ARGUMENTS AND

FALLACIES
A quick guide on knowing and identifying fallacious statement.
 DISCUSSION
• Fallacies are kinds of errors in reasoning. They are most common when people get overly
emotional about an issue. The thing about fallacies is that in the heat of the moment they can
seem persuasive, but they are errors in reasoning, and they do not reliably lead to the truth.
So you want to be on the lookout for them when considering arguments. Below is a brief list
of some of the more common fallacies, along with illustrations of them. It is often helpful to
look these over when trying to think about what is wrong with an argument (whether it's
your own or someone else's!).
 Definition: The hasty generalization
fallacy is sometimes called the over-
generalization fallacy. It is basically EXAMPLES:
making a claim based on evidence that is
just too small.

HASTY
GENERALIZATION 1. I ‘ve met three 16 years old girls and
they are all nonsense and mean. So all 16
years old girls are all nonsense and mean.
• My friend who is using an Aerox motorcycle tend to
gain more followers in his social media account. I
think all Aerox motorcycle owner were all famous in
their social media account.
 MISSING THE
POINT
• Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular
conclusion- but not he conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

• Latin origin: ignoratio elenchi (ignoring refutation)

• Example:
• 1. This man on trial stands accused of murder, and the penalty is death!
Murder is the most heinous of crime, which deserves to be met with
eye for an eye.
• 2. Person A. They should keep teaching kids that Pluto is a planet,
because that’s what I was taught when I was their age!

• Person B. They teach kids that Pluto is not a planet because the
scientific definition of a planet change
• (Real Life Scenario should be explain)
POST HOC( FALSE
CAUSE)
• This fallacy gets its name from the Latin
phrase “ post hoc, ergo propter hoc”
Which translates as “ after this, therefore
because of this.
 POST HOC( FALSE CAUSE)
Event One Event Two Post Hoc Fallacy Why it is a Fallacy

This fallacy fails to consider

Seeing that it is dark outside
that being awake for specific
It gets dark outside I get tired makes me feel tired; darkness
periods results in tiredness
causes tiredness.
than how light it is outside.

This post hoc fallacy assumes

a causal relationship between
The rooster's crowing causes
Rooster crows Sun rises the rooster and the sun when
the sun to rise.
the relationship is the other
way around.

Like many superstitions, this

one creates a causal
My wish came true because I
I wish on a star My wish comes true relationship where one does
wished on a star.
not exist; wishing on a star
has no impact on the world.
SLIPPERY SLOPE
• A slippery slope is a
logical fallacy that
argues against taking a
moderate course of
action because it will
trigger a long series of
unintended and more
extreme consequences.
 SLIPPERY SLOPE EXAMPLES
1. Lowering The Voting Age Leads To Babies Voting
A state government is debating whether or not they should lower the voting age. A member of
parliament says that if they were to allow for a lower voting age to 17, then 16 year olds would
start insisting on the right to vote! If we lower it to 17, why not 16? Before long, babies will be
voting!
2. Soothing A Crying Baby Leads To Attachment Issues
Two mothers are talking about how to respond to their crying babies. The one mother advises
the other that she should make sure not to pick up her baby each time they cry because then
they will never learn to be independent, and will grow up to have severe attachment issues
which makes it near impossible to maintain healthy romantic relationships.
 WEAK ANALOGY
• Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas,
or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t alike in the relevant
respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the
fallacy of weak analogy.
• Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to
kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so
restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and hammers do share
certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful
for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict
guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a
feature hammers do not share—it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the
analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.
 APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
• This is when we support a conclusion by appealing to a person who is not an authority on
the subject. Or, it is when we appeal to an authority with whom other authorities disagree.
• Example:
• ) Peace is the best strategy because Einstein said so.
• Note: this is fallacious because Einstein was an expert in physics, not political
science.
• 2) You should take those vitamins because Brad Pitt said they are the best.
• 3) God does not exist because Stephen Hawking said so.
• 4) God exists because the Pope and Francis Collins said so.
• 5) Psychiatry is rubbish because Dr. Smith said so.
 OTHER FALLACIES TO CONSIDER

• 1. Ad Hominem Fallacy
• 2. Straw Man Fallacy
• 3. Appeal to Ignorance
• 4. Appeal To Emotion
• 5. Fallacy of Equivocation
• 6. Appeal to Popularity
• 7. Appeal to Tradition
 AD HOMINEM
• An ad hominem fallacy is an argument that is directed at the person defending the argument rather than the argument itself, and
thus fails to address what is at issue. There are a number of different kinds of ad hominem arguments, but we don't need to
distinguish among them here. We can get an idea of how ad hominem fallacies occur with the following examples:

• (Example 1) "That's what abortion is - killing innocent humans for money. Abortionists are government licensed hit men." -
Charley Reese, The Daily Iberian, Nov. 20, 1998.

• In Example 1, Reese resorts to name-calling, rather than seriously addressing the question of whether abortion is morally
permitted, when he claims that abortionist's are "government-licensed hit men." Thus, Reese commits an ad hominem fallacy.
Example 2 is more subtle:

• (Example 2) "University of Virginia professor [Charlotte] Patterson, considered a leading researcher in the field, says she has
reviewed 22 studies involving offspring of gays ranging from toddlers to adults. She found none convincing [sic] that the
children had suffered or were more than normally inclined to be gay. [...] Conservatives discredit Patterson by pointing out that
she is an acknowledged lesbian, with a presumed ideological interest in the subject she studies." - Time, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 71.
 STRAW MAN FALLACY
• A straw man fallacy occurs when (1) the arguer misrepresents their opponents view, (2) shows that the misrepresentation is mistaken, and then (3) concludes that their
opponents view is mistaken. Here are some examples:

• (Example 1) What I object to most about those people who oppose capital punishment is that they believe that the lives of convicted murderers are more important
than the lives of the police and prison guards who protect us. But, obviously, since the lives of those who protect us are of the greatest value, no one should oppose
capital punishment.

• In Example 1 the opponent's view is that capital punishment is wrong. This view is then misrepresented as being the view that the lives of convicted murderers are
more important than the lives of the police and prison guards. The remaining two elements of the fallacy are explicitly stated in the example. Sometimes, however,
some of the elements of the straw man are implicit, as in Example 2:

• (Example 2)
• Consider the following claim by Rush Limbaugh:
• "I'm a very controversial figure to the animal rights movement. They no doubt view me with some measure of hostility because I am constantly challenging their
fundamental premise that animals are superior to human beings."

• If this is followed with the argument that animals are not superior to human beings, and thus the animal rights movement is misguided, then we have an example of a
straw man fallacy. The straw man is the misrepresentation of animal rights activists as holding the view that animals are superior to human beings: virtually no animal
rights activists hold this view.
 APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
• The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when someone uses an opponent's inability to
disprove a claim as evidence of that claim's being true or false (or, acceptable or
unacceptable). For instance, consider the following:

• (Example 1) You haven't been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no
God. Therefore, it is still reasonable for me to believe in God.

• However, whether it's reasonable to believe something depends on the reasons one has in its
favor, not whether others have reasons against it.
 APPEAL TO EMOTION
• Appeals to emotion occur when someone tries to manipulate another person's emotions (e.g., sympathy, pity, anger, fear, etc.) in
order to get them to accept or reject an argument or view. Here are some examples:

• (Example 1) Statement made by Carol Everett, a former abortion provider and now an opponent of abortion, explaining why she
now opposes abortion: "Then we had a death. A 32-year-old woman hemorrhaged to death as a result of a cervical laceration. I
finally realized, we weren't helping women - we were destroying them." - from an ad published by the National Right to Life

• Here, Everett appeals to the reader's sympathy rather than to their reason.

• (Example 2) "If you have never been born again, eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire awaits you. If you are born
again, then being with the Lord in heaven forever is your destiny. Which do you choose?" - from "Have You Been Born Again",
a pamphlet handed out on the Fresno State University campus, Fall 1997

• In Example 2, the authors appeal to your fear of the Lake of Fire to get you to accept their religious beliefs.
 FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION
• An ambiguous expression is a word or phrase that has more than one distinct meaning in the context in which it is used. For
instance, if I say "I went to the bank", given the context, it may be unclear whether I went to First National or the shore of the
Mississippi. A fallacy of equivocation occurs when the persuasive force of an argument depends on the shifting meaning of an
ambiguous expression. Here are some examples:

• (Example 1)
• P1 There are laws of nature.
• P2 Laws must be made by a lawgiver.
• C Therefore, a cosmic lawgiver (God) exists.

• Here, the ambiguous expression is 'laws'. On the one hand, there are laws which form part of a legal system, and these laws
require a lawgiver (a person or group of persons with the authority to create and establish government laws). On the other
hand, we have what we call laws of nature, which are simply observed regularities in the way the universe operates. The latter,
however, obviously need not be the results of a legislative body. Other examples of the fallacy, however, are more subtle:
 APPEAL TO POPULARITY
• The appeal to popularity occurs when people infer that something is good or true because it
is popular.

• (Example 1)
• It's OK to cheat if everybody else does.

• But merely because something is popular doesn't make it right or correct. At one time, the
belief that the earth is flat was popular, but it was certainly never correct! And killing Jews
may have been popular among the Nazis, but that won't make it right!
 APPEAL TO TRADITION
• In appeals to tradition someone argues that something is good or correct because it is traditional. The
problem is that merely because something is traditional is no reason to believe that it is good or right.
For instance, slavery was at one time traditional in many cultures, but that's obviously not sufficient to
make it right.

• (Example 1)
• "I believe that same-sex couples should be entitled to the legal rights that married couples enjoy.... But,
my friend, that is as far as I want to go. I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Before you gay-rights folks land on me with both feet, I would like to remind you that I have been
supportive of your movement for many years, have withstood a great deal of criticism in the process and
have risked the wrath of some editors and publishers. I cannot support same-sex marriage, however,
because it flies in the face of cultural and traditional family life as we have known it for centuries. And
that's where I must draw the line. Sorry." - Ann Landers, The Columbus Dispatch, July 21, 1996.