Logical Fallacies
Some appeals use faulty reasoning that may seem to be unfair or incorrect thinking. These appeals are called fallacies. They can be very powerful and persuasive, but they are not the most logical. It’s important for us to understand these types of appeals so we can make sure we are making sound and logical arguments. The following are some common fallacies to look for.
The most common logical fallacies include:
Begging the Question
Tries to support an argument by restating it in different words. This may make it sound like there is an explanation being given, when in reality there is no reason, just a restating of the original statement.
- Example: “We need to reduce the national debt because the government owes too much money.”
- Literary Example: It was important for the Zora Neale Hurston to have a woman as the main character which is why Their Eyes Were Watching God follows the life of Janie, the female protagonist.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The first clause of the sentence and the second present basically the same information rather than an argument or claim that answers why. In other words, rather than supporting or advancing the claim about the importance of the protagonist’s gender, the rest of the sentence simply restates the fact that the protagonist is a woman.
- Ask Additional Questions: If why is a challenge to answer, consider different questions, such as, how or what effect. The focus is the importance of who the protagonist is—which sounds like an issue of representation in literature.
- How does a woman as a main character do something for the novel and play a role in story that the novel can tell? How does Janie as the narrator of her own story add to what information the reader receives?
- What effects does the novel following the life of Janie have? What effect does it have on the types of characters stories can be about? Or what effect does it have for the audiences that stories are for?
Either-Or Arguments (or False Dilemma)
Argue that only two alternatives are possible, when the situation is actually much more complex. It ignores all other possibilities but these two alternatives. This thinking is fallacious because it assumes that there are only two options, with nothing in between. The false dilemma fallacy occurs when a speaker rhetorically backs his or her audience into a corner, presenting them with only two options and arguing that they must choose either one or the other. Critical thinkers know that the world can’t be simplified to black and white, good and bad, or right and wrong. Yet many people rely on such oversimplifications when making arguments. Granted, such a rhetorical strategy does make it easier to discuss complex issues and try to force people into a decision, but it also removes gray area in the form of context that can be really important for making a decision. Be critical of speakers and messages that claim there are only two options from which to choose.
- Example: “Either we get tough with opioid users or we legalize all drugs.”
- Literary Example: Either Othello is a victim, too, or he is solely responsible for the death of Desdemona.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: This claim blurs two different issues of culpability. The two alternatives here seem extreme because for each clause’s idea there is an alternative (victim or not; sole culprit or not) and each on its own would be a more straightforward argument. It is misleading to present the options as the only two alternatives. While both seem to hinge on Othello’s murder of his wife, other actions would need consideration.
- Ask Additional Questions: Besides the claim suggesting a reader must evaluate victimhood or responsibility—or side with one character over others–the issue is far more complex because it is interconnected. Locate the complexity and connections rather than a reductive claim.
- How is Othello a victim in the events of the play? How might other agents or forces contribute to the choices he makes?
- What influence does Othello being targeted by bigotry, and then conspiracy by the villain, have on his relationship with Desdemona at different points of play? What effect might other forms of bigotry, including misogyny, play in Desdemona’s death?
Ad Hominem
Means “against the person” in Latin. Attempts to attack an argument by undercutting the credentials of the person who is arguing it. This type of logical fallacy occurs when an arguer attacks or insults the person making opposing arguments instead of attacking the ideas, the logic, or the evidence within the opposing argument itself. It is a personal attack rather than a way of engaging with someone’s ideas.
- Example: “Of course my opponent doesn’t want to build a new park in Bessemer; she’s never lived there and doesn’t have children.
- Literary Example: Mr. Knightley wrongly criticizes Emma for advising her friend Harriet to reject Mr. Martin’s marriage proposal; Mr. Knightley is selfishly thinking of his own friend Mr. Martin and is also not a woman nor does he know Harriet as well as Emma.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The character’s expertise or authority on a matter is questioned rather than their actual idea or views. The claim here doesn’t evaluate the merit of Mr. Knightley’s view of Emma’s advice; it attacks Mr. Knightley’s prejudice and indirectly suggests Emma is better suited to give Harriet advice because of gender and circumstance. Circumstances that influence opinions seem to be what is stake for the analysis.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How might Emma and Mr. Knightley’s perspectives on marriage differ due to their gender or other personal factors as evidenced elsewhere in matters they disagree about? How might Emma and Mr. Knightley have different motivating factors about the marriage of their two friends?
- What effect does Mr. Knightley’s criticism have on Emma compared to other times he corrects or disagrees with her? What effect does his criticism have when he, too, might be biased on the subject which they disagree about?
Faulty Causality
States that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second. This fallacy fallacy relates to causal reasoning and occurs when a speaker argues, with insufficient evidence, that one thing caused or causes another. When a false cause argument is made after the “effect,” it is referred to in Latin as post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means “after this, therefore because of this.”
- Example: “The baby died of SIDS because he had recently gotten vaccinated.”
- Literary Example: The Wicked Witch dies because Dorothy was in her house when the cyclone hit.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The claim uses temporal order to generate a cause-and-effect relationship, though Dorothy’s presence in the house is neither the direct cause of the house crashing in Oz nor of the house landing on the witch. If the facts of the latter clause are the main focus, then this needs revision to address Dorothy’s role within the story more clearly.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How does the death of the witch initiate a chain of events? How does Dorothy’s presence or involvement in the circumstances of the witch’s death set up key plot developments?
- What effect does the instrument of the witch’s demise—the house—have on the story and its themes?
Ad Populum (or Bandwagon Appeals)
Encourages the audience to follow along with the crowd. Attempts to flatter the audience by implying choosing the popular choice in some way makes them better. This is an example of misused ethos – when the author is referencing the values that the audience cares about so that they think only about the values and not about the content of the argument (or, likely, the fact that there is little intellectual substance in what is being said). In short, popular appeal and frequency of use are not strong warrants to support an argument. Just because something is popular, doesn’t mean it’s good.
- Example: “Everyone knows that you shouldn’t major in History because no one will hire a History major. They learn no marketable skills.”
- Literary Example: Every reader of The Great Gatsby will agree that Nick Carraway’s refusal to shake Tom’s hand is justified because of Tom’s actions. Careful readers see the flaws in all the characters; however, Tom is the most flagrantly unscrupulous.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: Complicating an audience consensus is usually a more compelling analysis. The claim attributes qualities onto the audience that agree with the assertion; the claim pressures their audience to conform to the same line of thinking rather than entertain other interpretations as equally valid.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How are the character flaws and problematic actions of Tom more apparent or grievous than others in the novel? How is Nick’s perspective, particularly on Tom, an influence on how readers perceive Tom’s character?
- What are the effects of Nick’s highly opinionated—and somewhat unreliable—first-person narration on readers’ understanding of the different characters and events?
Slippery Slope Arguments
Asserts that if one event happens, it will set in motion a chain of events that will eventually end in disaster. While this is not always inaccurate, the greater the difference between the original event and the predicted outcome, the more necessary it is to provide evidence that this will actually happen. It is false reasoning because 1) it’s impossible to predict the future, 2) it is illogical to suggest that one action will always necessarily lead to the worst possible outcome, and 3) it assumes a very specific chain of future events. This “if we let this happen there will be some horrible end” is misuse of cause/effect reasoning, often with some pathos (fear) sprinkled in.
- Example: “If we legalize physician assisted suicide, then the suicide rate of teenagers will dramatically increase, as they will be able to commit suicide easily, legally, and without pain.
- Literary Example: If readers understand that Poe’s character-narrator of “The Tell-Tale Heart” is unreliable and only imagines hearing the beating heart, then all his relation of facts might be imagined to the point that the entire story could be a elaborate hallucination.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The claim spirals in anticipating an eventuality triggered by one event, regardless of other factors. The final clause indicates an undesirable outcome; a proactive strategy should be devised to circumvent rather than idly predict a possibility as a certainty.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How can the character’s unreliability be assessed in order to not destabilize the entire narration of events? How can the subjective hearing of the heartbeat be compared with a phenomenon that seems otherwise objectively to have occurred in the story?
- What effect on the analysis and interpretation will result from understanding a range of reliability and unreliability within the perspective the character? What textual support indicates some events are more reliably narrated than others?
Straw Man Arguments
Misrepresents an opposing argument, showing it to be more extreme than it actually is so that it is easier to attack. It turns the argument into a “straw man” that is easier to knock down.
- Example: “The Affordable Care Act makes the American healthcare system government-run.”
- Literary Example: Mama Elena’s priority of tradition at the expense of—and even as attack on—the newer generation in Like Water For Chocolate demonstrates that the old ways are an oppressive system that should be completely abandoned.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The claim’s stance against the argument (defending tradition) reduces the issue to a vulnerable target (antagonistic to new generations) and through its the character that represents this opinion. The claim aims to refute an idea by selecting an easily targetable representative in the form of an actual character in the story.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How does Mama Elena’s adherence to tradition harm others? How does her practice of tradition place these old ways under scrutiny?
- What other opinions or perspectives in the story might also impact the reader’s understanding of tradition, either positively or negatively?
Hasty Generalizations
Draws sweeping conclusions based off of too little evidence. This fallacy relates to inductive reasoning and is the result of too few examples being cited to warrant the generalization. Jumping to conclusions is tempting, especially when pressed for time, but making well-researched and supported arguments is key to being an effective and ethical speaker.
- Example: “You really shouldn’t drink diet soda. I saw a study on NBC that said the aspartame in diet soda causes cancer.”
- Literary Example: Women characters written by men are inauthentic. Authors write best about experiences they’ve actually had.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: While the second claim might have merit, it is flawed as the sole premise to assert the first claim. The claim about all male writers is not proven by the adage (‘write what you know’). An argument that evaluates authenticity of characters should have more to support it (not be hasty in accepting one premise) and not aim to assert a claim about all of anything (overly generalizing).
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How might different causes, factors, or premises also inform the claim or conclusion? How is in-/authenticity understood or gauged for this argument? How would isolating a particular text/character as a single subject under study make this a more specific and potentially accurate discussion?
- What components add up to a character’s authenticity? What textual data might be examined to contribute to an assessment of a character?
Red Herring
Attempts to distract the audience by invoking a consideration that is irrelevant to the topic. A speaker who uses the red herring fallacy makes an argument that distracts from the discussion at hand. Interestingly, the origin of the name of this fallacy comes from old foxhunting practices in England. To test the training and discipline of hunting dogs, two trails would be marked, one with fox scent and a false trail with stronger scent, such as that of a fish (a red herring). The smartest and best-trained dogs weren’t distracted by the fishy trail and stayed on the path.
- Example: “I know I’ve made a mistake. But think of my parents. They’re going to kill me.”
- Literary Example: The psychological turmoil felt by James Baldwin’s David in Giovanni’s Room impacts those around him. But had Hella, his girlfriend, not left to contemplate their relationship, David would not have been in a position for his relationship with Giovanni to proceed as it did.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The focus is one character’s impact on others; therefore, stating another character’s actions are influential or somewhat responsible distracts from advancing the initial claim. Certainly, any number of factors (including Hella’s actions) might impact David’s state of mind—but the latter is the subject or focus of the analysis and needs to be explored fully. That the second claim involves a hypothetical alternative to the events as they occur, additionally, is speculative rather than factual.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How does David’s psychological turmoil impact his relationship with Giovanni? How is David’s state of mind during his time with Giovanni the main cause of what happens?
- What effects might David’s own understanding of his psyche have on supporting this interpretation? What other factors might influence David?
Oversimplification
Generalizations that exaggerate and, by doing so, oversimplify the truth. When one piece of evidence or information is used to make a broad conclusion or statement. Often this fallacy might include cherry-picking: picking and choosing only some of the available evidence in order to present only points most favorable to your point of view. If someone knowingly chooses certain (favorable) pieces of information and conveniently ignores less favorable information, then the argument is not supported by all of the available research.
- Example: “Poverty causes crime.”
- Literary Example: Abandonment causes tragedy in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The claim uses general concept that simplify and reduce the complex issues of the story and the events that occur. The abandonment of whom and by whom are crucial details omitted—as are the subjects of the general idea of tragedy. The ultimate idea might be sound; however, the claim needs specificity and elaboration.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How might abandonment (and tragedy) be explained and understood in the relationship and development of characters and events in the novel? How do different characters explain or understand the circumstances surrounding Victor’s abandonment of his creation?
- What are the effects on the creation due to his abandonment? What are the effects on Victor after his refusal to accept his creation? Which factors contribute to ultimately direct events toward tragedy?
Appeal to Ignorance
Asserts that there is something that we don’t know, which makes it more difficult to come to an understanding or agreement.
- Example: “No one knows how many innocent people have been convicted of murder. Do we really want to invoke the death penalty on innocent people?”
- Literary Example: Without hearing the character’s thoughts, there’s no way to know what they were thinking or feeling when they did what they did; so, readers can’t ever fully interpret the character’s motivation when their interiority is not provided by the text.
Revision Strategy
- Evaluate the Issue: The claim implies that only one source or set of information is relevant to determine knowledge on a particular subject or event. Without taking into account different types of available textual data, the claim attempts to discredit any possibility of inferences or conclusions derived without the unavailable information.
- Ask Additional Questions:
- How might the interiority of characters be compared and even contrasted with their actions to generate a fuller picture of their motivation? How might it be possible that what a character thinks might not be reliable information to determine what motivates them to a particular action?
- What effect might gathering alternative evidence for a character’s motivation have on broadening the range of possible supporting textual evidence for building interpretations?
Key Takeaways
-
We use reasoning to make sense of the world around us and draw conclusions. Three types of reasoning are inductive, deductive, and causal.
- Inductive reasoning refers to arguments that persuade by citing examples that build to a conclusion. Examples should be sufficient, typical, and representative to warrant a strong argument. Reasoning by analogy argues that what is true in one set of circumstances will be true in another, and is an example of inductive reasoning.
- Deductive reasoning refers to arguments that derive specifics from what is already known and includes syllogisms. Premises that lead to the conclusion must be true and relevant for the argument to be valid.
- Causal reasoning refers to arguments that establish a relationship between a cause and an effect and usually involves a correlation rather than a true causal relationship.
- Fallacies refer to flaws within the logic or reasoning of an argument. Ten fallacies of reasoning discussed in this chapter are hasty generalization, false analogy, false cause, false authority, false dilemma, ad hominem, slippery slope, red herring, and appeal to tradition.
Licenses and Attributions
Adapted from Writing and Rhetoric by Heather Hopkins Bowers; Anthony Ruggiero; and Jason Saphara is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
and
Communication in the Real World by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
and
The Worry Free Writer by Dr. Karen Palmer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
