Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance
Ad Hominem Fallacies
It is rare for arguers in real life to state their ad
hominem arguments as explicitly as the ones discussed
It is also rare to conclude explicitly that the opponents
position is false
What is common is an attempt to distract the listener or
reader from the original argument
Ad Hominem Fallacies...
The mayor said the biggest problem for the city
administration has been fighting people who have
protested such things as industrial development. Weve
had people fight highways, the school corporation, and
county zoning, he said. I didnt notice any of these
people coming up here on horses and donkeys. They all
drove cars up here, spewing hydrocarbons all over the
place.
Could Personal Attacks be Legitimate?
There are two kinds of cases where attacks on a person are
perfectly legitimate
Criticizing political candidates for various failings
Defects in the person (as premises) are not irrelevant to the
conclusion (that the person should not be elected)
Mickey has testified that he saw Freddy set fire to the building. But Mickey
was recently convicted on ten counts of perjury, and he hates Freddy with a
passion and would love to see him sent to jail. Therefore, you should not
believe Mickeys testimony.
With typical ad hominem arguments, defects in the person (my
critics also damage the environment) are irrelevant to the
conclusion (my damaging the environment is not wrong)
Could Personal Attacks be
Legitimate?...
Personal criticisms could be appropriate in arguments
by authority
The surgeon-general has said that babies should receive the
MMR vaccine. So, babies should receive the MMR vaccine.
If it can be shown that the authority is unreliable or corrupt,
then this appeal to authority can be undermined
The attack on the person in not irrelevant to the conclusion
because the original argument made use of an implicit
premise
Straw Man Fallacy
The arguer attacks a misrepresentation of the
opponents view
The idea is to describe something that sounds like the
opponents view but is easier to knock down and then to
refute
Premise: A misrepresentation of the view is false
Conclusion: The view is false
Straw man fallacy results from a failure to be fair and
charitable in interpreting an argument
Straw Man Fallacy...
One can see through a straw man fallacy by asking such
appropriate questions as:
What were the exact words used in the original?
Have any key words or phrases been changed or omitted?
Does the context suggest that the author was deliberately
exaggerating or leaving obvious exception clauses unstated?
These evolutionists believe that a dog can give birth to
a cat. How ridiculous!
Straw Man Fallacy...
The straw man fallacy is also committed when a view or
argument is alleged to involve assumptions that it does
not (or need not) involve.
Susan advocates the legalization of cocaine. But I cannot
agree with any position based on the assumption that cocaine
is good for you and that a society of drug addicts can flourish.
So, I disagree with Susan
Straw Man Fallacy...
Sometimes a persuasive (i.e., biased) definition is used
to set up a straw man:
Empiricism is the view that nothing should be believed in
unless it can be directly observed. Now, no one can see, hear,
taste, smell, or touch protons, electrons, or quarks. So, while
empiricists pretend to be advocates of science, their views in
fact rule out the most advanced physical science of our times.

Empiricism: the thesis that all knowledge or at least all

knowledge of matters of fact (as distinct from that of purely
logical relations between concepts) is based on experience.
Appeal to Force/Scare Tactics
The appeal to force (or ad baculum fallacy) occurs when
a conclusion is defended by a threat to the well-being of
those who do not accept it.
Mr. Jones, you helped us import the drugs. For this, the Boss is
grateful. But now you say youre entitled to 50 percent of the
profits. The Boss says youre entitled to 10 percent. Unless
you see things the Bosss way, youre going to have a very
nasty accident. So, youre entitled to 10 percent. Got it?
You can avoid harm by accepting this statement. So,
the statement is true.
Appeal to Force...
Lately there has been a lot of negative criticism of our policy on
medical benefits. Let me tell you something, people. If you want to
keep working here, you need to know that our policy is fair and
reasonable. I wont have anybody working here who doesnt know
this.
Listen, Nadia, I know you disagree with my view about the building
project. Youve made your disagreement clear to everyone. Well,
its time for you to see that you are mistaken. Let me get right to
the point. I know youve been lying to your husband about where
you go on Wednesday afternoons. Unless you want him to know
where you really go, its time for you to realize that Ive been right
about the building project all along. You follow me?
Appeal to Force?
If you smoke, you increase your risk of getting lung
cancer. Its not in your interest to do something that
increases your risk of getting lung cancer. So, its not in
your interest to smoke.
Appeal to the People (Bandwagon)
The appeal to the people (or ad populum fallacy) is an attempt to
persuade a person (or group) by appealing to the desire to be
accepted or valued by others.
I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to belong to a
party that stands for what is good for America. Proud to cast my lot with the
kind of people who make this nation great. Proud to stand with men and
women who can get our nation back on its feet. Yes, there are those who
criticize us, who label our view of trade agreements as protectionist. But
when I look at you hard-working people, I know were right and the critics are
wrong.
Premises: You will be accepted or valued if you believe this
statement.
Conclusion: This statement is true.
Appeal to the People...
Ms. Riley, are you saying that President Bush made a
moral error when he decided to go to war with Iraq? I
cant believe my ears. Thats not how Americans feel.
Not true Americans, anyway. You are an American,
arent you, Ms. Riley?
The new Electrojet 3000 cabriolet isnt for everyone. But
then, youve always stood apart from the crowd,
havent you? So, the Electrojet 3000 is the car for you.
Appeal to Pity
The appeal to pity (or ad misericordiam fallacy) is the attempt to
support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in ones audience
when the statements that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to
the conclusion.
Taxpayer to judge: Your Honour, I admit that I declared thirteen children
as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only two. But if you
find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. Ill probably
lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that she
desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.
You have heard that my client was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene
on the day of the murder. But look at his narrow shoulders and frightened
eyes. This is a mana boy reallymore sinned against than sinning.
Appeal to Pity...
Premises: You have reason to pity this person (or group).
Conclusion: You should do X for the benefit of this
person (or group), although doing X is not called for
logically by the reason given.
Call for compassion is different
As a result of war and famine, thousands of children in country
X are malnourished. You can help by sending money to Relief
Agency Y. So, please send whatever you can spare to Relief
Agency Y.
Red Herring
Any argument in which the premises are logically unrelated
to the conclusion commits this fallacy.
There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to
eliminate pesticides from our fruit and vegetables. But many of
these foods are essential to our health. Carrots are an excellent
source of vitamin A, broccoli is rich is iron, and oranges and
grapefruits are high in vitamin C.
Premises: Something relevant to the topic at hand is
described.
Conclusion: A distracting but often unnoticed change of
subject occurs.
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when two (or more) meanings of a word
(or phrase) are used in a context in which validity requires a
single meaning of that word (or phrase).
Only man is rational. But no woman is a man. Hence, no woman is
rational.
Only humans are rational. No woman is a male human. So, no
woman is rational.
Premises: Contain a key word (or phrase) that is ambiguous.
Conclusion: Is reached not by valid logical inference but by
trading on the ambiguity of the key word (or phrase).
Equivocation or not?
If you want to help me steal the car, you have a reason
to do so. If you have a reason to steal the car, then you
are justified in stealing the car. So, if you want to help
me steal the car, then you are justified in stealing the
car.
I agree with Christians in their claim that God is love.
But unlike Christians, Im not afraid to draw the obvious
logical consequence: Love is God.
Examples
Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer hold that the
development and structure of human societies can be
explained in terms of evolutionary principles such as the
survival of the fittest. But I reject Social Darwinism
because Spencer was a real bonehead.
All the really hot new thinkers are using principles from
sociobiology. Its the new wave in ethics. So, you should
accept the principles of sociobiology.
Examples
It is quite clear what the proponents of legalized
euthanasia are seeking. Put simply, they are seeking
the power to kill anyone who has a serious illness. And
that is why I stand opposed to legalized euthanasia.
Professor Jackson, this paper merits at least a B. I
stayed up all night working on it. And if I dont get a
B, Ill be put on academic probation.