Chapter 17

 Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments.  Two things about fallacies 1. fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. 2. it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious

 Readers won’t trust a writer who can’t make a point without frightening someone, provoking tears, or stirring up hatred.

 Very common  Exaggerate possible dangers well beyond their statistical likelihood.  Used to stampede legitimate fears into panic or prejudice

 Reduce the options for action to only 2 choices  One option may draw in favorable terms the other casts a dangerous alternative.  Sometimes neither alternative is pleasant – the nature of many ultimatums  Become fallacious arguments when they reduce a complicated issue to excessively simple terms  Designed to seduce those who don’t know much about the argument

 Portrays today’s tiny misstep as tomorrow’s slide into disaster  The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption.

 Use tender emotions excessively to distract readers from facts  Appeals are often highly personal and focus attention on heartwarming or heart wrenching situations

 Urge people to follow the same path that everyone else is taking

 Writers offer themselves or other authorities as sufficient warrant for believing the claim  This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.  More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

 the tendency to express strongly held opinions in a way that suggests they should be accepted without question  Fallacy of character because the tactic undermines the trust between those who make and listen to arguments  Implies that no arguments are necessary – the truth is self-evident  “No rational person would disagree that…”

 Latin “to the man”  Arguments are attacks directed at the character of a person rather than the claims he or she makes Example: Nancy claims the death penalty is a good thing. But Nancy once set fire to a vacant warehouse. Nancy is evil. Therefore, the death penalty is a bad thing.

 Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small).  Stereotypes about people ("librarians are shy and smart," "wealthy people are snobs," etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

 From the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this."  The fallacious assumption that because one event or action follows another, the first causes the second Example: During the past two months, every time the cheerleaders have worn blue ribbons, the basketball team has won. So if we want to keep winning, they had better continue to wear the blue ribbons.

 Asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence  the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Example: You can’t give me a C in this course; I’m an A student.

 Sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument. Example: I wrote the entire paper myself.

 A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. Claim: You must not love me… Reason: …b/c you haven’t bought me that bike. Warrant: Buying bikes for children is essential to loving them.

 The arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down Child: "Can we get a dog?" Parent: "No." Child: "It would protect us." Parent: "Still, no." Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

 Comparisons give ideas greater presence  Ways of understanding unfamiliar ideas by comparing them with something that’s already known.  Can be proven false if the two things that are being compared aren't really alike

"Guns are like hammers—they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous."