Lutz/Snyder 2015
She’s a Witch!: Fallacies in Reasoning
Often fallacies in reasoning are a result of poor argumentation. However, a skilled persuader can use these fallacies as dangerous examples of manipulation. Just as powerful, though, is when a skilled respondent recognizes the fallacy and proves it to be a manipulative tool. In that case, the persuader’s argument falls apart.
Directions: After watching the video, note examples of how each of the fallacies are present. Hint: they’re all there!
Examples:
Faulty emotions appeal:
These fallacies often take the course of appealing to pity, compassion, or natural willingness. This is when persuaders try to capitalize on anger to create a “lynch mob” mentality or try to make us do something out of pity versus worth. For example, “John’s worked really hard on this essay; he should get an A.” However, if John’s essay stinks, even though he worked hard on it, he doesn’t deserve an A because he did not produce an A quality essay.
Hasty Generalization / Overgeneralization:
This fallacy results when a conclusion is reached from too few examples. Stereotypes and superstitions are often a result of hasty generalizations. While it may be true that Friday the 13th has been a bad day for a few, it has also been a very good day for many. Therefore, it’s not logical or appropriate to say that everyone has bad luck on that day.
Post Hoc / Doubtful Cause:
The arguer infers that because one thing happened after another there is some relationship between the two events.
Ad Hominem: “toward or against the man”
This results from the attack of the person arguing rather than the argument posed. This is when things “get personal.”
False Dilemma:
The arguer assumes that there are only two possible results that can occur. Therefore, the action taken has to be one or the other. This fallacy has a dark and light side. The arguer makes the dark result so repulsive that it will not be chosen. This is like saying do you want to die or do you want to die painfully? There is no consideration for wanting to live, in fact.
Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning:
The arguer makes the assumption that the very question being argued has already been proven. “Women should not be allowed to participate in professional sports because they are for men only.” This is assuming that we all agree that sports are for men only, when in fact that is not the case for many.
Two Wrongs Make a Right:
This is another manner of diverting the issue. When confronted with an ethical violation, the respondent points out the arguer’s violations.
Non Sequitur: “It does not follow.”
A very common fallacy, non sequiturs present the idea that because of A, then B is true. However, for example, just because a number of people agree on a position it does not follow that it is right.
False syllogism:
A syllogism is deductive reasoning – i.e., stating a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. E.g., All men are mortal. Bob is a man. Therefore Bob is mortal.
The false syllogism is when certain assumptions are made between A, B, and C that are non sequiturs. E.g., Chocolate comes from the cocoa bean. Beans are vegetables. Therefore, eating chocolate counts as a serving of vegetables.
Ad Populum: “to the people”
Arguers use this tactic to appeal to the prejudices of the crowd. An appeal to patriotism is often the case of this fallacy. This is the large scale version of arguing that the child should get the cookie because he wants it and is crying.