Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
5 views

Logical Fallacies

The document discusses logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that weaken arguments, and provides examples of common fallacies such as slippery slope, hasty generalization, and ad hominem. It also introduces the Toulmin Method of argumentation, which breaks arguments down into components like claim, grounds, and warrant to construct more effective arguments. Understanding these fallacies and the Toulmin Method can enhance critical thinking and argumentative writing skills.

Uploaded by

alia razia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Logical Fallacies

The document discusses logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that weaken arguments, and provides examples of common fallacies such as slippery slope, hasty generalization, and ad hominem. It also introduces the Toulmin Method of argumentation, which breaks arguments down into components like claim, grounds, and warrant to construct more effective arguments. Understanding these fallacies and the Toulmin Method can enhance critical thinking and argumentative writing skills.

Uploaded by

alia razia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

https://owl.purdue.

edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/
fallacies.html

Logical Fallacies
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified
because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own
arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually
through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A
and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually
the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the
same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or


biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before
you have all the relevant facts. Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be
a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course
on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping
tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the
author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even
examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have
previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to
base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A'
occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must
have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically


follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the
illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug
that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across
campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the
water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the


origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character,
nature, or worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally
designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the
character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not
inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is
validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.


Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be
logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes
enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the
claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually


proving it. Example:
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks
effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and


the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the
same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language,
breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with
humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by


reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:
We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet
the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing
cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and
emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than


his or her opinions or arguments. Example:
Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all
dirty, lazy hippies.
In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies
Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on
their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals
in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what


most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to
think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of
an ad populum appeal.

Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of


people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept


that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with
allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no
inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues,
often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
Example:
The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will
fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety
of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of
those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not
mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible
economic consequences to a few individuals.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then
attacks that hollow argument.
People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage
increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an


opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has
more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not
addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition
with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major


atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as


Hitler.
In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions
of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This
comparison is unfair and inaccurate.
What is the Toulmin Method?
Developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, the Toulmin method is a
style of argumentation that breaks arguments down into six component
parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. In
Toulmin’s method, every argument begins with three fundamental parts:
the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.
A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their
audience. It is, in other words, the main argument.
The grounds of an argument are the evidence and facts that help
support the claim.
Finally, the warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the
assumption that links the grounds to the claim.
Grounds (warrant) Claim
Hear barking/howling (Dogs are the animals that bark) Dogs are nearby
In this example, in order to assert the claim that a dog is nearby, we
provide evidence and specific facts—or the grounds—by acknowledging
that we hear barking and howling. Since we know that dogs bark and
howl (i.e., since we have a warrant) we can assume that a dog is nearby.
Now, let’s try a more academic approach. Let’s say that you are writing a
paper on how more research needs to be done on the way that
computer-mediated communication influences online and offline
relationships (a paper, in other words, very much like the OWL's APA
Sample paper).

In this case, to assert the claim that additional research needs to be


made on how online communication affects relationships, the author
shows how the original article needs to account for technological,
demographic, and modality limitations in the study. Since we know that
when a study lacks a perspective, it would be beneficial to do more
research (i.e., we have a warrant), it would be safe to assume that more
research should be conducted (i.e. the claim).

The other three elements—backing, qualifier, and rebuttal—are not


fundamental to a Toulmin argument, but may be added as necessary.
Using these elements wisely can help writers construct full, nuanced
arguments.

Backing refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases,


the warrant is implied, and therefore the backing provides support for the
warrant by giving a specific example that justifies the warrant.
The qualifier shows that a claim may not be true in all circumstances.
Words like “presumably,” “some,” and “many” help your audience
understand that you know there are instances where your claim may not
be correct.
The rebuttal is an acknowledgement of another valid view of the
situation.

Including a qualifier or a rebuttal in an argument helps build your ethos,


or credibility. When you acknowledge that your view isn’t always true or
when you provide multiple views of a situation, you build an image of a
careful, unbiased thinker, rather than of someone blindly pushing for a
single interpretation of the situation.

For example:
Note that, in addition to Stephen Toulmin’s Uses of Argument, students
and instructors may find it useful to consult the article “Using Toulmin’s
Model of Argumentation” by Joan Karbach for more information.

You might also like