J-reading: Arguments: Rhetorical Fallacies
(Some examples from Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, & Wallace, Critical Thinking, 143-155, 166-177.)
To speak generally, a fallacy is a short-circuit in reasoning wherein the premises do not logically support the conclusion. In this respect, a logician will often refer to a faulty deductive argument as fallacious. In what follows we will deal with the more common phenomenon of rhetorical fallacies: attempts to persuade an audience by means of emotion instead of relevant reasons. These are more at home in inductive arguments. It is when these techniques are irrelevant (or not relevant enough) as support for a conclusion that they fit the standard definition of fallacy, but it must be born in mind that not every use of emotion is irrelevant to an argument’s conclusion. When I told my wife that she should marry me because I love her, this is both attempting to persuade her emotionally and perfectly relevant to the issue of whether she should marry me.
In this regard, the point of discussing these techniques is not aimed at giving you a bunch of technical vocabulary. The real point of this reading is twofold: First, making yourself familiar with these different rhetorical techniques can help you be more active in detecting them when they occur in your daily life. (For example, you may soon find the mass media and advertisements either too ridiculous or too nauseating to pay any attention to.) Second, these issues help us refine our more global ability to discern what is relevant and irrelevant to an argument.
1. Appeal to Force or Fear
Fear is a powerful motivator - so powerful that it often causes us to think and behave irrationally. The fallacy of appeal to force is committed when an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer's conclusion. Here are three examples:
You really need the new Mercedes, or else people will think you’re unsuccessful.
I'm sure you'll agree that we are the rightful rulers of the San Marcos Islands. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.
This gun control bill is wrong for America, and any politician who supports it will discover how wrong they were at the next election.
In each of these examples, the scare tactics employed provide no relevant evidence that supports the stated conclusion. Of course, not all threats involve fallacies. Here are three examples:
If you come home late one more time, then your allowance will be cut.
Attend class regularly and do your homework or you’ll get a poor grade.
President Kennedy to Soviet Premier Kruschchev: If you don't remove your nuclear missiles from Cuba, then we will have no choice but to remove them by force. If we use force to remove the missiles, that may provoke an all-out nuclear war. Neither of us wants an all-out nuclear war. Therefore, you should remove your missiles from Cuba. (paraphrased)
These are logically relevant to the conclusion.
2. Appeal to Pity and Flattery
An appeal to pity or flattery relies on the audience’s sympathies or egos to gain their consent, when such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguer's conclusion.
Here is an example:
Actual e-mail I received: “I really need to pass philosophy, because I am already on probation and will get kicked out. You said I was really close to a D, so can’t you move me up to a C- like my art teacher did?”
Such arguments may or may not be effective in arousing our sympathies. Logically, however, this argument is clearly fallacious, for the premises provide no relevant reasons to accept the conclusion. Are all arguments that contain emotional appeals fallacious? No, as the following examples illustrate:
Felisha, your paper is genius. Can I have a copy of it to show to future students?
I’m sorry, Jeff, but I wasn’t able to finish this assignment, because I had to undergo an emergency lobotomy as part of my parole agreement.
Granny was asking about you the other day. She's so lonely and depressed since Grandpa passed away, and her Alzheimer's seems to get worse every day. She's done so much for you over the years. Don't you think you should pay her a visit?
In these examples, the appeals to emotion are both appropriate and relevant to the arguers' legitimate purposes. Too often, however, people use emotional appeals to hinder or obscure rational thinking.
3. Appeal to the People or Popularity or Bandwagon
We all like to feel loved, admired, recognized, valued, and accepted by others. A bandwagon argument is an argument that plays on a person's desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than appealing to logically relevant reasons or evidence. Here are four examples:
All the really cool kids at TVI smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you should, too.
I can't believe you're going to the library on a Friday night! You don't want people to think you're a nerd, do you?
There must be something to astrology. Millions of Americans can't be wrong.
But all the sorority sisters agree that a “blondes only” policy is not racist.
The basic pattern of these arguments is this:
1. Everybody (or a select group of people) believes or does X.
2. Therefore, you should believe or do X, too.
This pattern is fallacious, because the fact that a belief or a practice is popular usually provides little or no evidence that the belief is true or that the practice is good. Popularity arguments are especially common in advertising. Not all appeals to popular beliefs or practices are fallacious, however, as these examples illustrate:
In this country, it's considered rude to stand right next to a person on an elevator when there's nobody else in it. Therefore, if you don't want to be considered rude, you should move over next time that situation occurs.
All of the villagers I spoke to said that the water here is too contaminated for drinking.
These bandwagon appeals are not fallacious, because the premises are relevant to the conclusions.
4. Argument against the Person (Ad Hominem)
The Ad Hominem fallacy attacks the person instead of using reasons to attack their claim or position. Here are two examples:
If Governor Davis wants to increase gun control, then I’m against it, because he is the same guy who wants to build more power plants.
Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine, has argued against censorship of pornography. But Hefner is an immature, self-indulgent millionaire who never outgrew the adolescent fantasies of his youth. His argument isn't worth a plugged nickel.
Even if it is true that Hefner is a bad person, that doesn't mean he is incapable of offering good arguments on the topic of censorship. The attack on Hefner's character is simply irrelevant to the point at issue, which is the strength of Hefner's case against the censorship of pornography. This is a particular form of Ad Hominem that is called the Genetic Fallacy. This brand of Ad Hominem implies that a claim or argument is bad because of its source, as if the source completely determines the veracity of the claim. For instance, Hitler is often used as the epitome of the bad character, which I in no way deny, but that does not entail that if he claimed, “A circle is a round shape,” he must be mistaken.
A similar technique is found in the charge that a person whose recommendations seem to contradict their own behavior must be mistaken in their recommendation. In other words, their argument is rejected because that person fails to practice what he or she preaches. This is referred to by several different names: the hypocrite fallacy, the “Look who’s talking” fallacy, or the tu quoque ("you too”) fallacy. Here are several examples:
“You should quit smoking.” “Look who's talking! I'll quit when you do, Mr. Smokestack!
President Clinton: We need to restore family values in the American entertainment industry. Our children's futures depend on it. Joe Q. Public: What incredible chutzpah! Why should we listen to anything that hypocrite has to say about "family values"?
Presidential candidate Bill Bradley: When Al [Gore] accuses me of negative campaigning, that reminds me of the story about Richard Nixon, the kind of politician who would chop down a tree, then stand on the stump and give a speech about conservation.
Arguments are good or bad not because of who offers them but because of their own intrinsic strengths or weaknesses. You cannot refute a person's argument simply by pointing out that he or she fails to practice what he or she preaches. However, it should be noted that there is nothing fallacious as such in criticizing a person's hypocritical behavior. For example:
Jim: Our neighbor Joe gave me a hard time again yesterday about washing our car during this drought emergency.
Patty: Well, he's right. But I wish that hypocrite would live up to his own advice. Just last week I saw him watering his lawn in the middle of the afternoon.
Here, Patty is simply pointing out, justifiably, that their neighbor is a hypocrite. However, because she does not reject any argument or claim offered by the neighbor, no fallacy is committed.
Closely related to this hypocrite fallacy is the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. The fallacy of two wrongs make a right occurs when an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse. Here are some examples:
I don't feel guilty about cheating on Dr. Boyer's test. Half the class cheats on his tests.
You can't blame Clinton for being unfaithful to his wife. Many presidents have had extramarital affairs.
Why pick on me, officer? Nobody comes to a complete stop at that stop sign.
Parent: Quit hitting your brother. Child: He pinched me.
We have all offered our share of such excuses. But however tempting such excuses may be, we know that they can never truly justify our misdeeds.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that not every personal attack is a fallacy. The fallacy of personal attack occurs only if (1) an arguer rejects another person's argument or claim and (2) the arguer attacks the person who offers the argument or claim, rather than considering the merits of that argument or claim. Consider some examples of personal attacks that aren't fallacies but might easily be mistaken for fallacies. Here are two examples:
Millions of innocent people died in Stalin's ruthless ideological purges. Clearly, Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century.
Ms. Smith has testified that she saw my client rob the First National Bank. But Ms. Smith has twice been convicted of perjury. In addition, you've heard Ms. Smith's own mother testify that Ms. Smith is a pathological liar. Therefore, you should not believe Ms. Smith's testimony against my client.
Here the characters of these persons are directly relevant to the claims being made. In the first example, attacking Stalin’s character is the very point at issue. In the second, Ms. Smith’s character is a relevant reason to disrespect Ms. Smith as a credible witness. Because the arguer's personal attacks are relevant to the issues, no fallacy is committed.
Another version of the fallacy of personal attack is the fallacy of attacking the motive. Attacking the motives is the error of criticizing a person's motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself. Here are two examples:
Ned James claims that he can prove that Mayor Babcock has embezzled city funds. But James is just trying to get back at the mayor for firing him from his job as city controller.
Barbara Simmons, President of the American Trial Lawyers Association, has argued that punitive damage awards resulting from tobacco litigation should not be limited. But this is exactly what you would expect her to say. Trial lawyers stand to lose billions if such punitive damage awards are limited. Therefore, we should ignore Ms. Simmons's argument.
This pattern of reasoning is fallacious because people with biases or questionable motives do sometimes offer good arguments. You cannot simply assume that because a person has a vested interest in an issue, any position he or she takes on the issue must be false or weakly supported.
It is important to realize, however, that not all attacks on an arguer's motives are fallacious. Here are two examples:
Burton Wexler, spokesperson for the American Tobacco Growers Association, has argued that there is no credible scientific evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Given Wexler's obvious bias in the matter, his arguments should be taken with a grain of salt.
"Crusher" Castellano has testified that mob hit man Sam Milano was at the movies at the time mob informer Piero Roselli was gunned down. But Castellano was paid $30,000 by the mob for his testimony. Therefore, Castellano's testimony should be seriously questioned.
Both of these arguments include attacks on an arguer's motives. However, neither of the arguments is fallacious. Both simply reflect the commonsense assumption that arguments put forward by arguers with obvious biases or motivations to lie need to be scrutinized with particular care.
5. Straw Man
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument or claim in order to make it easier to attack. I like to think of the “straw man” as a boxing metaphor. The real contending fighter will take on the strongest competition to display his/her prowess. If a boxer chooses to only take on obviously inferior opponents, they haven’t proved a thing about their strength if they’ve only knocked out opponents who were no tougher than a man of straw (i.e., scare crow). Here are two examples: