Ferreting Out Fallacies

Fallacies are lapses in logic that reflect upon your ability to think clearly, and therefore they weaken your argument. The fallacies described below are among the most common. Correct any you find in your own arguments, and call attention to those used by the opposition.

Hasty Generalization. Hasty generalization results when someone bases a conclusion on too little evidence. The student who tries to see an instructor during one of her office hours, finds her out, and goes away muttering, "She's never there when she should be" is guilty of hasty generalization. Perhaps the instructor was delayed by another student, attended a special department meeting, or went home ill. Even if she merely went shopping, that's not a good reason for saying she always shirks her responsibility. Several more unsuccessful office visits would be needed to make such a charge stick.

Non Sequitur. From the Latin "It does not follow," this fallacy draws unwarranted conclu­sions from seemingly ample evidence. Consider this example: "Bill's been out almost every night for the last two weeks. Who is she?" These evening excur­sions, however numerous, point to no particular conclusion. Bill may be study­ing in the library, participating in campus organizations, taking night classes, or walking. Of course, he couldhe charmed by a new date, but that conclusion requires other evidence.

Stereotyping. A person who commits this fallacy attaches one or more supposed characteris­tics to a group or one of its members. Typical stereotypes include "Latins make better lovers," "blondes have more fun," and "women are lousy drivers." Stereotyping racial, religious, ethnic, or nationality groups can destroy an argument. The images are often malicious and always offensive to fair-minded readers.

Card Stacking. In card stacking, the writer presents only part of the available evidence on a topic, deliberately omitting essential information that would alter the picture considerably. For instance: "College students have a very easy life; they attend classes for only twelve to sixteen hours a week." This statement ignores the many hours that students must spend studying, doing homework and/or research, writing papers, and the like.

Either/Or Fallacy. The either/or fallacy asserts that only two choices exist when, in fact, several options are possible. A salesperson who wants you to buy snow tires may claim, "Either buy these tires or plan on getting stuck a lot this winter." But are you really that boxed in? You might drive only on main roads that are plowed immediately after every snowstorm. You could use public transportation when it snows. You could buy radial tires for year-round use. If very little snow falls, you might not need special tires at all.

Not all either/or statements are fallacies. The instructor who checks a student's record and then issues a warning, "Make at least a Con your final, or you'll fail the course," is not guilty of a reasoning error. No other alternatives exist. Most situations, however, offer more than two choices.

Begging the Question. A person who begs the question asserts the truth of some unproven statement. Here is an example: "Vitamin A is harmful to your health, and all bottles should carry a warning label. If enough of us write the Food and Drug Administration, we can get the labeling we need." But how do we know Vitamin A does harm users? No evidence is offered. People lacking principles often use this fallacy to hit opponents below the belt: "We shouldn't allow a right-wing sympathizer like Mary Dailey to represent us in Congress." Despite a lack of suitable evi­dence, voters often accept such faulty logic and vote for the other candidate.

Circular Argument. Circular argument, a first cousin to begging the question, supports a position merely by restating it. "Pauline is a good manager because she runs the com­pany effectively" says, in effect, that "something is because something is." Repetition replaces evidence.

Arguing off the Point. The writer who commits this fallacy, which is sometimes called "ignoring the question" or "a red herring," sidetracks an issue by introducing irrelevant infor­mation. To illustrate: "The Ford Thunderbolt is a much better value than the Honda Harmony. Anyway, the Japanese are becoming too prominent in our country. They're buying up businesses and real estate on both the East and West Coasts. Many Americans don't want to work for a Japanese boss." The writer sets out to convince that the American car is superior in value but then abruptly shifts to Japanese ownership in America—a trend that has no bearing on the argument.

The Argument Ad Hominem. The Latin term "to the man" designates an argument that attacks an individual rather than that individual's opinions or qualifications. Note this example: "Sam Bernhard doesn't deserve promotion to Personnel Manager. His divorce was a disgrace, and he's always writing letters to the editor. The company should find someone more suitable." This attack completely skirts the real issue—whether Sam's job performance entitles him to the promotion. Unless his personal con­duct has caused his work to suffer, it should not enter into the decision.

Appeal to the Crowd. An appeal of this sort arouses an emotional response by playing on the irra­tional fears and prejudices of the audience. Terms like communists, fascists, bleeding hearts, right-winger, welfare chiselers, and law and order are tossed about freely to sway the audience for or against something. Consider:

The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the public is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order. Yes, without law and order our nation cannot survive. Elect us, and we shall by law and order be respected among the nations of the world. Without law and order our republic shall fall.

Tapping the emotions of the crowd can sway large groups and win acceptance for positions that rational thinking would reject. Think what Adolf Hitler, the author of the foregoing excerpt, brought about in Germany.

Guilt by Association. This fallacy points out some similarity or connection between one person or group and another. It tags the first with the sins, real or imagined, of the sec­ond. The following excerpt from a letter protesting a speaker at a lecture series illustrates this technique:

The next slated speaker, Dr. Sylvester Crampton, was for years a member of the Economic Information Committee. This foundation has very strong ties with other ultraright-wing groups, some of which have been labeled fascistic. When he speaks next Thursday, whose brand of Americanism will he be selling?

Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc. The Latin meaning, "after this, therefore because of this," refers to the fallacy of assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the sec­ond. Such shoddy thinking underlies many popular superstitions ("If a black cat crosses your path, you'll have bad luck") and many connections that cannot be substantiated ("I always catch cold on Easter"). Sometimes one event-does cause another: a sudden thunderclap might startle a person into drop­ping a dish. At other times, coincidence is the only connection. Careful thinking will usually lay farfetched causal notions to rest.

Faulty Analogy. This is the error of assuming that two circumstances or things are similar in all important respects, when in fact they are not. Here's an example: Harvey Thompson, high school football coach, tells his players, "Vince Lombardi won two Super Bowls by insisting on perfect execution of plays and enforcing strict disciplinary measures. We're going to win the conference championship by following the same methods." Thompson assumes that because he and Lombardi are coaches, he can duplicate Lombardi's achievements by using Lombardi's methods. Several important differences, however, mark the two situations:

1. Lombardi had very talented players, obtained through the player draft or trades; Thompson can choose only from the students in his high school.

2. Lombardi's players were paid professionals who very likely were motivated, at least in part, by the financial rewards that came from winning the Super Bowl; Thompson's players are amateurs.

3. "Perfect execution of plays" is probably easier to attain on the professional level than in high school because of the players' experience.

4. Despite Lombardi's rigid disciplinary measures, very few of his players quit, perhaps because they were under contract. Could Thompson expect his players, essentially volunteers, to accept the kind of verbal and physical rigors Lombardi was famous for?

Exercise 1. Identify and explain the fallacies in the following examples. Remember that understanding the faulty reasoning is more important than merely naming the fallacy.

1. While eating a Golden Glow orange, Nancy discovers that it is rotten. "I'll never buy another Golden Glow product," she declares emphatically.

2. A campaigning politician states that unless the federal government appropriates funds to help people living in poverty, they will all starve.

3. A husband and wife see an X-rated movie called Swinging Wives. A week later the husband discovers that his wife, while supposedly attending an evening class, has been unfaithful to him. He blames the movie for her infidelity.

4. "Look at those two motorcycle riders trying to pick a fight. All those cycle bums are troublemakers."

5. "Bill really loves to eat. Some day he'll have a serious weight problem."

6. "Because no-fault divorce is responsible for today's skyrocketing divorce rate, it should be abolished."

7. "This is the best-looking picture in the exhibit; it's so much more attractive than the others."

8. "I do not support this school millage proposal. It's sponsored by James McAndrews, who's about the most ill-tempered, quarrelsome person I've ever met. I'd never favor anything he supports."

9. "My position on social and economic issues is easy to state. I am against wooly-brained do-gooders and big-spending, pie-in-the-sky welfare programs that have brought us to the brink of social disaster. I stand foursquare behind our free enterprise system, which has given us a standard of living the whole world envies; and if elected, I will defend it with everything at my command."

10."I am against the proposed ban on smoking in public places. As long as I don't inhale and I limit my habit to 8-10 cigarettes a day, my health won't suffer."

11."Life today has become far too frenzied and stressful. It was much better a century ago."

Suggestions for Writing. Write an argument on some topic you feel strongly about. Study all sides of an issue so you can argue effectively and appeal to a particular audience. Support your proposition with logical evidence. Here are some possibilities if your teacher gives you a free choice:

1. Compulsory composition course at university

2. Unmarried couples living together

3. Gay rights

4. Legalizing prostitution (or gambling)

5. Capital punishment