5

Faulty Reasoning
 Introduction
• When an argument doesn’t
succeed, the problem will be
that:
o the premises are false; or
o the reasoning is faulty; or
o both.
• Certain types of defective
arguments are used so
frequently that they have been
given names.
o These are known as fallacies,
and such arguments are said to
 Introduction, cont’d
• Fallacies are often convincing; they can seem
plausible.
o They are psychologically persuasive, though logically
impotent.

• We study fallacies because we need to be able to

detect them; this can be called “logical self-defense.”
 Introduction, cont’d
• Fallacies are divided into two broad categories:
1. Those that have irrelevant premises
 They offer “reasons” for accepting the conclusion, but the
“reasons” have nothing to do with the conclusion.
 Such premises make it no more reasonable to believe the
argument’s conclusion than it was before you heard them.
2. Those that have unacceptable premises
 They use premises that are relevant to the conclusion, but do not
adequately support it.
 Introduction, cont’d
• In good arguments, premises must be both relevant
and acceptable.

• In fallacious arguments, at least one of these

requirements is not met.
 Irrelevant Premises
• Genetic fallacy • Appeal to ignorance
• Appeal to the person • Appeal to emotion
• Composition • Red herring
• Division • Straw man
• Equivocation
• Appeal to popularity

• Appeal to tradition
 Genetic Fallacy
• Arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of
its origin (i.e., who it came from).

• Example: “Selena’s argument regarding Indigenous

rights can’t be right because she’s of European
descent.”
o In most cases, the source of an idea is irrelevant to its truth.
 There are times when the origins of a claim can be a relevant factor
(e.g., expert witness in a courtroom).
o These arguments fail because they reject a claim solely on
the basis of where that claim comes from, not on its merits.
 Appeal to the Person
• Rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who
makes it rather than the claim itself.
o Special case of the genetic fallacy; sometimes called an ad
hominem attack.

• Example: “You can’t believe anything Morris says

about welfare reform. He’s a left-leaning softy.”
o We are never justified in rejecting a claim because of a
person’s faults unless we can show how a person’s faults
translate into faults in the claim.
 Appeal to the Person, cont’d
• An appeal to the person not only mentions a person as
the origin of an argument, but it also attacks the
person and ignores the argument altogether.
• The fallacy of appeal to the person comes in several
varieties, one of which is the personal attack (ad
hominem). Another form of this fallacy emphasizes
not a person’s character, but his or her circumstances.
 Appeal to the Person, cont’d
• When there are charges of hypocrisy, we get an ad
hominem fallacy known as tu quoque (or “you’re
another”).

• Example: “Ellen claims that X, but Ellen doesn’t

practise/live by/condone X herself—so X is false.”
o Whether someone is hypocritical about their claims can
have no bearing on the truth of those claims—their views
must stand or fall on their own merits.
 Appeal to the Person, cont’d
• A variation of circumstantial ad hominem reasoning
is when someone deduces that a claim is false
because the person making it, given his or her
circumstances, would be expected to make it.

• Example: “Wilson claims that the political system in

Cuba is terrific. But he has to say that. He’s a card-
carrying communist. So forget what he says.”
 Appeal to the Person, cont’d
• Finally, there is the ad hominem tactic known as
“poisoning the well”

• Example: “X has no regard for the truth or has non-

rational motives for espousing a claim, so nothing
that X says should be believed—including the claim
in question or possibly any claim made in the future!”
o However, the fact that someone might have dubious
reasons for making a claim does not show that the claim is
false, nor does it mean that everything that comes out of
the “poisoned well” can be automatically dismissed.
 Composition
• The fallacy of arguing that what is true of the parts
must be true of the whole.

• Example: “The atoms that make up the human body

are invisible. Therefore, the human body is invisible.”
o It is not always fallacious to argue this way (e.g., since all
the parts of the house are made of wood, the house itself is
made of wood).
 Composition, cont’d
• The fallacy of composition often shows up in
statistical arguments.

• Example: “The average small investor puts $2000

into the stock market every year. The average large
investor puts $100,000 into stocks each year. So,
large investors as a whole invest more money in the
stock market than the small investor group does.”
o This does not mean that small investors as a group invest
less than large investors as a group. There may be many
more small investors than large investors.
 Division
• The fallacy of arguing that what is true of the whole
must be true of the parts.

• Example: “A university degree is a valuable thing to

have! So how can you possibly think that this course
in underwater basket-weaving isn’t valuable?”
 Division, cont’d
• The fallacy of division also shows up in statistical
arguments.

• Example: “Don’t tell me you’ve had trouble finding a

job. Unemployment in this entire province is at an all-
time low!”
o Just because people in general have had good luck finding
jobs, this doesn’t mean that any specific job-seeker must
necessarily have an easy time.
 Equivocation
• The fallacy of using a word in two different senses in
an argument.

• Example: “Only man is rational. No woman is a man.

Therefore, no woman is rational.”
o Two different senses of “man” here (humankind vs male).

• The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word has

one meaning in one premise and another meaning in
another premise or the conclusion.
 Appeal to Popularity
• The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true
merely because a substantial number of people
believe it.
o What many people believe is typically irrelevant and
sometimes plain wrong.

• Example: “Most people approve of the provincial

government’s decision not to pay for in vitro
fertilization treatment. So I guess that decision must
be a good one.”
 Appeal to Popularity, cont’d
• What many other people believe can be an indication
of truth if they are experts or have expert knowledge
in the issue at hand.
o If almost all ecologists say that a particular ecosystem is
being threatened, ordinarily we should believe them.
 Appeal to Popularity, cont’d
• When the argument at hand is not about what many
people believe, but rather about what many people
do, we may have a case of appeal to common
practice.

• Example: “There’s nothing wrong with cheating a bit

on your taxes. I read somewhere that nearly half of all
taxpayers lie about something on their tax returns.”
 Appeal to Tradition
• The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true just
because it’s part of a tradition.

• Example: “Acupuncture has been used for a thousand

years in China. It must work.”

• Tradition, like the masses, can be wrong.

 Appeal to Ignorance
• The fallacy of arguing that a lack of evidence proves
something.
o Problem arises by thinking that a claim must be true
because it hasn’t been shown to be false.
o A lack of evidence simply reveals our ignorance about
something.

• Example: “It’s clear that God exists because science

hasn’t proved that he doesn’t exist.”
 Appeal to Ignorance, cont’d
• There are cases that may seem like appeals to
ignorance but actually are not.
o A botanist may search a forest looking for a rare plant that
used to grow only there but not find it even though she
looks in all the likely places. In this case, her lack of
evidence may be good evidence that the plant has gone
extinct.
 Appeal to Ignorance, cont’d
• Burden of proof is the weight of evidence or
argument required by one side in a debate or
disagreement.

• Problems arise when the burden of proof is placed on

the wrong side.

• Usually, the burden of proof rests on the side that

makes a positive claim—an assertion that something
exists or is the case.
 Appeal to Emotion
• The use of emotions in place of relevant reasons as
premises in an argument.
o Appeals to people’s guilt, anger, pity, fear, compassion,
resentment, pride—but not to good reasons that could
actually give logical support to your case.

• Example: “You should hire me for this position. I’m

the best person for the job. If I don’t get a job soon,
my wife will leave me. Come on, give me a break.”
 Appeal to Emotion, cont’d
• Appeals to emotion
appeal to almost nothing
but strong emotion.
• This wielding of
emotion in discourse is
an example of rhetoric
(the use of non-
argumentative, emotive
words and phrases to
persuade or influence an
audience).
 Red Herring
• Deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an
argument.
o The basic pattern is to put forth a claim and then couple it
with additional claims that may seem to support it but in
fact are mere distractions.
 Red Herring, cont’d
• Example: “Canada needs tougher immigration
policies. I’ve got a neighbour who says we should let
in more immigrants. The sixties … boy, what a great
time that was for druggies and wackos! You should
see the way that hippie dresses … He hasn’t figured
out that the 1960s are over!”
o The issue is whether Canada should have tougher
immigration policies, but the arguer shifts the subject to the
intelligence and dress of one particular person who favours
more immigration—these things have nothing to do with
the main issue.
 Straw Man
• Distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone’s
position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.

• Example: “David says he’s in favour of equal

marriage rights for gays. Obviously, he thinks gay
relationships deserve special treatment. Do you really
want your kids being taught that the gay lifestyle is
best?”
 Unacceptable Premises
• Begging the question
• False dilemma
• Slippery slope
• Hasty generalization
• Faulty analogy
 Begging the Question
• Attempting to establish the conclusion of an
argument by using that conclusion as a premise. Also
called arguing in a circle.

• Example: “God exists. We know that God exists

because the Bible says so, and we should believe
what the Bible says because God wrote it.”
 False Dilemma
• Consists of either:
1. asserting that there are only two alternatives to consider
when there are actually more than two, or
2. asserting that there are two distinct alternatives that may
in fact not be mutually exclusive.
 False Dilemma, cont’d
• Example of (1): “Look, either you’re in favour of
government support for the arts or you’re an
uncultured thug. You’re not in favour of government
support for the arts. So you’re an uncultured thug.”

• Example of (2): “Why are you so concerned about the

rights of the accused? Are you interested in protecting
the rights of accused criminals or protecting the rights
of their victims?”
 Slippery Slope
• Arguing, without good
reasons, that taking a
particular step will
inevitably lead to
further, undesirable
steps.
o Doing action A will lead
to action B, which will
lead to action C, which
will result in calamitous
action D. Therefore, you
should not do action A.
 Hasty Generalization
• Drawing a conclusion about a target group on the
basis of a sample that is too small.
o This is a genuine fallacy of unacceptable premises because
the premises state the sample size is relevant to the
conclusion but they provide inadequate evidence.

• Example: “You should buy a Dell computer. They’re

great. I bought one last year, and it has given me
nothing but flawless performance.”
 Faulty Analogy
• An analogy is a comparison of two or more things
that are alike in specific respects. In a faulty analogy,
the things being compared are not sufficiently similar
in relevant ways.

• Example: “Dogs are warm blooded, nurse their

young, and give birth to puppies. Humans are warm-
blooded and nurse their young. Therefore, humans
give birth to puppies too.”
 Summary
• Certain types of defective arguments that occur
frequently are known as fallacies.

• Fallacies are often psychologically persuasive but

logically flawed.

• Fallacies are divided into (1) those that have

irrelevant premises and (2) those that have
unacceptable premises.