Fallacies of Relevance Examples and patterns

Ad Hominem: My opponent in this debate, who has not had the advantages that education and experience have bestowed on me, cannot be faulted for failing to see the sense of my proposal.   Pattern of reasoning: X is a “bad” person Therefore, X’s argument should be rejected

Attacking the Motive: You can safely reject the study by Dr. Jameson and his team. After all, they got their funding from the logging industry.   Pattern of Reasoning: X’s motive for promoting the claim is “bad” (immoral, self-interested, etc.) Therefore, X’s argument should be rejected.

Ad Hominem and Attacking the Motive Consider the following clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7UU6FQoU_g Discuss any fallacies of relevance the interviewer may have committed.

Tu Quoque: Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing." Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!“ Pattern of Argument: X is guilty of a practical inconsistency. Therefore X’s argument should be rejected.

Two Wrongs The cable company cheats everyone they deal with. First off, they hold a monopoly on the market. So, even if someone wants to take their business elsewhere, they can’t. Secondly, they charge way more than they should and they never provide service when you need it. I say, why not steal cable, they steal from people every day.   Pattern of Reasoning: X’s actions are just as bad or worse than my own actions. Therefore, it’s acceptable for me to commit actions that are wrong. Pattern of Reasoning (from conformism): Some immoral act is commonly practiced. Therefore, it’s acceptable for me to act in the same way.

Bandwagon Titanic grossed more than a hundred times the amount earned by Citizen Kane. Millions of people consider Titanic their favorite movie. Whereas only a few dozen film historians love Citizen Kane. Clearly Titanic is the superior film.   Pattern of Reasoning (from popular opinion): Many people (with no special claim to expertise on the topic) believe X. Therefore, X must be true. Pattern of Reasoning (from self-interest/vanity/conformism) If I believe X, I will be accepted. Therefore, I should believe X.

Strawman So you oppose the bombing of Baghdad? But how can you support a monster like Saddam Hussein? Besides, your protests show a total disregard for our troops who require our undivided support in this delicate matter. We should stand by our troops.   Pattern of reasoning: Some distorted (exaggerated, misleading, or false) view attributed to an opponent is clearly unsupportable. Therefore, the actual view of the opponent may reasonably be rejected.

Red Herring David Trimble has complained that it’s more expensive to live in New York than it is to live in Chicago. But New York is a great place to live. It has great restaurants, museums, and nightspots. I just don’t buy David’s argument at all.   Pattern of Reasoning: The arguer has resolved some loosely related, but irrelevant issue. Thus, the arguer is justified in rejecting the opponent’s argument on the issue at hand.

Equivocation Nothing is better than the infinite grace of God. But a three-day-old Big Mac is better than Nothing. So, I guess it’s true that a three-day-old Big Mac is better than the infinite grace of God. Pattern: The argument contains a key term on which the inference depends but the term is employed ambiguously in the premises and conclusion. Semantic Ambiguity: When a term has two or more conventional meanings.

Begging the Question Sharon: Joan has telepathy. Grace: How do you know? Sharon: She can read my mind. Pattern: The premise in the argument either a. is synonymous with the conclusion; or b. presupposes the conclusion is true.