Exploring Logical Fallacies 1102

List of Fallacies

This information is adapted from the sister textbook of The Little Seagull, The Norton Field Guide (pp. 414-16).

Ad hominem: Latin for "to the man," arguments of this sort "attack someone's character rather than address the issues" (414). Ad hominem attacks are quite prevalent, especially in political and public discourse.

Bandwagon appeals: Arguments that claim that "because others think or do something, we should, too" (414). Bandwagoning appeals to an audience's desire to belong (an appeal to pathos!).

Begging the question: A circular argument that only appears to be an argument because "it assumes as a given what is trying to be proved, essentially asserting A is true because A is true" (414).

List of Fallacies cont'd

Either-or (false dilemmas): Arguments that oversimplify by asserting "there can only be two possible positions on a complex issue" (414). This fallacy is often used to polarize an audience by championing one side and demonizing another.

False analogies: The comparison of things that are alike in some ways but not in the most important ways.

Faulty causality: also known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." This type of argument "assumes that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second" (415), even when there's no evidence to back up this claim. (Remember, correlation does not imply causation!)

List of Fallacies cont'd

Straw man: In order to make another position look "ridiculous or extreme and thus easy to refute" (415), these kinds of arguments purposefully misrepresent an opposing position. Consequently, one doesn't have to deal with the actual opposing position.

Hasty generalizations: These are conclusions "based on insufficient or inappropriately qualified evidence" (415). Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from generalizations.

Slippery slope: Arguments of this sort claim that "one event will inevitably lead to another...without presenting evidence that such a chain of causes and effects will in fact take place" (415). Most of the time, these "resulting" events are described as catastrophic in nature.

The Rhetorical Appeals: Fallacies??

Well, the answer is both "yes" and "no," and it generally depends on one's rhetorical situation.

Each rhetorical appeal has its own set of accompanying logical fallacies. Consider pathos, for example. Pathos can enhance one's argument by appealing not only to an audience's minds, but also to their hearts. However, pathos can also lead to an audience feeling manipulated and thus less likely to accept one's argument.

Some logical fallacies that depend on pathos include:

• Bandwagoning

• Either-or (false dilemma)

• Slippery slope

Locating Fallacies in Your Writing

This information is adapted from the UNC Writing Center's webpage on fallacies:

1. Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to strengthening those parts.

2. List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a particular claim and/or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you’re using.

3. Learn which types of fallacies you’re prone to, and be extra sure to check for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. What do you do?

Locating Fallacies in Your Writing cont'd

4. Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like “all,” “none,” “everyone,” "no one," “always,” and “never" require a lot more proof than properly qualified, less-sweeping claims that use words like “some,” “many,” “few,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth. Think about what we've discussed regarding how to create strong thesis statements!

5. Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are accurate and fair.