Fallacies
A "fallacy" is an invalid argument. An argument might be "fallacious" if it uses one of these tactics...
False Scare Tactics
A "scare tactic" is when the speaker tries to turn someone's legitimate fears into panic or prejudice. The speaker tries to scare you because they know that when people are afraid, they act irrationally. For example, when Donald Trump says that Muslims are dangerous and could detonate a bomb at any moment, he takes people's fear of terrorist attacks, and uses that to convince people that they should have hatred and prejudice against all Muslims. Fear can be used to convince someone to believe something that isn't true (logically, we should know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful!). Scare tactics can be used legitimately, but only if the speaker can back them up with truthful facts! For example, an anti-smoking campaign might use scare tactics by telling you that smoking can give you cancer...but it's a valid argument because it's true.
False Either-Or Choices
The "either-or" tactic is when the speaker takes a complicated issue, and reduces it to only two choices: one of the choices is made to sound obviously bad, and the other is made to sound obviously good. This is also called the "black or white" tactic. For example, if the speaker is trying to get you to buy concert tickets, they could say "you can buy these cheap seats in the back corner with a wall blocking half your view of the stage, or, you can buy these amazing third row seats in the center!" The problem with this tactic is that, in reality, there are more than two options available. Another example: "Your company can build its new factory in a city with crumbling roads and bridges, or you can build it here in Seoul where we have strong roads, new development, and the world's fastest internet." Remember, if there are really more that two choices, the "either-or" is a fallacy.
Slippery Slope
The "slippery slope" fallacy is when the speaker says that one tiny problem will slide into total disaster. However, the "disaster" the speaker imagines is usually exaggerated, and not realistic. For example, saying that "smoking cigarettes is a gateway that leads to taking harder drugs like cocaine" is a slippery slope argument because according to facts, smoking cigarettes doesn't increase the likelihood that someone will do hard drugs like meth or cocaine in the future. Another example: "If we allow gay people to get married, people will start asking if they can marry cats or dogs." A slippery slope argument is just an exaggerated, unfactual speculation.
Overly-Sentimental Appeals
An "overly sentimental appeal" is when the speaker tries to make you feel emotional in order to distract you from the facts of their argument. For example, let's pretend that the speaker wants to ban recess from schools because their child was badly injured during recess. They might describe in gory detail the story of how their little boy's leg was ripped open on a rusty nail that stuck out of the playground structure. They might tell you about waiting in the hospital for weeks hoping the boy would survive, receiving thousands of dollars in hospital bills. Do you see what the speaker is doing? They want you to be so distracted by the emotional side of the argument, that you ignore the logical side. In reality, the issue of whether or not we should have recess in schools is much more complex than the speaker wants you to believe.
Bandwagon Appeal
The "bandwagon" tactic is when the speaker says "everyone else is doing it, so you should too!" The speaker uses this tactic because they don't want you to think for yourself - they want you to do something for no better reason than because other people are doing it. The bandwagon trick really works because people have a natural need to fit in. For example, if someone says, "Most people go directly to university after they get out of high school, so you should too," they are using the bandwagon fallacy. Remember, just because lots of people believe or do something, doesn't make it good or right.
Appeals to False Authority
When the speaker makes an "appeal to false authority," they tell you to believe something because an authority figure says so. However, not every authority should be trusted blindly. Here are some examples... "Don't eat meat because I say so" is an appeal to false authority because you ALONE are not credible. "Don't eat meat because the Bible says so" is an appeal to false authority because a holy book is only a source of authority to a select group of people, not all people. "Don't eat meat because the traditional people of Korea were vegetarians" is an appeal to false authority because tradition isn't a valid source of authority either: just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it should be done in the future. "Don't eat meat because doctors say so" is an appeal to false authority because even if credible people tell you to do something, you shouldn't just do it! If the doctors don't show you their research that supports why you shouldn't eat meat, you shouldn't blindly trust them. Remember, don't trust an idea just because it comes from a source of authority...trust only after you verify the facts.
Dogmatism
A speaker is "dogmatic" when he/she holds onto a view or opinion no matter what, and believes it is the only view that is correct. A dogmatic speaker might say that the issue is "not up for debate" because they know they are right. They might say that they "don't need evidence" to support their viewpoints because the truth of what they are saying is self-evident. This kind of narrow-minded thinking prevents debate and argumentation from happening. Remember, in reality, every viewpoint can be debated, and if you can't support your viewpoints with evidence, you shouldn't hold them at all.
Ad Hominem Arguments
An "ad hominem" argument is when the speaker attacks someone's character rather than attacking the claims or evidence they are using. The speaker might attack someone's motives, background, or appearance. "Ad hominem" means "to the man" in Latin (meaning that you attack the man instead of the man's argument). The goal of an ad hominem attack is to make your opponent seem less credible. Sometimes it's ok to point out your opponent's weaknesses (when you are speaking the truth!) but ad hominem attacks become fallacious when they are used to distract people from the real ideas in the argument.
Stacking the Deck
Gamblers "stack the deck" when they arrange the playing cards before the game begins in a way that ensures that they will win. In the same way, a speaker can "stack the deck" by presenting information in a way that will help them win an argument. Writers 'stack the deck' by ignoring any evidence or arguments that don't support their position. For example, Michael Moore made a documentary about a man who ate nothing but Big Macs for a month in order to show the audience how unhealthy McDonald's food is. However, he never showed what would happen if the man ate Big Macs and also exercised and took vitamins everyday. He intentionally only showed the side of the story that would most convince people to agree with his argument. If people notice that the speaker is "stacking the deck" they will likely lose trust in the speaker.
Hasty Generalization
A "hasty generalization" is when the speaker makes a claim without having enough evidence. Usually, they take a single instance of something, and think it applies to all cases. For example, "once, my Honda broke down, so all Hondas are poorly constructed cars." Another example, "because a black man robbed my store, all black people must be criminals." Another: "because my boyfriend leaves trash around his apartment, all men must be slobs." A personal anecdote (story) is usually not a good piece of evidence...especially when it is your only piece of evidence and you use it to draw a conclusion. Similarly, you should never take a small sample size in a survey, and made a generalization about the results: "seven out of ten people we surveyed say that Donald Trump should be president, so that must mean 70% of Americans would vote for Donald Trump."
Faulty Causality
Faulty causality means that just because one event happened after another one, it doesn't mean that the first event caused the second one to happen. In lots of cases, the supposed connection between a cause and effect turns out to be wrong. Here is a simple example of faulty causality: "because the rooster crows every day right before the sun rises, the sound of the rooster's crowing must be the cause of the sunrise." Another example: "Students today can't memorize as much information as students in the 1800s. Because students in the 1800s did not have the internet, constant use of the internet must weaken our ability to memorize information." In reality, there are probably many factors that cause a loss of memorization ability, and it might not have anything to do with the internet. Remember, don't assume that one thing causes another just because they occur close together...you need to do thorough research in order to prove causality.
Begging The Question
"Begging the question" is also known as "circular reasoning." This is when the speaker supports their claim with another claim instead of evidence. In other words, the support for the claim is invalid because it still needs to be supported itself! Take a look at these examples: If the speaker says, "You can't give me a C on this paper because I'm an A student," it is based on the claim that an A student can never get a C grade - which is not evidence, but rather the point the speaker is trying to make to their teacher. If the speaker says, "everyone wants a Singing Elmo toy because it's the hottest toy on the market," it is based on the claim that the toy is the hottest (or most popular) toy on the market - which needs to be proven. In fact, "everyone wants a Singing Elmo toy" and "Singing Elmo is the hottest toy on the market" mean the exact same thing. Oftentimes, the speaker will try to rephrase the claim in two different ways, like this: "Freedom of speech is important because people should be able to speak freely." See what happened there? The speaker's evidence is not evidence at all - it's just the claim stated in a different way. Remember, you can't assume as true the very claim that is being disputed.
Euphemisms & Dysphemisms
A speaker creates a "euphemism" when they choose their words carefully to make something sound less awful that it actually is. A common euphemism is saying that someone "passed away" instead of "died." Another common euphemism: "we are downsizing the company" instead of "we are firing many employees." This strategy is all about word choice - a speaker can can make something bad sound good or something good sound awesome just by changing the words they use. For example, U.S. President George W. Bush was asked if the US military was torturing prisoners of war for information. Instead of using the word "torture," the president responded by saying that they used "an alternative set of procedures" to get information from the prisoners. That expression was a euphemism. Remember, if people notice that you are using euphemisms instead of being straightforward with the information you present, it will cause them to lose trust in you.
A "dysphemism" is the opposite of a euphemism. This is when the speaker makes something sound more awful than it actually is. Calling a cigarette a "cancer stick" is an example of a dysphemism. More examples: saying "snail mail" instead of postal mail, calling a dead person "worm food," calling a mental hospital the "looney bin," or calling a fat person a "tub of Lard." Dysphemism is all about choosing very negative words to describe things.
A "dysphemism" is the opposite of a euphemism. This is when the speaker makes something sound more awful than it actually is. Calling a cigarette a "cancer stick" is an example of a dysphemism. More examples: saying "snail mail" instead of postal mail, calling a dead person "worm food," calling a mental hospital the "looney bin," or calling a fat person a "tub of Lard." Dysphemism is all about choosing very negative words to describe things.
Half-Truths
A "half-truth" is exactly what it sounds like: it is a deceptive statement that includes some truth, but not everything about the statement is true. An example of a half-truth would be if a clearly drunk man declared "I only had a couple of beers," when in reality he had a couple of beers and three bottles of soju. Another example: a student says "I wrote the entire paper myself" because she looked at her friend's paper and then wrote the words down herself. Another example: the speaker saw Peter slap a child on the back while trying to save him from choking, and later tells you, "don't trust Peter with your children. I once saw him smack a child with his open hand." Remember, when someone tells you something that is true, but leaves out important information that should be included, it can create a false impression. (This is similar to "stacking the deck").
Non-Sequitur
In Latin, non-sequitur means "it does not follow." This fallacy is made when the speaker's conclusion does not follow logically from the claims or evidence they stated before it. Here's an example of a conclusion that does not make sense based on the reasoning that came first: "Buddy Burger has the greatest food in town. Buddy Burger was voted #1 by the local paper. Therefore, Phil, the owner of Buddy Burger, should run for President of the United States." Here is another example: a child says, "you don't love me or else you'd buy me that bicycle!" The idea that parents don't love their children if they don't buy them bikes does not make logical sense, because it is simply not true. One more example: "All humans have bones. Crocodiles have bones. Therefore, crocodiles are humans.” [bonus! click for a video example of non-sequitur arguments]
Straw Man
The "straw man" fallacy is when the speaker ignores his opponent's real argument, and instead attacks a "fake," misrepresented version of his opponent's argument. In other words, the speaker changes his opponent's argument to make it easier to defeat. Metaphorically, the real argument is like a "real man" and the changed version of the argument that is easier to take down is like a "straw man." Here is an example. Bob and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets: Jill says, "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy." Bob responds, "Why? We just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?" Jill then gets angry, because Bob changed her argument to make it easier to defeat. She says, "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day!"
Red Herring
In murder mystery stories, a "red herring" is character or clue intentionally placed in the story to distract you from discovering the real villain. Similarly, the "red herring" fallacy is when the speaker tries to change the subject in order to distract you from the original argument. In other words, the speaker changes the argument to another issue as a way of avoiding talking about the original issue. For example: Amy argues, "It is morally wrong to steal, so we should create stricter punishments for theft." James responds, "But what is morality exactly?" Amy responds, "It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures." James responds, "But who creates this code of conduct?" ...See what happened? James' questions are red herrings that have changed the subject of the argument from "theft" to "morality." Remember, changing the subject is a strategy for avoiding a discussion of the original argument.
Faulty Analogy
An analogy is a comparison between two things. Usually, it is used in order to compare something new or unfamiliar with something that's well known. A faulty analogy is a comparison that is inaccurate or misleading. Here is an example: Rose says, "No one objects to a doctor looking up a difficult case in medical books. Why, then, shouldn't students taking a difficult test be permitted to use their textbooks?" The two situations Rose compared are, in reality, not similar at all - she has no right to compare a doctor at work to a student taking a test. Another example: "Because humans become less active as they grow older, and because they eventually die, it is reasonable to expect that political groups will become less active the longer they are in existence, and that they too will eventually die." Humans and political groups don't really have enough in common to make this comparison. Remember, just because two things share one similarity, it does not mean they are similar enough to compare with an analogy.
Assignment:
Argument Fallacies Quiz:
Monday, May 9
You will be given descriptions of the 18 fallacies that include examples.
You must match each description with its correct fallacy name.
You must match each description with its correct fallacy name.