Logical Fallacies
If you want to maintain your ethos and appear logical, you need to avoid logical fallacies. These errors in reasoning, if noticed, can cause your audience to suspect your assertion and your support for it. You will need to know these fallacies for a quiz. You will also want to watch for them during our class debates. In addition, they could prove helpful for the AP test. The most important lesson, however, to apply to the AP test is to recognize unsound logic—even if you are not able to retain the name of that particular fallacy.
“The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson’s time.” —Richard Nixon
Note that some of the statements given as fallacies may be true, but they do not provide enough logic or connection to prove the truth. They are not currently functioning as sound reasoning or developed, logical arguments. Also, the examples given as fallacies reflect many different opinions, and I am not trying to suggest any political/moral truth due to the particular examples selected. Note: Rather than providing an alphabetical list of fallacies, I have “chunked” them based on meaning.
Source Note: Much of the info. and wording below comes from various sources, including McGraw-Hill’s 2004 5 Steps to a 5: Writing the AP English Essay (pgs. 69-70); Essentials of Speech Communication (pgs. 188-89); and Wikipedia’s articles on Propaganda and Persuasion. Handout put together by Shauna McPherson (and TAs), Lone Peak High School.
Tier 1You are required to read and memorize the following fallacies. They may appear on the quiz (with a word bank). Some have been known to appear on the AP test by name. However, they do not often show up on the test; they are mostly helpful in aiding students to distinguish between good logic and manipulation/over-reliance on emotion. The ideas of logical fallacies—whether you can use the exact name or not—may also help you on the essay portion of the AP test. Note: some of the fallacies are known by many different names, including the Latin version as well as English. In some cases, I have bolded the particular title used on the quiz. (In the cases where no one term is bolded, I may offer additional help later.)
Non Sequitur: (Latin phrase for “does not follow”). This is an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premise. This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. For example: A waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an automobile's performance.In another example: “Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty!” (Ex 3: Jesse drives a Mercedes. He must have a great deal of money and live in a mansion. Ex 4: Dr. X is being sued. He must be a terrible doctor. Ex. 5: I saw some suspicious-looking people in this neighborhood last night. This must be a dangerous neighborhood.) Note that sometimes the conclusion could be true—if more clues/data added up to it, but based on the one item, the conclusion seems to come out of nowhere. (Note: Colloquially, “non sequiturs” can refer to a random statement that someone—such as a character in a movie—says that leaves people laughing and scratching their head, wondering, “Where did that come from?”)
Here’s a few things people have said or written in my class that I would call non sequiturs (in the colloquial sense):
- “I can be in whatever mood I want to be because you’re sitting in my seat.” (and then: “I don’t care if what I said made sense. You’re sitting in my seat, so it doesn’t matter.”)
- “Although players had shaved legs, the team unity at the State Meet was high.”
- “Why are there three girls’ choice dances in a row?” “Because the girls soccer field needs to be re-done.”
Transfer: This fallacy is also known as association; this is a technique that involves projecting the positive or negative qualities of one person, entity, object, or value onto another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response. Often highly visual, this technique sometimes utilizes symbols superimposed over other visual images. These symbols may be used in place of words; for example, placing swastikas on or around a picture of an opponent in order to associate the opponent with Nazism. Transfer makes an illogical (or stretched/distorted) connection between unrelated things; for example, if politics is corrupt, this candidate also is corrupt. Another example: Transfer is used when a soda ad includes a party or an attractive woman: it suggests that there is some kind of causal connection between drinking the soda and having a good time or attracting girls, without ever directly proving the logic of such.
Note: The following four fallacies are quite similar.
Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. Basically, the writer assumes something in his assertion/premise that really needs to be proved. (Ex. 1: All good citizens know the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Therefore, a test on the Bill of Rights should be given to all those registering to vote. Ex. 2: A good Christian would definitely support the such-and-such act, which bans international prostitution. Therefore, so-and-so who is arguing for it must not be Christian. Ex. 3: “Our ineffective mayor should be replaced.”)
Circular Reasoning: This mistake in logic restates the premise rather than giving a reason for holding that premise. (Ex. 1: Science should be required of all students because all students need to learn science. Ex. 2: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible. Ex. 3: Conversation in Fletch that goes something like this:
“Who are you?”
“I’m Frieda’s boss.”
“Who’s Frieda?”
“She’s my secretary.”)
Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example: “Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office.” Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above supposedly has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees. (Note: I’d say this particular example could be categorized as false premise or begging the question as well.)
Circular Definition:The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition. Example:“A book is pornographic if and only if it contains pornography.” (We would need to know what pornography is in order to tell whether a book is pornographic.)
False Premise: A speaker begins with a false assumption that is assumed true. Ex. 1: “All other leading antacid remedies take 20 minutes to provide relief.” (If some of the competitors take less than 20 minutes to work, the example would be a false premise) Ex. 2: “Because Ms. McPherson is the worst teacher in the school, she should be fired.” (Understood premise of “The worst teachers should be fired”; hopefully false premise that Ms. M is the worst teacher). Ex. 3: Because you are in AP, this work must come easy for you. (Understood—and likely false—premise that hard/AP work is easy for advanced students)
Note: The following three fallacies are quite similar.
Attacking the Person / Ad hominem: (Latin phrase for “argue against the man”) This technique attacks the person rather than his/her argument or the issue under discussion. (Ex. 1: We all know that Brady was forced to leave college. How can we trust his company with our investments? Ex. 2: “You claim that atheists can be moral—yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children.”) This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person—could also call this Reductio ad Hitlerum. For example: “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you.” (Note:It’s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won’t, however, prove that their testimony is false concerning whatever matter is under discussion. It also won’t alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.)
Obtain Disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. (Ex. 1 A couple years ago in Utah, some who argued for Proposition 1 charged that those against it included the liberal NEA and Hillary Clinton.)
Distraction by Nationalism: A variant on the traditional ad hominem and bandwagon fallacies applied to entire countries. The method is to discredit opposing arguments by appealing to nationalistic pride or memory of past accomplishments, or appealing to fear of dislike of a specific country, or of foreigners in general. It can be very powerful as it discredits foreign journalists (the ones that are least easily manipulated by domestic political or corporate interests). Example: “The only criticisms of this trade proposal come from the United States. But we all know that Americans are arrogant and uneducated, so their complaints are irrelevant.”
Straw Man argument: This fallacy occurswhen you misrepresent (or distort) someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. Or, Straw man is also explained as putting an opponent’s weak argument with his stronger arguments and then suggesting that when you’ve overcome the weak argument, you’ve overcome the opponents’ arguments as a whole. Example: “Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.” Ex. 2: Grouping all those opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as “pacifists” allows the speaker to refute the group by arguing for war in general. Likewise, someone might call those who are for the war “warmongers” or “lackeys of the United States.”
Note: The next two fallacies are quite similar.
Hasty generalization: A person who makes a hasty generalization forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases, which aren’t necessarily representative of all cases. Basically, the evidence is insufficient to warrant the conclusion being applied to a larger population. (Ex. 1: The well-known computer expert found a virus in his own PC. All computers must be contaminated with this virus. Ex. 2: Utah county high schools have had a rise with gang violence, so this must be a rising problem for all of Utah. Ex. 3: Obama changed his mind on how long the troops need to stay in Irag; therefore, we can’t trust our politicians—they never stick to what they originally say they will do. Ex. 4: “Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere.”)
Overgeneralization or False Generalization or Dicto Simpliciter or Sweeping Generalizations: (Stereotyping) The writer/speaker draws a conclusion about a large number of people, ideas, things, etc. based on very limited evidence. Any statement assuming all members of an ethnic, religious, or political group are all the same in all or most respects is false. (Ex. 1: All members of the Wooden Peg Club are not to be trusted. Ex. 2: Whites are well-off so they shouldn’t be in the pool for a scholarship for those who are needy or who have overcome challenges.) Words such as never, always, all, every, everyone, everywhere, no one are usually indicative of overgeneralization. It’s best to use and to look for qualifiers (some, seem, appear, often, perhaps, frequently, etc.), which indicate that the writer has an awareness of the complexities of the topic or group under discussion. (However, in writing an analysis, don’t use too many qualifiers, such as “seems” a lot—go ahead and stick your neck out, particularly if you’re pretty sure.)
Another definition says that oversimplification occurs when favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex, social, political, economic, or military problems. This is also sometimes called glittering generalities (See below.).
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable. It's the error made when you go from the general to the specific. For example: “Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists.” (Note: If you felt the first sentence was erroneous, you could also call this a false premise fallacy.)
Note: The next five fallacies are quite similar.
Glittering generalities: Oversimplification/favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
The speaker/writer uses clichés; makes broad, sweeping, positive statements with little or no substance; or otherwise tries to make the audience accept something by associating it with other things that are values. Another explanation says: glittering generalities are “emotionally appealing words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis.” (Ex. 1: “Good citizens will support new housing developments in our communities.” Ex. 2: “Ford has a better idea.”)
Virtue words:These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. “Peace,” “happiness,” “security,” “wise leadership,” and “freedom,” are virtue words. See Transfer. (Ex. 1: A speech mentions phrases/words like “justice for our children, peace in our lands, virtue in our hearts,” etc.)
Name Calling, Stereotyping, or Labeling. A speaker uses emotionally charged, negative terms for a group or idea, without providing proof or examining the real issues. For example, calling someone a “loser” or a “racist” is meant to turn people against him or her. This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.
Slanting: This is a form of misrepresentation in which a statement is made which may be true, but the phrasing, connotations of words, or emphases are manipulative. For example: “I can’t believe how much money is being poured into the space program” (suggesting that “poured” means heedless and unnecessary spending).
Complex question / Loaded question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition: This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question:“Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like: "Where did you hide the money you stole?” Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: “Does the Chancellor plan offer two more years of ruinous privatization?” or “How long with this EU interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?”
(Anecdotal Evidence often functions as a sub-category of the hasty generalization fallacy.)
Anecdotal Evidence: One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example: “There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured.” It is quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes do not act as proof by themselves. For example, your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven’t had the same experience will require more than your friend’s anecdotal evidence to convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years. Note: When a speaker/writer tries to use an anecdote alone to prove a point, it is also a hasty generalization (perhaps such and such did occur in one person’s experience, but that experience alone is likely not enough evidence to generalize as a rule). Note: Anecdotes are often effective in creating pathos or helping a speaker connect with the audience, but they are not good at creating a foundation of logos—although, an anecdote may be one building block in creating evidence.