Running head: SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Social Media and Interpersonal Relationships
Nurzat Youssef
PHI103: Informal Logic
December 6th, 2017
Professor Robert Gertz
1
SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
2
Social Media and Interpersonal Relationships
ARGUMENT 1
Standard Form:
Social media enhances interpersonal relationships because it eases communication.
Interpersonal relationships cannot be enhanced through the social media.
Social media does not ease interpersonal communication.
Premise 1: Social media enhances interpersonal relationships because it eases
communication.
Social media has been in a long time a great agent and ambassador of peace and cohesion.
It’s proper use, and professional application is a great deal among people with similar interest
when dealing Social media. Indeed, social media enhances correlations that happen to occur
between people within their scope of disposal (Pan et al. 2017). With social media, communication
with tow and more individuals is ease since means as well as the channel to use simple and clear
(Sisson, 2017). Reaching people in an authentic and straightforward ways is imperative. Thus
through internet people interact at their level best with no or minimal interruption; hence social
media platform enhances interpersonal interactions since it has a simplified podium for
communication
Premise 2: Interpersonal relationships cannot be enhanced through the social media.
The platform of social media can’t be a prudent instrument to enhance interpersonal
communication. It contains some hitches that act as barriers to interpersonal communication.
Some characters who prioritize social media as a sensible podium at all times are eccentric to each
other with horror and regrets. Social media being a two-way channel does not guarantee official
interpersonal affiliation. Thus interpersonal associations cannot be improved by the link of social
media.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
3
Conclusion: Social media does not enhance interpersonal communication.
As illustrated above, social media platform still undergoing up gradation and development.
A number of the user interfaces have not attained a level of generating the desired outcomes as per
the people’s expectations. This is then becoming an uphill task for users of social media platform
to ensure enhancement that effected by the same media. Social media should be more elaborate
than the way it is now; to take contemporary communication helm on the next level.
ARGUMENT 2
Standard Form:
Social media does not ease interpersonal communication.
Interpersonal relationships can be eased through the social media.
Social media eases interpersonal communication.
Premise 1: Social media does not ease interpersonal communication.
For the proper mode of communication, there should be authentic communicating settings.
However, following logical point of view, the nature of social media platform cannot guarantee
interpersonal communication among people (Orben & Dunbar, 2017). The most exceptional
interpersonal communication comes to pass successfully when the two interested people they
acknowledge to know each other in an imperative manner. Therefore, as a tradition of the social
media, it should not continue giving sight on when side and frustrating the other hand, it should
advocate a mutual understanding over their users and developers.
Premise 2: Interpersonal relationships can be eased through the social media.
People at all times get new ideas when they communicate with others from the other side of the
world. However, this can be done merely by the interpersonal relationships among such people.
Human beings since are the most social animals; a better social media platform will guarantee a
transformation of their interpersonal communication.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
4
Conclusion: Social media eases interpersonal communication
According to the above illustrations, social media is an excellent podium for interpersonal
communication (Neubaum et al. 2017). Since it enhances correlations that happen to occur
between people within their scope of disposal
SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
5
References
Neubaum, German, and Nicole C. Krämer. (2017)"Opinion climates in social media: Blending
mass and interpersonal communication." Human Communication Research 43.4 464-476.
Orben, A. C., & Dunbar, R. I. (2017). Social media and relationship development: The effect of
valence and intimacy of posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 489-498.
Pan, Z., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Chau, P. Y. (2017). Who Do You Think You Are? Common and
Differential Effects of Social Self-Identity on Social Media Usage. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 34(1), 71-101.
Sisson, D. C. (2017). Control mutuality, social media, and organization-public relationships: A
study of local animal welfare organizations’ donors. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 179189.
Running Head: COUNTERARGUMENT
1
Counterargument
Name
Institution
COUNTERARGUMENT
COUNTERARGUMENT
2
QUESTION TWO
ARGUMENT
Standard form:
Social media is widely succeeding in transforming the overall communication between people.
Social media negatively affects the interpersonal relationships of its users.
Social media has a negative effect on the interpersonal skills of those who communicate using
the social media platforms.
COUNTERARGUMENT
Standard form:
Social media limits communication between its users.
Social media enhances the interpersonal relationship of its users positively.
Social media has a positive effect on the interpersonal skills of users who communicate via its
platforms.
Premise 1: Social media limits communication among its users.
Social media does not allow for privacy of its users. In many occasions, the platform has
failed to secure its user's personal information that may have wrongly been updated or recorded
without their consent or knowledge. Cases such as the hacking of personal accounts have been
reported, and still fewer precautions have been taken. Due to this interference of personal
documents and information from unknown people, many users tend to be so strict and defensive
COUNTERARGUMENT
3
from getting to know others via social media. The trust and honesty are lost, victims of such
cases distant themselves from others. Communication is interfered with since it's perceived by
many users that it might be another plan to extract personal information from them. They would
rather protect themselves than get to know strangers over social media (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010).
Premise 2: Social media enhances the interpersonal relationship of its users positively.
Social media has positively affected the interpersonal relationships of its users. Social
media through technology has acted as a platform to enhance and facilitate the creation and
sharing of diverse information, career interests, ideas and other forms of relationships among its
users. With this kind of relationship shared across social media, many of its users find it easy to
relate to one another in dire need of helping each other out in many ways possible. Many social
media users are in search of different information, when they find a colleague with good
information, they cling thus enhancing the interpersonal relationship between them (Oh, Ozkaya,
& LaRose, 2014).
Conclusion: Social media has a positive effect on the interpersonal skills of users who
communicate via its platforms.
The conclusion that social media has a positive effect on the interpersonal skills of users
who communicate through the social media platforms is drawn mainly from the second premise
of the counterargument. The second premise argues that social media positively enhance the
interpersonal relationship of its users. Therefore, because social media has a positive impact on
the users the conclusion holds.
COUNTERARGUMENT
4
The primary point of disagreement is the contribution of social media on the
interpersonal relationship of the users of the social Medias and also the impact of social media on
communication. It is almost obvious that social media has increased communication among its
users. The number of social media platforms is increasing hence indicating that social media is a
champion of communication in the world. Despite the differences between the two sides, both
sides would object the argument that social media has no relation to communication
The best objection to the original argument would be to object premise two that stated,
social media negatively affects the interpersonal relationship of its users. In the current world,
social media has more than anything enhanced the interpersonal relationship of millions of its
users. Through media, many people share information regarding many issues of concern to them.
People have started relationships that have led to marriages. Many users have found jobs and
even have been employed by social media. Through technology, social media have facilitated
great capabilities that in the past seemed impossible. The growth of interpersonal relationships
between its users, is a legendary that lives in the heart of the many.
5
COUNTERARGUMENT
References
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life
satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived
social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human
Behavior, 30, 69-78.
7
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific
arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which
specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific
arguments may not be fallacious.
239
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 239
4/9/15 11:30 AM
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to
seek truth, then we must be clear that the task is not limited to the formation of true beliefs
based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming false
beliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more
specifically, they are common patterns of reasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false
conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resemble perfectly
legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be
true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France.
This is a common formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how
this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informal fallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this
chapter will cover some of the most common and important fallacies, with definitions and
examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticing
fallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This
chapter will consider only a sampling of some of the most well-known fallacies. Second, there
is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as different fallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting
that only one can be right. Third, different philosophers often have different terminology for
the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that
others use different terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not
to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Our goal is to learn to identify and
avoid mistakes in reasoning, regardless of specific terminology.
Finally, there are many ways to divide the fallacies into categories. This chapter will refer to
fallacies of support, fallacies of clarity, and fallacies of relevance. Avoiding fallacies may be difficult at first, but ultimately, as we learn to reason more fairly and carefully, we will find that
avoiding fallacious reasoning helps us develop habits of mental fairness, trustworthiness, and
openness, enhancing our ability to discern truth from error.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 240
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Section 7.1
Fallacies of Support
7.1 Fallacies of Support
When reasoning, it is essential to reach conclusions
based on adequate evidence; otherwise, our views
are unsubstantiated. The better the evidence, the
more credible our claims are, and the more likely
they are to be true. Fallacies can lead us to accept
conclusions that are not adequately supported and
may be false. Let us learn some of the most common
ways this can happen.
Begging the Question
One of the most common fallacies is called
begging the question, also known as petitio principii. This fallacy occurs when someone gives reasoning that assumes a major point at issue; it assumes
a particular answer to the question with which we
are concerned. In other words, the premises of the
argument claim something that someone probably
would not agree with if he or she did not already
accept the conclusion. Take a look at the following
argument:
Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock
With fallacious reasoning, the
premises only appear to support the
conclusion. When you look closely at a
fallacious argument, you can see how
the premises fail to offer support.
Abortion is wrong because a fetus has a right to live.
There is nothing wrong with this argument as an expression of a person’s belief. The question is whether it will persuade anyone who does not already agree with the conclusion. The
premise of this argument assumes the major point at issue. If fetuses have a right to live,
then it would follow almost automatically that abortion is wrong. However, those who do not
accept the conclusion probably do not accept this premise (perhaps they do not feel that the
developing embryo is developed enough to have human rights yet). It is therefore unlikely
that they will be persuaded by the argument. To improve the argument, it would be necessary
to give good reasons why a fetus has a right to life, reasons that would be persuasive to people
on the other side of the argument.
For more clarity about this problem, take a look at these similar arguments:
Capital punishment is wrong because all humans have a right to live.
Eating meat is wrong because animals have a right to live.
These arguments are nearly identical, yet they reach different conclusions about what types
of killing are wrong because of different assumptions about who has the right to live. Each,
however, is just as unlikely to persuade people with a different view. In order to be persuasive, it is best to give an argument that does not rest on controversial views that are merely
assumed to be true. It is not always easy to create non-question-begging arguments, but such
is the challenge for those who would like to have a strong chance of persuading those with
differing views.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 241
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Here are examples on both sides of a different question:
Joe: I know that God exists because it says so in the Bible.
Doug: God doesn’t exist because nothing supernatural is real.
Do you think that either argument will persuade someone on the other side? Someone who
does not believe in God probably does not accept the Bible to be completely true, so this reasoning will not make the person change his or her mind. The other argument does the same
thing by simply ruling out the possibility that anything could exist other than physical matter.
Someone who believes in God will probably not accept this premise.
Both arguments, on the other hand, will probably sound very good to someone who shares
the speaker’s point of view, but they will not sound persuasive at all to those who do not.
Committing the fallacy of begging the question can be compared to “preaching to the choir”
because the only people who will accept the premise are those who already agree with the
conclusion.
Circular Reasoning
An extreme form of begging the question is called circular reasoning. In circular reasoning,
a premise is identical, or virtually identical, to the conclusion.
Here is an example:
Mike: Capital punishment is wrong.
Sally: Why is it wrong?
Mike: Because it is!
Mike’s reasoning here seems to be, “Capital punishment is wrong. Therefore, capital punishment is wrong.” The premise and conclusion are the same. The reasoning is technically logically valid because there is no way for the premise to be true and the conclusion false—since
they are the same—but this argument will never persuade anyone, because no one will accept
the premise without already agreeing with the conclusion.
As mentioned, circular reasoning can be considered an extreme form of begging the question.
For another example, suppose the conversation between Joe and Doug went a little further.
Suppose each questioned the other about how they knew that the premise was true:
Joe: I know that the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible, in
2 Timothy 3:16.
Doug: I know that there is nothing supernatural because everything has a
purely natural explanation.
Here both seem to reason in a circular manner: Joe says that the Bible is true because it says
so, which assumes that it is true. On the other side, to say that everything has a purely natural
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 242
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Section 7.1
Fallacies of Support
explanation is the same thing as to say that there is nothing supernatural, so the premise is
synonymous with the conclusion. If either party hopes to persuade the other to accept his
position, then he should offer premises that the other is likely to find persuasive, not simply
another version of the conclusion.
Moral of the Story: Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning
To demonstrate the truth of a conclusion, it is not enough to simply assume that it is true; we
should give evidence that has a reasonable chance of being persuasive to people on the other
side of the argument. The way to avoid begging the question and circular reasoning is to think
for a minute about whether someone with a different point of view is likely to accept the premises you offer. If not, strive to modify your argument so that it has premises that are more likely
to be accepted by parties on the other side of the debate.
Hasty Generalizations and Biased Samples
Chapter 5 demonstrated that we can reason from a premise about a sample population to a
conclusion about a larger population that includes the sample. Here is a simple example:
Every crow I have ever seen has been black.
Therefore, all crows are black.
Concept by Christopher Foster | Illustration by Steve Zmina
Some inductive arguments make generalizations about
certain groups, but in a hasty generalization, the sample size
is inadequate.
This is known as making an
inductive generalization; you
are making a generalization
about all crows based on the
crows you have seen. However,
if you have seen only a small
number of crows, then this
inductive argument is weak
because the sample of crows
was not large enough. A hasty
generalization is an inductive generalization in which
the sample size is too small.
The person has generalized
too quickly, without adequate
support.
Notice that stereotypes are often based on hasty generalizations. For example, sometimes
people see a person of a different demographic driving poorly and, based on only one example, draw a conclusion about the whole demographic. As Chapter 8 will discuss, such generalizations can act as obstacles to critical thinking and have led to many erroneous and hurtful
views (see also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122210.htm for a
discussion of the long-term effects of stereotyping).
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 243
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Not all inductive generalizations are bad, however. A common form of inductive generalization is a poll. When someone takes a poll, he or she samples a group to draw a conclusion
about a larger group. Here would be an example:
We sampled 1,000 people, and 70% said they will vote for candidate A.
Therefore, candidate A will win.
Here, the sample size is relatively large, so it may supply strong evidence for the conclusion.
Recall Chapter 5’s discussion of assessing the strength of statistical arguments that use samples. That chapter discussed how an inductive generalization could be affected if a sample
population is not truly random. For example, what if all of the people polled were in the same
county? The results of the poll might then be skewed toward one candidate or other based on
who lives in that county. If, in a generalization, the sample population is not truly representative of the whole population, then the argument uses a biased sample (recall the Chapter 5
discussion of Gallup’s polling techniques and see this chapter’s A Closer Look: Biased Samples
in History for a historical example of how even well-intentioned polling can go wrong).
Slanted polling questions represent just one method of creating deliberately biased samples;
another method is called cherry picking. Cherry picking involves a deliberate selection of
data to support only one side of an issue. If there is evidence on both sides of a controversial
question and you focus only on evidence supporting one side, then you are manipulating the
data by ignoring the evidence that does not support the conclusion you desire.
For example, suppose an infomercial gives many examples of people who used a certain
product and had amazing results and therefore suggests that you will probably get great
results, too. Even if those people are telling the truth, it is very possible that many more
people did not have good results. The advertisers will, of course, only put the people in the
commercial that had the best results. This can be seen as cherry picking, because the viewer
of the commercial does not get to see all of the people who felt that the product was a waste
of money.
A Closer Look: Biased Samples in History
In 1936 the largest poll ever taken (10 million questionnaires) showed that Alf Landon would
soundly defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt in the presidential election. The results were quite the
opposite, however. What went wrong? The answer, it turns out, was that the names and
addresses that were used to send out the questionnaires were taken from lists of automobile owners, phone subscribers, and country club memberships (DeTurk, n.d.). Therefore, the
polls tended to be sent to wealthier people, who were more likely to vote for Landon.
Typically, finding a representative sample means selecting a sample randomly from within the
whole population. However, as this example shows, it is sometimes difficult to make certain
that there is no source of bias within one’s sampling method. In fact, it is really difficult to get
inductive generalizations just right. We must have a sufficiently large sample, and it must be
truly representative of the whole population. We should be careful to look at a large sample of
data that accurately represents the population in general. There is a complex science of polling and analyzing the data to predict things like election results. A more in-depth discussion
of this topic can be found in Chapter 5.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 244
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Appeal to Ignorance and Shifting the Burden of Proof
Sometimes we lack adequate evidence that a claim is true or false; in such situations it would
seem wise to be cautious and search for further evidence. Sometimes, however, people take
the lack of proof on one side to constitute a proof of the other side. This type of reasoning is
known as the appeal to ignorance; it consists of arguing either that a claim is true because
it has not been proved to be false or that a claim is false because it has not been proved to
be true.
Here is a common example on both sides of another issue:
UFO investigator: “You can’t prove that space aliens haven’t visited Earth, so
they probably have.”
Skeptic: “We haven’t yet verified the existence of space aliens, so they must
not exist.”
Both the believer and the skeptic in these examples mistakenly take a failure to prove one
side to constitute a demonstration of the truth of the other side. It is sometimes said that the
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, there are some exceptions in which
such inferences are justified. Take a look at the following example:
John: There are no elephants in this room.
Cindy: How do you know?
John: Because I do not see any.
In this case the argument may be legitimate. If there were an elephant in the room, one would
probably notice. Another example might be in a medical test in which the presence of an antibody would trigger a certain reaction in the lab. The absence of that reaction is then taken to
demonstrate that the antibody is not present. For such reasoning to work, we need to have
good reason to believe that if the antibody were present, then the reaction would be observed.
However, for that type of reasoning to work in the case of space aliens, the believer would
have to demonstrate that if there were none, then we would be able to prove that. Likewise,
the skeptic’s argument would require that if there were space aliens, then we would have
been able to verify it. Such a statement is likely to be true for the case of an elephant, but it
is not likely to be the case for space aliens, so the appeal to ignorance in those examples is
fallacious.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of shifting the burden of
proof, in which those who have the responsibility of demonstrating the truth of their claims
(the so-called burden of proof) simply point out the failure of the other side to prove the
opposing position. People who do this have not met the burden of proof but have merely
acted as though the other side has the burden instead. Here are two examples of an appeal to
ignorance that seem to shift the burden of proof:
Power company: “This new style of nuclear power plant has not been proved
to be unsafe; therefore, its construction should be approved.” (It would seem
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 245
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
that, when it comes to high degrees of risk, the burden of proof would be on
the power plant’s side to show that the proposed plants are safe.)
Prosecuting attorney: “The defense has failed to demonstrate that their client was not at the scene of the crime. Therefore, we must put this criminal
in jail.” (This prosecutor seems to assume that it is the duty of the defense to
demonstrate the innocence of its client, when it is actually the prosecution’s
responsibility to show that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.)
It is not always easy to determine who has the burden of proof. However, here are some reasonable questions to ask when it comes to making such a determination:
•
•
•
Which side is trying to change the status quo? One person trying to get another
person to change views will usually have the burden of proof; otherwise, the other
person will not be persuaded to change.
Which side’s position involves greater risk? A company that designs parachutes or
power plants, for example, would be expected to demonstrate the safety of the
design.
Is there a rule that determines the burden of proof in this context? For example, the
American legal system requires that, in criminal cases, the prosecution prove its case
“beyond reasonable doubt.” Debates often put the burden of proof on the affirmative
position.
Generally speaking, we should arrive at conclusions based on good evidence for that conclusion, not based on an absence of evidence to the contrary. An exception to this rule is the
case of negative tests: cases in which if the claim P is true, then result Q would very likely be
observed. In these cases, if the result Q is not observed, then we may infer that P is unlikely to
be true. In general, when one side has the burden of proof, it should be met; simply shifting
the burden to the other side is a sneaky and fallacious move.
Appeal to Inadequate Authority
An appeal to authority is the reasoning that a claim is true because an authority figure said
so. Some people are inclined to think that all appeals to authority are fallacious; however, that
is not the case. Appeals to authority can be quite legitimate if the person cited actually is an
authority on the matter. However, if the person cited is not in fact an authority on the subject
at hand, then it is an appeal to inadequate authority.
To see why appeals to authority in general are necessary, try to imagine how you would do
in college if you did not listen to your teachers, textbooks, or any other sources of information. In order to learn, it is essential that we listen to appropriate authorities. However, many
sources are unreliable, misleading, or even downright deceptive. It is therefore necessary to
learn to distinguish reliable sources of authority from unreliable sources. How do we know
which is which? Here are some good questions to ask when considering whether to trust a
given source or authority:
•
•
•
Is this the kind of topic that can be settled by an appeal to authority?
Is there much agreement among authorities about this issue?
Is this person or source an actual authority on the subject matter in question?
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 246
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Section 7.1
Fallacies of Support
•
•
Can this authority be trusted to be honest in this context?
Am I understanding or interpreting this authority correctly?
If the answer to all of these is “yes,” then it may be a legitimate appeal to authority; if the
answer to any of them is “no,” then it may be fallacious. Here are some examples of how
appeals to authority can fail at each of these questions:
Is this the kind of topic that can be settled by an appeal to authority?
Student: “Capitalism is wrong; Karl Marx said so.” (The morality of capitalism
may not be an issue that authority alone can resolve. We should look at reasons on both sides to determine where the best arguments are.)
Is there much agreement among authorities about this issue?
Student: “Abortion is wrong. My philosophy teacher said so.” (Philosophers do
carefully consider arguments about abortion, but there is no consensus among
them about this topic; there are good philosophers on both sides of the issue.
Furthermore, this might not be the type of question that can be settled by an
appeal to authority. One should listen to the best arguments on each side of
such issues rather than simply trying to appeal to an authority.)
Is this person or source an actual
authority on the subject matter in
question?
Voter: “Global warming is
real. My congressperson
said so.” (A politician may
not be an actual authority
on the matter, since politicians often choose positions based on likely voting
behavior and who donates
to their campaigns. A climatologist is more likely
to be a more reliable and
informed source in this
field.)
Can this authority be trusted to be
honest in this context?
Concept by Christopher Foster | Illustration by Steve Zmina
If the guitar player were stating his position on the best
guitar to purchase, we might be inclined to follow his
advice, as he would be a legitimate authority. However, in
this case he is an inadequate authority.
Juror: “I know that the accused is innocent because he said he didn’t do it.” (A
person or entity who has a stake in a matter is called an interested party. A
defendant is definitely an interested party. It would be better to have a witness who is a neutral party.)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 247
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Am I understanding or interpreting this authority correctly?
Christian: “War is always wrong because the Bible states, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”
(This one is a matter of interpretation. What does this scripture really mean?
In this sort of case, the interpretation of the source is the most important
issue.)
Finally, here is an example of a legitimate appeal to authority:
“Martin Van Buren was a Democrat; it says so in the encyclopedia.” (It is hard
to think of why an encyclopedia—other than possibly an openly editable
resource such as Wikipedia—would lie or be wrong about an easily verifiable
fact.)
It may still be hard to be certain about many issues even after listening to authorities. In such
cases the best approach is to listen to and carefully evaluate the reasoning of many experts in
the field, to determine to what degree there is consensus, and to listen to the best arguments
for each position. If we do so, we are less prone to being misled by our own biases and the
biases of interested parties.
False Dilemma
An argument presents a false dilemma, sometimes called a false dichotomy, when it makes it
sound as though there were only two options when in fact there are more than just those two
options. People are often prone to thinking of things in black-and-white terms, but this type
of thinking can oversimplify complex matters. Here are two simple examples:
Wife to husband: “Now that we’ve agreed to get a dog, should it be a poodle or
a Chihuahua?” (Perhaps the husband would rather get a Great Dane.)
Online survey: “Are you a Republican or a Democrat?” (This ignores many
other options like Libertarian, Green, Independent, and so on. If you are in
one of those other parties, how should you answer?)
Such examples actually appear to be manipulative, which is why this can be such a problematic fallacy. Take a look at the following examples:
Partygoer: “What is it going to be? Are you going to go drink with us, or are
you going to be a loser?” (This seems to imply that there are no other options,
like not drinking and still being cool.)
Activist: “You can either come to our protest or you can continue to support
the abuse we are protesting.” (This assumes that if you are not protesting,
you do not support the cause and in fact support the other side. Perhaps you
believe there are better ways to change the system.)
Though the fallacy is called a dilemma, implying two options, the same thing can happen
with more than two options—for example, if someone implies that there are only five options
when there are in fact other options as well.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 248
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
False Cause
The assumption that because two things are related, one of them is the cause of the other
is called the fallacy of false cause. It is traditionally called post hoc ergo propter hoc (often
simply post hoc), which is Latin for “it came after it therefore it was caused by it.” Clearly, not
everything that happens after something else was caused by it. Take this example:
John is playing the basketball shooting game of H-O-R-S-E and tries a very
difficult shot. Right before the shot someone coughs, and the ball goes in. The
next time John is going to shoot, he asks that person to cough. (John seems to
be assuming that the cough played some causal role in the ball going in. That
seems unlikely.)
Here is a slightly more subtle example:
John is taller than Sally, and John won the election, so it must have been
because he was taller. (In this case, he was taller first and then won the election, so the speaker assumes that is the reason. It is conceivable that his height
was a factor, but that does not follow merely because he won; we would need
more evidence to infer that was the reason.)
Large-scale correlations might be more complex, but they can commit the same fallacy. Suppose that two things, A and B, correlate highly with each other, as in this example:
The number of police cars in a city correlates highly with the amount of crime
in a city. Therefore, police cars cause crime.
It does not necessarily follow that A, the number of police cars, causes B, crime. Another
possibility is that B causes A; the amount of crime causes the higher number of police cars.
Another option is that a third thing is causing both A and B; in this case the city’s population might be causing both. It is also possible that in some cases the correlation has no
causal basis.
Practice Problems 7.1
Identify the fallacy in each statement or exchange.
1.
2.
Politician: “We either decide to keep the handgun laws in the city limits and maintain peace, or we revoke the laws and let the city become a modern day Wild West.”
a. begging the question
b. circular reasoning
c. hasty generalization
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
PTA Parent: “Should school kids say the Pledge of Allegiance before class? Certainly,
why shouldn’t they?”
a. appeal to ignorance
b. appeal to inadequate authority
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 249
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Practice Problems 7.1 (continued)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
c.
d.
e.
false dilemma
shifting the burden of proof
no fallacy
“Both times I went to the movies at Northpark Mall the people watching the movies
were extremely disruptive. That movie theater is horrible.”
a. false cause
b. hasty generalization
c. begging the question
d. circular reasoning
e. no fallacy
“After I had been in a coma for 10 days following my accident, the swelling in my
brain went down right after the priest put holy water on my forehead. The water
healed me.”
a. begging the question
b. hasty generalization
c. cherry picking
d. false cause
e. no fallacy
Tom: “Early humans had a simple form of music played on instruments made from
animal bones and skins.”
Boris: “How do you know that?”
Tom: “Well, no one has proved that they didn’t.”
a. biased sample
b. appeal to inadequate authority
c. appeal to ignorance
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“My father always only bought Ford cars. He said they were the best cars ever. So I
only buy Fords.”
a. circular reasoning
b. biased sample
c. false cause
d. appeal to inadequate authority
e. no fallacy
“Ice cream is bad because it’s unhealthy.”
a. hasty generalization
b. false cause
c. begging the question
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“Michael Jordan wears Hanes, so they must be the best.”
a. biased sample
b. begging the question
c. appeal to inadequate authority
d. shifting the burden of proof
e. no fallacy
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 250
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
Practice Problems 7.1 (continued)
9.
10.
Father: “Republicans only care about making more money and paying lower taxes.
That is what they really care about.”
Son: “Why is that?”
Father: “Because they want to keep more of their money and not have to support
others through payment.”
a. circular reasoning
b. appeal to pity
c. false cause
d. appeal to ridicule
e. no fallacy
Student: “A recent study found that people who have braces and other work to
straighten their teeth are more confident and better looking, according to members
of the American Association of Dental Health.”
a. ad hominem
b. biased sample
c. burden of proof
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
7.2 Fallacies of Relevance
We have seen examples in which the premises are unfounded or do not provide adequate support for the conclusion. In extreme cases the premises are barely even relevant to the truth
of the conclusion, yet somehow people draw those inferences anyway. This section will take
a look at some examples of common inferences based on premises that are barely relevant to
the truth of the conclusion.
Red Herring and Non Sequitur
A red herring fallacy is a deliberate attempt to distract the listener from the question at hand.
It has been suggested that the phrase’s origins stem from the practice of testing hunting dogs’
skills by dragging a rotting fish across their path, thus attempting to divert the dogs from the
track of the animal they are supposed to find. The best dogs could remain on the correct path
despite the temptation to follow the stronger scent of the dead fish (deLaplante, 2009). When
it comes to reasoning, someone who uses a red herring is attempting to steer the listener
away from the path that leads to the truth of the conclusion.
Here are two examples:
Political campaigner: “This candidate is far better than the others. The flag tie
he is wearing represents the greatest country on Earth. Let me tell you about
the great country he represents. . . .” (The campaigner seems to be trying to
get the voter to associate love for America with that particular candidate, but
presumably all of the candidates love their country. In this case patriotism is
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 251
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
the red herring; the real issue we should be addressing is which candidate’s
policies would be better for the country.)
Debater in an argument about animal rights: “How can you say that animals
have rights? There are humans suffering all around the world. For example, there are human beings starving in Africa; don’t you care about them?”
(There may indeed be terrible issues with human suffering, but the existence
of human suffering does not address the question of whether animals have
rights as well. This line of thinking appears to distract from the question
at hand).
An extreme case in which someone argues in an irrelevant manner is called a non sequitur,
meaning that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Football player: “I didn’t come to practice because I was worried about the
game this week; that other team is too good!” (Logically, the talent of the other
team would seem to give the player all the more reason to go to practice.)
One student to another: “I wouldn’t take that class. I took it and had a terrible
time. Don’t you remember: That semester, my dog died, and I had a car accident. It was terrible.” (These events are irrelevant to the quality of the class, so
this inference is unwarranted.)
Whereas a red herring seems to take the conversation to a new topic in an effort to distract
people from the real question, a non sequitur may stay on topic but simply make a terrible
inference—one in which the conclusion is entirely unjustified by the premises given.
Appeal to Emotion
The appeal to emotion is a fallacy in which someone argues for a point based on emotion
rather than on reason. As noted in Chapter 1, people make decisions based on emotion all the
time, yet emotion is unreliable as a guide. Many philosophers throughout history thought that
emotion was a major distraction from living a life guided by reason. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, for example, compared emotion and other desires to a beast that tries to lead
mankind in several different directions at once (Plato, 360 BCE). The solution to this problem,
Plato reasons, is to allow reason, not emotion, to be in charge of our thinking and decision
making. Consider the following examples of overreliance on emotion:
Impulsive husband: “Honey, let’s buy this luxury car. Think of how awesome
it would be to drive it around. Plus, it would really impress my ex-coworkers.”
(This might feel like the fun choice at the time, but what about when they cannot afford it in a few years?)
Columnist: “Capital punishment should be legal. If someone broke into your
house and killed your family, wouldn’t you want him dead?” (You perhaps
would want him dead, but that alone does not settle the issue. There are many
other issues worth considering, including the issue of innocent people accidentally getting on death row, racism in the system, and so on.)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 252
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
This is not to say that emotion is never relevant to a decision. The fun of driving a car is one
factor (among many) in one’s choice of a car, and the emotions of the victim’s family are one
consideration (out of many) in whether capital punishment should be allowed. However, we
must not allow that emotion to override rational consideration of the best evidence for and
against a decision.
One specific type of appeal to emotion tries to get someone to change his or her position only
because of the sad state of an individual affected. This is known as the appeal to pity.
Student: “Professor, you need to change my grade; otherwise, I will lose my
scholarship.” (The professor might feel bad, but to base grades on that would
be unjust to other students.)
Salesman: “You should buy this car from me because if I don’t get this commission, I will lose my job!” (Whether or not this car is a good purchase is not
settled by which salesperson needs the commission most. This salesman
appears to play on the buyer’s sense of guilt.)
As with other types of appeal to emotion, there
are cases in which a decision based on pity is
not fallacious. For example, a speaker may
speak truthfully about terrible conditions of
children in the aftermath of a natural disaster
or about the plight of homeless animals. This
may cause listeners to pity the children or animals, but if this is pity for those who are actually suffering, then it may provide a legitimate
motive to help. The fallacious use of the appeal
to pity occurs when the pity is not (or should
not be) relevant to the decision at hand or is
used manipulatively.
Another specific type of appeal to emotion
is the appeal to fear. The appeal to fear is a
fallacy that tries to get someone to agree to
something out of fear when it is contrary to a
rational assessment of the evidence.
Dave Carpenter/Cartoonstock
With an appeal to pity, it is important to
recognize when the appeal is fallacious
versus genuine. Telling possible consumers
you will cry if they do not purchase your
product is most likely a fallacious appeal
to pity.
Mom: “You shouldn’t swim in the
ocean; there could be sharks.” (The
odds of being bitten by a shark are
much smaller than the odds of being
struck by lightning [International Wildlife Museum, n.d.]. However, the fear of
sharks tends to produce a strong aversion.)
Dad: “Don’t go to that country; there is a lot of crime there.” (Here you should
ask: How high is the crime rate? Where am I going within that country? Is it
much more dangerous than my own country? How important is it to go there?
Can I act so that I am safe there?)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 253
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
Political ad: “If we elect that candidate, then the economy will collapse.” (Generally, all candidates claim that their policies will be better for the economy.
This statement seems to use fear in order to change votes.)
This is not to say that fear cannot be rational. If, in fact, many dangerous sharks have been
seen recently in a given area, then it might be wise to go somewhere else. However, a fallacy
is committed if the fears are exaggerated—as they often are—or if one allows the emotion of
fear to make the decision rather than a careful assessment of the evidence.
The appeal to fear has been used throughout history. Many wars, for example, have been promoted by playing on people’s fears of an outside group or of the imagined consequences of
nonaction.
Politician: “We have to go to war with that country; otherwise its influence
will destroy our civilization.” (There may or may not be good rational arguments for the war, but getting citizens to support it out of exaggerated fears is
to commit the appeal to fear fallacy.)
Sometimes, a person using the appeal to fear personally threatens the listener if she or he
does not agree. This fallacy is known as the appeal to force. The threat can be direct:
Boss: “If you don’t agree with me, then you are fired.”
Or the threat can be implied:
Mob boss: “I’d sure like to see you come around to our way of seeing things. It
was a real shame what happened to the last guy who disagreed with us.”
Either way, the listener is being coerced into believing something rather than rationally persuaded that it is true. A statement of consequences, however, may not constitute an appeal to
force fallacy, as in the following example:
Boss: “If you don’t finish that report by Friday, then you will be fired.” (This
example may be harsh, but it might not be fallacious because the boss is not
asking you to accept something as true just to avoid consequences, even if it
is contrary to evidence. This boss just gives you the information that you need
to get this thing done in time in order to keep your job.)
It may be less clear if the consequences are imposed by a large or nebulous group:
Campaign manager: “If you don’t come around to the party line on this issue,
then you will not make it through the primary.” (This gives the candidate a
strong incentive to accept his or her party’s position on the issue; however,
is the manager threatening force or just stating the facts? It could that the
implied force comes from the voters themselves.)
It is sometimes hard to maintain integrity in life when there are so many forces giving us all
kinds of incentives to conform to popular or lucrative positions. Understanding this fallacy
can be an important step in recognizing when those influences are being applied.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 254
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.2
Fallacies of Relevance
When it comes to appeals to emotions in general, it is good to be aware of our emotions, but
we should not allow them to be in charge of our decision making. We should carefully and
rationally consider the evidence in order to make the best decisions. We should also not let
those competing forces distract us from trusting only the best and most rational assessment
of the evidence.
Appeal to Popular Opinion
The appeal to popular opinion fallacy, also known as the appeal to popularity fallacy, bandwagon fallacy, or mob appeal fallacy, occurs when one accepts a point of view because that is
what most people think. The reasoning pattern looks like this:
“Almost everyone thinks that X is true. Therefore, X must be true.”
The error in this reasoning seems obvious: Just because many people believe something does
not make it true. After all, many people used to believe that the sun moved around the earth,
that women should not vote, and that slavery was morally acceptable. While these are all
examples of past erroneous beliefs, the appeal to popular opinion fallacy remains more common than we often realize. People tend to default to the dominant views of their respective
cultures, and it takes guts to voice a different opinion from what is normally accepted. Because
people with uncommon views
are often scorned and because
people strongly want to fit in to
their culture, our beliefs tend not
to be as autonomous as one might
imagine.
Concept by Christopher Foster | Illustration by Steve Zmina
The appeal to popular opinion fallacy can be harmless,
like when you see a movie because all your friends
said it was great, but other times it can have negative
consequences, such as bullying or discriminating against
others.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant
discussed the great struggle to
learn to think for ourselves. He
defined enlightenment as the ability to use one’s own understanding without oversight from others
(Kant, 1784). However, extricating ourselves from bandwagon
thinking is harder than one might
think. Consider these examples of
popular opinions that might seem
appealing:
Patriot: “America is the best country in the world; everyone here knows it.”
(To evaluate this claim objectively, we would need a definition of best and relevant data about all of the countries in the world.)
Animal eater: “It would be wrong to kill a dog to eat it, but killing a pig for food
is fine. Why? Because that’s what everyone does.” (Can one logically justify
this distinction? It seems simply to be based on a majority opinion in one’s
culture.)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 255
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
Business manager: “This business practice is the right way to do it; it is what
everyone is doing.” (This type of thinking can stifle innovation or even justify
violations of ethics.)
General formula: “Doing thing of type X is perfectly fine; it is common and
legal.” (You could fill in all kinds of things for X that people ethically seem to
take for granted without thinking about it. Have you ever questioned the ethics of what is “normal”?)
It is also interesting to note that the “truths” of one culture are often different from the “truths”
of another. This may not be because truth is relative but because people in each culture are
committing the bandwagon fallacy rather than thinking independently. Do you think that we
hold many false beliefs today just because a majority of people also believe them? It is possible that much of the so-called common sense of today could someday come to be seen as
once popular myths.
It is often wise to listen to the wisdom of others, including majority opinions. However, just
because the majority of people think and act a certain way does not mean that it is right or
that it is the only way to do things; we should learn to think independently and rationally
when deciding what things are right and true and best.
Appeal to Tradition
Closely related to the appeal to popular opinion is the appeal to tradition, which involves
believing in something or doing something simply because that is what people have always
believed and done. One can see that this reasoning is fallacious because people have believed
and done false and terrible things for millennia. It is not always easy, however, to undo these
thought patterns. For example, people tried to justify slavery for centuries based partly on the
reasoning that it had always been done and was therefore “right” and “natural.” Some traditions may not be quite as harmful. Religious traditions, for example, are often considered to
be valuable to people’s identity and collective sense of meaning. In seeking to avoid the fallacy, therefore, it is not always easy to distinguish which things from history are worth keeping. Here is an example:
“This country got where it is today because generations of stay-at-home mothers taught their children the importance of love, hard work, and respect for
their elders. Women should stay at home with their kids.” (Is this a tradition
that is worth keeping or is it a form of social discrimination?)
The fallacy would be to assume that something is acceptable simply because it is a tradition.
We should be open to rational evaluation of whether a tradition is acceptable or whether it is
time to change. For example, in response to proposals of social change, some will argue:
“If people start changing aspect X of society, then our nation will be ruined.”
(People have used such reasoning against virtually every form of positive
social change.)
You may be realizing that sometimes whether a piece of reasoning is fallacious can be a controversial question. Sometimes traditions are good; however, we should not assume that
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 256
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
something is right just because it is a tradition. There would need to be more evidence that
the change would be bad than evidence that it would be good. As with appeals to popularity,
it is important to reason carefully and independently about what is best, despite the biases of
our culture.
Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well
Ad hominem is Latin for “to the person.” One commits the ad hominem fallacy when one
rejects or dismisses a person’s reasoning because of who is saying it. Here are some examples:
“Who cares what Natalie Portman says about science? She’s just an actress.”
(Despite being an actress, Natalie Portman has relevant background.)
“Global warming is not real; climate change activists drive cars and live in
houses with big carbon footprints.” (Whether the advocates are good personal
exemplars is independent of whether the problem is real or whether their
arguments are sound.)
“I refuse to listen to the arguments about the merits of home birth from a
man.” (A man may not personally know the ordeal of childbirth, but that does
not mean that a man cannot effectively reason about the issue.)
It is not always a fallacy to point out who is making a claim. A person’s credentials are often
relevant to that person’s credibility as an authority, as we discussed earlier with the appeal
to authority. However, a person’s personal traits do not refute that person’s reasoning. The
difference, then, is whether one rejects or ignores that person’s views or reasoning due to
those traits. To simply assume that someone’s opinion has no merit based on who said it is to
commit the fallacy; to question whether or not we should trust someone as an authority may
not be.
This next example commits the ad hominem fallacy:
“I wouldn’t listen to his views about crime in America; he is an ex-convict.”
(This statement is fallacious because it ignores the person’s reasoning.
Ex-convicts sometimes know a lot about problems that lead to crime.)
This example, however, may not commit the fallacy:
“I wouldn’t trust his claims about lung cancer; he works for the tobacco industry.” (This simply calls into question the credibility of the person due to a
source of bias.)
One specific type of ad hominem reasons that someone’s claim is not to be listened to if he or
she does not live up to the truth of that claim. It is called the tu quoque (Latin for “you too”).
Here is an example:
“Don’t listen to his claims that smoking is bad; he smokes!” (Even if the person
is a hypocrite, that does not mean his claims are false.)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 257
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.2
Fallacies of Relevance
Another type of fallacy commits the ad hominem in advance. It is called poisoning the well:
when someone attempts to discredit a person’s credibility ahead of time, so that all those who
are listening will automatically reject whatever the person says.
“The next speaker is going to tell you all kinds of things about giving money
to his charity, but keep in mind that he is just out to line his pockets with your
money.” (This may unfairly color everyone’s perceptions of what the speaker
says.)
To ignore arguments because of their source is often lazy reasoning. A logical thinker neither
rejects nor blindly accepts whatever someone says, but carefully evaluates the quality of the
reasoning used on both sides. We should evaluate the truth or falsity of people’s claims on the
merits of the claims themselves and based on the quality of the reasoning for them.
Practice Problems 7.2
Identify the fallacy in each statement or exchange.
1.
2.
3.
Jeff: “I think that it is sacrilegious to tell children that a bunny drops off eggs on
Easter morning. This totally detracts from the true meaning of Easter.”
Steve: “C’mon man! Everybody puts out eggs for their kids on Easter.”
a. false cause
b. begging the question
c. red herring
d. appeal to popular opinion
e. no fallacy
Radio announcer: “I’ll tell you what: I am appalled that this new bill about the economy is even being looked at by Congress! The bureaucrats in Washington want us
all to just sit around and forget about the fact that every day we are getting closer to
losing this great nation. I think you’ll agree with me that we don’t want our nation to
collapse because a bunch of sissies are worried about people who don’t care about
our country anyway!”
a. red herring
b. appeal to tradition
c. begging the question
d. false cause
e. no fallacy
Spouse: “I know that you get angry a lot. I’m sure that soon you will hit me or something. And what are we going to do when we have kids? You will probably beat them
until they run out of the house, and I will be left childless and abused!
a. slippery slope
b. begging the question
c. red herring
d. appeal to emotion
e. no fallacy
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 258
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.2
Fallacies of Relevance
Practice Problems 7.2 (continued)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sloan: “Dude, you play way too many video games.”
John: “Whatever, bro! When Eternal Death Slayer III came out, you were waiting in
line outside the store for 4 hours to be the first to get it.”
a. ad hominem
b. appeal to popularity
c. false dilemma
d. false cause
e. no fallacy
TV preacher: “Just a $50 gift per month is all it takes to live a life of economic health
and prosperity. God will reward your generous donation with 10 times more blessings in your own life if you donate to our ministry. Call now to start enjoying more
happiness every day.”
a. appeal to emotion
b. false dilemma
c. appeal to force
d. red herring
e. no fallacy
TV preacher: “You know, in the Old Testament, God told people to give 10% of whatever they had as an offering to him. In fact, in one story, God kills 100,000 Israelites
because they fail to honor his demands. This teaching remains true to this day. Now
let’s pass around the offering plates.”
a. ad hominem
b. hasty generalization
c. appeal to ignorance
d. appeal to fear
e. no fallacy
“July is the month during which more ice cream is sold than any other time of the
year. July is also the month with the highest crime rate. Therefore, to curb crime, we
should ban sales of ice cream during July.”
a. slippery slope
b. ad hominem
c. false cause
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“Did you see the men land on the moon? Then how can you be so sure that it
happened?”
a. appeal to ignorance
b. hasty generalization
c. appeal to inadequate authority
d. appeal to force
e. no fallacy
“Which are you going to do—help your mother or be a lazy bum?”
a. false dilemma
b. begging the question
c. red herring
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 259
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Relevance
Section 7.2
Practice Problems 7.2 (continued)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
d.
e.
shifting the burden of proof
no fallacy
“The last two summers saw record heat; therefore, global warming will soon kill us
all.”
a. hasty generalization
b. appeal to fear
c. false dilemma
d. false cause
e. no fallacy
“Why do I think that abortion should be illegal? That doesn’t matter. What matters is,
why do you think it should be legal?”
a. shifting the burden of proof
b. hasty generalization
c. appeal to popular opinion
d. appeal to force
e. no fallacy
“If Brad Pitt’s children go to that elementary school, it must be the best school in Los
Angeles.”
a. appeal to fear
b. begging the question
c. appeal to inadequate authority
d. appeal to tradition
e. no fallacy
Father to son: “Now that we have finished the Thanksgiving meal, it’s time to go
watch football.”
Son: “Why should we watch football?”
Father: “Because my father and my grandfather before him used to watch football.”
a. appeal to fear
b. false cause
c. accident
d. appeal to tradition
e. no fallacy
“I wouldn’t listen to Bob. After all, he’s just a mechanic.”
a. slippery slope
b. ad hominem
c. false cause
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 260
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.3
Fallacies of Clarity
7.3 Fallacies of Clarity
Another category of fallacies consists of arguments that depend on an unclear use of words;
they are called fallacies of clarity. Problems with clarity often result from words in our language that are vague (imprecise in meaning, with so-called gray areas) or ambiguous (having
more than one meaning). Fallacies of clarity can also result from misunderstanding or misrepresenting others’ arguments.
The Slippery Slope
The slippery slope fallacy occurs when
someone reasons, without adequate justification, that doing one thing will inevitably lead
to a whole chain of other things, ultimately
resulting in intolerable consequences; therefore, the person reasons, we should not do
that first thing.
It is perfectly appropriate to object to a policy
that will truly have bad consequences. A slippery slope fallacy, however, merely assumes
that a chain of events will follow, leading to
a terrible outcome, when such a chain is far
from inevitable. Such assumptions cause people to reject the policy out of fear rather than
out of actual rational justification.
Thomas Bros./Cartoonstock
Is having to do chores an intolerable
consequence that stems from learning to
walk, or is this a slippery slope fallacy?
Here is an example:
Student: “Why can’t I keep my hamster in my dorm room?”
Administrator: “Because if we let you keep your hamster, then other students
will want to bring their snakes, and others will bring their dogs, and others
will bring their horses, and it will become a zoo around here!” (There may be
good reasons not to allow hamsters in dorm rooms—allergies, droppings, and
so on—but the idea that it will inevitably lead to allowing all kinds of other
large, uncaged animals seems to be unjustified.)
As with many fallacies, however, there are times when similar reasoning may actually be good
reasoning. For example, an alcoholic may reason as follows:
“I can’t have a beer because if I do, then it will lead to more beers, which will
lead to whiskey, which will lead to me getting in all kinds of trouble.”
For an alcoholic, this may be perfectly good reasoning. Based on past experience, one may
know that one action leads inevitably to another. One way to test if an argument commits a
slippery slope fallacy, as opposed to merely raising legitimate questions about the difficulty of
drawing a line, is to ask whether it would be possible to draw a line that would stop the slippery slope from continuing. What do you think about the following examples?
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 261
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
“We can’t legalize marijuana because if we do, then we will have to legalize
cocaine and then heroine and then crack, and everyone will be a druggie
before you know it!”
“If you try to ban pornography, then you will have to make the distinction
between pornography and art, and that will open the door to all kinds of
censorship.”
Some examples may present genuine questions as to where to draw a line; others may represent slippery slope fallacies. The question is whether those consequences are likely to follow
from the initial change.
As some examples show, the difficulty of drawing precise lines is sometimes relevant to
important political questions. For example, in the abortion debate, there is a very important
question about at what point a developing embryo becomes a human being with rights. Some
say that it should be at conception; some say at birth. The Supreme Court, in its famous Roe v.
Wade decision (1973), chose the point of viability—the point at which a fetus could survive
outside the womb; the decision remains controversial today.
True, it is difficult to decide exactly where the line should be drawn, but the failure to draw
one at all can lead to slippery slope problems. To reason that we should not make any distinctions because it is hard to draw the line is like reasoning that there should be no speed limit
because it is difficult to decide exactly when fast driving becomes unsafe. The trick is to find
good reasons why a line should be drawn in one place rather than another.
Another example is in the same-sex marriage debate. Some feel that if same-sex marriage
were to be universally legalized, then all kinds of other types of objectionable marriage will
become legal as well. Therefore, they argue, we must not legalize it. This would appear to
commit the slippery slope fallacy, because there are ways that gay marriage laws could be
written without leading to other objectionable types of marriages becoming legal.
Moral of the Story: The Slippery Slope
It can be difficult to draw sharp boundaries and create clear definitions, but we must not allow
this difficulty to prevent us from making the best and most useful distinctions we can. Policy
decisions, for example, should be judged with careful reasoning, making the best distinctions
we can, not by the mere application of slippery slope reasoning.
Equivocations
Equivocation is a fallacy based on ambiguity. An ambiguous term is a word that means two
different things. For example, fast can mean “going without food,” or it can mean “rapid.” Some
ambiguities are used for humor, like in the joke, “How many therapists does it take to change
a lightbulb? Just one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change!” This, of course, is a pun
on two meanings of change. However, when ambiguity is used in reasoning, it often creates
an equivocation, in which an ambiguous word is used with one meaning at one point in an
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 262
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
argument and another meaning in another place in the argument in a misleading way. Take
the following argument:
Mark plays tennis.
Mark is poor.
Therefore, Mark is a poor tennis player.
If the conclusion meant that Mark is poor and a tennis player then this would be a logically
valid argument. However, the conclusion actually seems to mean that he is bad at playing tennis, which does not follow from the fact that he is poor. This argument seems to switch the
meaning of the word poor in between the premises and the conclusion. As another example,
consider the following exchange:
Person A: “I broke my leg; I need a doctor!”
Person B: “I am a doctor.”
Person A: “Can you help me with my leg?”
Person B: “I have a PhD in sociology; what do I know about medicine?”
Can you identify the equivocation? Person B seemed to reason as follows:
I have a PhD in sociology.
Therefore, I am a doctor.
Although this reasoning is right in some sense, it does not follow that person B is the type of
doctor that person A needs. The word doctor is being used ambiguously.
Here is another example:
Officer: Have you been drinking at all tonight?
Driver: Yes.
Officer: Then you are under arrest.
Driver: But I only had a soda!
Clearly, the officer came to a false conclusion because he and the driver meant different things
by drinking. See A Closer Look: Philosophical Equivocations for more examples.
It is very important when reasoning (or critiquing reasoning) that we are consistent and clear
about our meanings when we use words. A subtle switch in meanings within an argument can
be highly misleading and can mean that arguments that initially appear to be valid may actually be invalid once we correctly understand the terms involved.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 263
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.3
Fallacies of Clarity
A Closer Look: Philosophical Equivocations
In real life, equivocations are not always so obvious. The philosopher John Stuart Mill, for
example, attempted to demonstrate his moral theory, known as utilitarianism, by arguing
that, if the only thing that people desire is pleasure, then pleasure is the only thing that is
desirable (Mill, 1879). Many philosophers think that Mill is equivocating between two different meanings of desirable. One interpretation means “able to be desired,” which he uses in the
premise. The other interpretation is “thing that is good or should be desired,” which he uses in
the conclusion. His argument would therefore be invalid, based on a subtle shift in meaning.
Another historical example is one of the most famous philosophical arguments of all time. The
philosopher Saint Anselm long ago presented an argument for the existence of God based on
the idea that the word God means the greatest conceivable thing and that a thing must exist to
be greatest (Anselm, n.d.). His argument may be simplified as follows:
God means the greatest conceivable thing.
A thing that exists is greater than one that does not.
We can conceive of God existing.
Therefore, God must exist.
Though this is still an influential argument for the existence of God, some think it commits a
subtle equivocation in its application of the word great. The question is whether it is talking
about the greatness of the concept or the greatness of the thing. The first premise seems to
take it be about the greatness of the concept. The second premise, however, seems to depend
on talking about the thing itself (actual existence does not change the greatness of the concept). If this analysis is right, then the word greatest has different meanings in the first two
premises, and the argument may commit an equivocation. In that case the argument that
appears to be valid may in fact be subtly invalid.
The Straw Man
Have you ever heard your views misrepresented? Most of us have. Whether it is our religion,
our political views, or our recreational preferences, we have probably heard someone make
our opinions sound worse than they are. If so, then you know that can be a very frustrating
experience.
Concept by Christopher Foster | Illustration by Steve Zmina
Misrepresenting the views of the other side through
a straw man fallacy can be frustrating and will fail to
advance the issue.
The straw man fallacy is an attack on a
person’s position based on a (deliberate or otherwise) misrepresentation of
his or her actual views. The straw man
fallacy is so named because it is like
beating up a scarecrow (a straw man)
rather than defeating a real person (or
the real argument). The straw man fallacy can be pernicious; it is hard for
any debate to progress if the differing
sides are not even fairly represented.
We can hope to refute or improve on
a view only once we have understood
and represented it correctly.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 264
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
If you have listened to people arguing about politics, there is a good chance that you have
heard statements like the following:
Democrat: “Republicans don’t care about poor people.”
Republican: “Democrats want the government to control everything.”
These characterizations do not accurately represent the aims of either side. One way to tell
whether this is a fair representation is to determine whether someone with that view would
agree with the characterization of their view. People may sometimes think that if they make
the other side sound dumb, their own views will sound smart and convincing by comparison. However, this approach is likely to backfire. If our audience is wise enough to know that
the other party’s position is more sophisticated than was expressed, then it actually sounds
unfair, or even dishonest, to misrepresent their views.
It is much harder to refute a statement that reflects the complexity of someone’s actual views.
Can you imagine if politically partisan people spoke in a fairer manner?
Democrat: “Republicans believe that an unrestrained free market incentivizes
innovation and efficiency, thereby improving the economy.”
Republican: “Democrats believe that in a country with as much wealth as ours,
it would be immoral to allow the poorest among us to go without life’s basic
needs, including food, shelter, and health care.”
That would be a much more honest world; it would also be more intellectually responsible,
but it would not be as easy to make other people sound dumb. Here are more—possibly
familiar—examples of straw man fallacies, used by those on opposing sides of a given issue:
Environmentalist: “Corporations and politicians want to destroy the earth.
Therefore, we should pass this law to stop them.” (Perhaps the corporations
and politicians believe that corporate practices are not as destructive as some
imply or that the progress of industry is necessary for the country’s growth.)
Developer: “Environmentalists don’t believe in growth and want to destroy
the economy. Therefore, you should not oppose this power plant.” (Perhaps
environmentalists believe that the economy can thrive while shifting to more
eco-friendly sources.)
Young Earth creationist: “Evolutionists think that monkeys turned into people! Monkeys don’t turn into people, so their theory should be rejected.”
(Proponents of evolution would state that there was a common ancestor millions of years ago. Genetic changes occurred very gradually between thousands and thousands of generations, leading to eventual species differences.)
Atheist: “Christians don’t believe in science. They think that Adam and Eve
rode around on dinosaurs! Therefore, you should not take their views seriously.” (Many Christians find their religion to be compatible with science or
have nonliteral interpretations of biblical creation.)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 265
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
Closely related to the straw man fallacy is the appeal to ridicule, in which one simply seeks
to make fun of another person’s view rather than actually refute it. Here is an example:
“Vegans are idiots who live only on salad. Hooray for bacon!” (Actually, vegans
are frequently intelligent people who object to the confinement of animals for
food.)
“People with those political opinions are Nazis!” (Comparisons to Nazis in
politics are generally clichéd, exaggerated, and disrespectful to the actual victims of the Holocaust. See Chapter 8 for a discussion of the fallacy reductio ad
Hitlerum.)
In an academic or any other context, it is essential that we learn not to commit the straw man
fallacy. If you are arguing against a point of view, it is necessary first to demonstrate that you
have accurately understood it. Only then have you demonstrated that you are qualified to
discuss its truthfulness. Furthermore, the attempt to ridicule other’s views is rationally counterproductive; it does not advance the discussion and seeks only to mock other people. (See
Everyday Logic: Love and Logic for how you can avoid the straw man fallacy and the appeal to
ridicule.)
When we seek to defend our own views, the intellectually responsible thing to do is to understand opposing viewpoints as fully as possible and to represent them fairly before we give the
reasons for our own disagreement. The same applies in philosophy and other academic topics. If someone want to pontificate about a topic without having understood what has already
been done in that field, then that person simply sounds naive. To be intellectually responsible,
we have to make sure to correctly understand what has been done in the field before we begin
to formulate our own contribution to the field.
Everyday Logic: Love and Logic
When it comes to real-life disagreements, people can become very upset—even aggressive.
This is an understandable reaction, particularly if the disagreement concerns positions we
think are wrong or perspectives that challenge our worldview. However, this kind of emotional reaction can lead to judgments about what the other side may believe—judgments that
are not based on a full and sophisticated understanding of what is actually believed and why.
This pattern can be the genesis of much of the hostility we see surrounding controversial topics. It can also lead to common fallacies such as the straw man and appeal to ridicule, which
are two of the most pernicious and hurtful fallacies of them all.
Logic can help provide a remedy to these types of problems. Logic in its fullest sense is not just
about creating arguments to prove our positions right—and certainly not just about proving
others wrong. It is about learning to discover truth while avoiding error, which is a goal all
participants can share. Therefore, there need not be any losers in this quest.
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 266
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
Everyday Logic: Love and Logic (continued)
If we stop short of a full appreciation of others’ perspectives, then we are blocked from a
full understanding of the topic at hand. One of the most important marks of a sophisticated
thinker is the appreciation of the best reasoning on all sides of each issue.
We must therefore resist the common temptation to think of people with opposing positions
as “stupid” or “evil.” Those kinds of judgments are generally unfair and unkind. Instead we
should seek to expand our own points of view and remove any animosity. Here are some
places to begin:
• We can read what smart people have written to represent their own views about the
topic, including reading top scholarly articles explaining different points of view.
• We can really listen with intelligence, openness, and empathy to people who feel certain
ways about the topic without seeking to refute or minimize them.
• We can seek to put ourselves “in their shoes” with sensitivity and compassion.
• We can speak in ways that reflect civility and mutual understanding.
It will take time and openness, but eventually it is possible to appreciate more fully a much
wider variety of perspectives on life’s questions.
Furthermore, once we learn to fairly represent opposing points of view, we may not find those
views to be as crazy as we once thought. Even the groups that we initially think of as the
strangest actually have good reasons for their beliefs. We may or may not come to agree, but
only in learning to appreciate why these groups have such beliefs can we truly say that we
understand their views. The process and effort to do so can make us more civil, more mature,
more sophisticated, more intelligent, and more kind.
Fallacy of Accident
The fallacy of accident consists of applying a general rule to cases in which it is not properly applied. Often, a general rule is true in most cases, but people who commit this fallacy
talk as though it were always true and apply it to cases that could easily be considered to be
exceptions.
Some may find the name of this fallacy confusing. It is called the fallacy of accident because
someone committing this fallacy confuses the “essential” meaning of a statement with its
nonessential, or “accidental,” meaning. It is sometimes alternately called dicto simpliciter,
meaning “unqualified generalization” (Fallacy Files, n.d.). Here are some examples:
“Of course ostriches must be able to fly. They are birds, and birds fly.” (There
clearly are exceptions to that general rule, and ostriches are among them.)
“If you skip class, then you should get detention. Therefore, because you
skipped class in order to save someone from a burning building, you should
get detention.” (This may be an extreme case, but it shows how a misapplication of a general rule can go astray.)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 267
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
“Jean Valjean should go to prison because he broke the law.” (This example,
from the novel Les Miserables, involves a man serving many years in prison for
stealing bread to feed his starving family. In this case the law against stealing
perhaps should not be applied as harshly when there are such extenuating
circumstances.)
The last example raises the issue of sentencing. One area in which the fallacy of accident can
occur in real life is with extreme sentencing for some crimes. In such cases, though an action
may meet the technical definition of a type of crime under the law, it may be far from the type
of case that legislators had in mind when the sentencing guidelines were created. This is one
reason that some argue for the elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Another example in which the fallacy of accident can occur is in the debate surrounding
euthanasia, the practice of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve her or him of longterm suffering from a terminal illness. Here is an argument against it:
It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Committing euthanasia is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
Therefore, euthanasia is wrong.
The moral premise here is generally true; however, when we think of the rule “It is wrong to
intentionally kill an innocent human being,” what one may have in mind is a person willfully
killing a person without justification. In the case of euthanasia, we have a person willingly
terminating his or her own life with a strong type of justification. Whatever one’s feelings
about euthanasia, the issue is not settled by simply applying the general rule that it is wrong
to kill a human being. To use that rule seems to oversimplify the issue in a way that misses the
subtleties of this specific case. An argument that properly addresses the issue will appeal to a
moral principle that makes sense when applied to the specific issues that pertain to the case
of euthanasia itself.
It is difficult to make general rules that do not have exceptions. Therefore, when specific troubling cases come up, we should not simply assume the rule is perfect but rather consider the
merits of each case in light of the overall purpose for which we have the rule.
Fallacies of Composition and Division
Two closely related fallacies come from confusing the whole with its parts. The fallacy of
composition occurs when one reasons that a whole group must have a certain property
because its parts do. Here is an example:
Because the citizens of that country are rich; it follows that the country is
rich. (This may not be the case at all; what if the government has outspent its
revenue?)
You should be able to see why this one reaches an incorrect conclusion:
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 268
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
“If I stand up at a baseball game then I will be able to see better. Therefore,
if everyone stands up at the baseball game, then everyone will be able to see
better.”
This statement seems to make the same mistake as the baseball example:
If the government would just give everyone more money, then everyone would
be wealthier. (Actually, giving away money to all would probably reduce the
value of the nation’s currency.)
A similar fallacy, known as the fallacy of division, does the opposite. Namely, it makes conclusions about members of a population because of characteristics of the whole. Examples
might include the following:
That country is wealthy; therefore, its citizens must be wealthy. (This one
may not follow at all; the citizens could be much poorer than the country as a
whole.)
That team is the best; the players on the team must be the best in the league.
(Although the ability of the team has a lot to do with the skills of the players,
there are also reasons, including coaching and teamwork, why a team might
outperform the average talent of its roster.)
These types of fallacies can lead to stereotyping as well, in which people arrive at erroneous
conclusions about a group because of (often fallacious) generalizations about its members.
Conversely, people often make assumptions about individuals because of (often fallacious)
views about the whole group. We should be careful when reasoning about populations, lest
we commit such harmful fallacies.
Practice Problems 7.3
Identify the fallacy in each statement or exchange.
1.
2.
“Jim says that it is bad to invest in bonds right now. What does he know; he’s just a
janitor!”
a. appeal to force
b. ad hominem
c. appeal to popular opinion
d. equivocation
e. no fallacy
Student #1: “Animals are on the earth for humans to eat.”
Student #2: “How do you know that?”
Student #1: “Because they provide nourishment for us.”
a. biased sample
b. inadequate authority
c. equivocation
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 269
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.3
Fallacies of Clarity
Practice Problems 7.3 (continued)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
d.
e.
begging the question
no fallacy
Politician: “The best way to create equity in society is to tax the rich more and redistribute wealth to those who have less.”
Moderator: “And how do you plan on implementing these tax changes in Congress?”
Politician: “If we don’t figure out how to do this, then more and more children will
feel the pain of hunger at night.”
a. appeal to tradition
b. poisoning the well
c. red herring
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“If we legalize gay marriage, the whole world will decay morally.”
a. appeal to emotion
b. appeal to ignorance
c. slippery slope
d. false cause
e. no fallacy
“You know communism was going to fail! After all, Karl Marx was an alcoholic!”
a. slippery slope
b. ad hominem
c. false cause
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“You think that Stanford is better only because you went there.”
a. appeal to popularity
b. appeal to ignorance
c. hasty generalization
d. ad hominem
e. no fallacy
“Look at this picture of an aborted fetus. How can you support abortion?!!”
a. false cause
b. appeal to emotion
c. appeal to popular opinion
d. appeal to force
e. no fallacy
“Everyone likes Friends, so it must be a good show.”
a. non sequitur
b. ad hominem
c. appeal to popular opinion
d. appeal to inadequate authority
e. no fallacy
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 270
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Fallacies of Clarity
Section 7.3
Practice Problems 7.3 (continued)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
“I strongly oppose the opposition’s view that we shouldn’t care about our children’s
education.”
a. straw man
b. begging the question
c. red herring
d. appeal to tradition
e. no fallacy
“You have the right to make money, so making money is right.”
a. appeal to emotion
b. appeal to ignorance
c. slippery slope
d. equivocation
e. no fallacy
“Houses in the United States with storm cellars are more often hit by tornadoes, so
you shouldn’t get a storm cellar.”
a. false cause
b. equivocation
c. appeal to ignorance
d. appeal to ridicule
e. no fallacy
“I am opposed to abortion because Jim is pro-choice, and he’s an idiot!”
a. ad hominem
b. poisoning the well
c. shifting the burden of proof
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“If I give this homeless person a dollar then I’ll have to give the next guy a dollar and
so forth. . . . I’ll end up broke!”
a. ad hominem
b. slippery slope
c. shifting the burden of proof
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“You oppose her policies only because you lost the election to her.”
a. appeal to popular opinion
b. appeal to ignorance
c. hasty generalization
d. ad hominem
e. no fallacy
“I am pro-choice because I don’t think that women should have no rights in our
society.”
a. appeal to force
b. ad hominem
c. straw man
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 271
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Section 7.3
Fallacies of Clarity
Practice Problems 7.3 (continued)
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
d.
e.
appeal to ridicule
no fallacy
“We should have prescription drug care. Would you want your grandma to suffer?”
a. appeal to emotion
b. hasty generalization
c. red herring
d. appeal to popular opinion
e. no fallacy
“There is no solid scientific evidence for the existence of spirits, so they don’t exist.”
a. appeal to inadequate authority
b. appeal to force
c. biased sample
d. appeal to ignorance
e. no fallacy
“Most Americans support this policy, so it must be right.”
a. appeal to popularity
b. slippery slope
c. shifting the burden of proof
d. false dilemma
e. no fallacy
“I don’t think that we should bomb innocent people in order to steal their oil.”
a. false cause
b. hasty generalization
c. straw man
d. appeal to popular opinion
e. no fallacy
“Timothy was 10 minutes late to the meeting this morning. I can tell he’s going to be
a horrible employee.”
a. shifting the burden of proof
b. hasty generalization
c. appeal to pity
d. appeal to force
e. no fallacy
“If I cheat on a curved test, I’ll get a better grade, so if we all cheat on the test, we will
all get better grades.”
a. slippery slope
b. ad hominem
c. post hoc
d. fallacy of composition
e. no fallacy
“I promised myself I would never lie again. That is why I have to tell this drunk angry
man that the child who just escaped his basement is hiding behind the bush in my
yard.”
a. burden of proof
b. fallacy of accident
(continued)
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 272
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Summary and Resources
Practice Problems 7.3 (continued)
23.
24.
25.
c.
d.
e.
red herring
appeal to tradition
no fallacy
Doctor: “It is ethically acceptable to test newly developed medications on homeless
people who need money.”
Nurse: “But doesn’t that exploit these people based on their need?”
Doctor: “Prove to me that it is not acceptable.”
a. appeal to force
b. appeal to inadequate authority
c. straw man
d. shifting the burden of proof
e. no fallacy
“What? You believe that peace is actually possible in the Middle East? Ha! That’s the
craziest thing I have ever heard.”
a. appeal to ridicule
b. appeal to tradition
c. poisoning the well
d. appeal to popular opinion
e. no fallacy
“It’s not acceptable to harm another person. Since jail harms the freedoms of a person, we should release serial killers and rapists.”
a. begging the question
b. false cause
c. equivocation
d. fallacy of accident
e. no fallacy
Summary and Resources
Chapter Summary
There are many fallacies beyond those covered in this chapter. However, learning this sample of important and common logical fallacies will help sharpen one’s critical thinking skills
so that one is less likely to become the victim (knowingly or otherwise) of logical tricks.
However, when learning about fallacies it is also important to stay positive and to use the
knowledge for good: to promote high-quality reasoning delivered in a sincere and respectful
manner (for some ideas on how to stay positive, see Everyday Logic: Staying Positive in the
Face of Fallacies).
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 273
4/9/15 11:31 AM
Summary and Resources
It is a mark of a mature thinker to consider multiple points of view and come to conclusions
only after thorough consideration of the best evidence and best reasoning available. We
should never fall for these types of traps (often set by a lack of effort in carefully thinking
through the evidence). Learning the fallacies helps one think critically and avoid erroneous
reasoning—and can help us avoid falling for fallacies in the future.
Everyday Logic: Staying Positive in the Face of Fallacies
Learning about the fallacies should come with a warning: Once you learn to identify the fallacies, you may start to notice them everywhere. People commit them on TV, in newspapers, in
books, and in face-to-face conversations all the time. Noticing the prevalence of these fallacies
can be fascinating and eye-opening; however, it can also be dangerous. One of the risks of noticing fallacies is cynicism, in which one becomes overly skeptical of anything and everything.
Becoming discouraged about the power of reason can even lead some to misology, the hatred of
logic itself. Socrates himself warned about misology, stating that “no greater misfortune could
happen to anyone than that of developing a dislike for argument” (Plato, 1961, p. 71). Some
people hear so many fallacies that they begin to wonder if reason itself is ever to be trusted.
We need not come to that conclusion. One of the main reasons that we learn about fallacies is
to learn not to commit them and to reason sincerely, honestly, and carefully. The...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment