobody has ever proved that immoral behavior by elected officials erodes public morality. Therefore, we must conclude that such behavior does not erode public morality.
false cause (nonexistent causal connection - post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore on account of this)
On Monday I drank ten rum and Cokes, and the next morning I woke up with a headache. On Wednesday I drank eight gin and Cokes, and the next morning I woke up with a headache. On Friday I drank nine Bourbon and Cokes, and the next morning I woke up with a headache. Obviously, to prevent further headaches I must give up Coke.
hasty generalization (converse accident)
On our first date, George had his hands all over me, and I found it nearly impossible to keep him in his place. A week ago Tom gave me that stupid line about how, in order to prove my love, I had to spend the night with him. Men are all alike. All any of them want is sex. Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample. In this argument a conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises that mention only a few instances.
appeal to unqualified authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
Senate majority leader Trent Lott announced in a press conference that homosexuality is a sin. In view of Mr. Lott's expertise in religious matters, we must conclude that homosexuality is a sin, just as he claims.
false cause (slippery slope)
Some of the parents in our school district have asked that we provide bilingual education in Spanish. This request will have to be denied. If we provide this service, then someone will ask for bilingual education in Greek. Then it will be German, French, and Hungarian. Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean will follow close behind. We certainly can't accommodate all of them.
missing the point (ignoratio elenchi - ignorance of the proof)
Tagging by graffiti artists has become a terrible problem in recent years. Obviously our schools are stifling the creative spirit of these young people. Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by the premises. The premises of this argument support one particular conclusion (Something should be done about the graffiti) but then a different conclusion (Schools are stifling the creative spirit of young people), vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn. Tagging by graffiti artists has become a terrible problem in recent years. Something should be done to about graffiti artists.
appeal to unqualified authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
Television evangelist Pat Robertson has said that there is no constitutional basis for separation of church and state. In view of Robertson's expertise, we have no alternative but to abandon this longstanding principle of government.
No Fallacy
The operation of a camera is similar in many ways to the operation of an eye. If you are to see anything in a darkened room, the pupils of your eyes must first dilate. Accordingly, if you are to take a photograph (without flash) in a darkened room, the aperture of the camera lens must first be opened. Conclusion depends on a good, strong analogy.
weak analogy
To prevent dangerous weapons from being carried aboard airliners, those seeking to board must pass through a magnetometer and submit to a possible pat-down search. Therefore, to prevent alcohol and drugs from being carried into rock concerts, it is appropriate that those entering submit to similar search procedures.
Accident
What the farmer sows in the spring he reaps in the fall. In the spring he sows $8-per-bushel soybeans. Therefore, in the fall he will reap $8-per-bushel soybeans. General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. 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 example the accidents are those factors that will influence what the farmer actually reaps such as "soil quality" and "weather conditions," which prevents the general rule from applying.
weak analogy
When water is poured on the top of a pile of rocks, it always trickles down to the rocks on the bottom. Similarly, when rich people make lots of money, we can expect this money to trickle down to the poor. Conclusion depends on defective analogy.
No Fallacy
World-famous paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould says that the dinosaurs were killed by a large asteroid that collided with the earth. Furthermore, many scientists agree with Gould. Therefore, we conclude that the dinosaurs were probably killed by an asteroid. The arguer cites a statement by a recognized expert in support of a conclusion and the statement falls within the expert's range of expertise; therefore, the arguer doesn't commit an appeal to unqualified authority.