1. Fallacies Part 2 Critical Thinking
Dialogue Education
2009
Fallacies Part 2 Critical Thinking
THIS CD HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR TEACHERS TO USE IN THE CLASSROOM. IT IS A CONDITION OF THE USE OF THIS CD THAT IT BE USED ONLY BY THE PEOPLE FROM SCHOOLS THAT HAVE PURCHASED THE CD ROM FROM DIALOGUE EDUCATION. (THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ITS USE ON A SCHOOL’S INTRANET).

2. Analyze + Evaluate = Your Opinion? Target Audience?
AirAsia + Girls = Fun

3. Module 4: Fallacies What mistake!!! Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies
Insufficient
Evidence

4. What is a Fallacy?
A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
Fallacies can be divided into two general types:
Fallacies of Relevance Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.

5. Fallacies of Relevance
“There is nothing so stupid as an educated man,
if you get him off the thing he was educated in”
- Will Rogers

6. Fallacies of Relevance
A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false.
There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or irrelevant to another:
A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true.
A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is false.
A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides no reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or false.

7. Fallacies of Relevance
Personal Attack
Appeal to Pity
Attacking the Motive
Bandwagon Argument
Non Sequitur
Straw Man
Begging the Question
Red Herring
Scare Tactics
Equivocation
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Genetic Fallacy

8. Personal Attack/Ad Hominem
When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim
by attacking the person’s character rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
Example: Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis on music in our F2F classes to facilitate creativity. But Doogie is a selfish bigheaded fool. I absolutely refuse to listen to him.
1. X is a bad person.
2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.
Pattern

9. Attacking the Motive Example:
When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
Example:
Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll make a fortune if his company is picked to build the new campus. Obviously, Trump’s argument is a lot of self-serving nonsense.
X has biased or has questionable motives.
Therefore, X’s arguments or claim should be rejected.
Pattern

10. Non Sequitur Example: If A then % Pattern Non Sequitur
When an arguer makes a comment which, due to its lack of meaning
relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the
point of being humorous or confusing.
Example:
"If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.“
"Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags."
(Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent are both
Examples of Non Sequitur )
If A then %
Pattern

11. Two Wrongs Make a Right Examples:
When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act
by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.
Examples:
“I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz. Half the class cheats on his quiz.”
“Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”
1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts.
2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.
Pattern

12. Scare Tactics
Scare Tactics
When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener
and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of
the arguer’s conclusion.
Example: Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.
Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often
causes us to think and behave irrationally.
Remember

13. Definist Fallacy Pattern Definist Fallacy
This involves the confusion between two notions
by defining one in terms of the other.
It is in fact unclear that the definist fallacy is fallacious, as the fact that there is always an open question merely reflects the fact that it makes sense to ask whether two things that may be identical in fact are. Thus, even if the good is identical to what is pleasurable, it makes sense to ask whether it is; the answer will be "yes", but the question was legitimate. That is, Moore can't deny that, for example, it makes sense to ask whether Hesperus is the same heavenly body as Phosphorus, even though we know that it is. Moore seems to be implying that it might not be, that the answer to "are they the same" might be "no" — but that is
to beg the question against their identification.
A = B One idea is defined by another idea.
Pattern

14. Bandwagon Argument
Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure)
When an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be popular,
accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant
reasons or evidence.
Example: All the really cool UNITAR students smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you should, too.
1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.
2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.
Pattern

15. Straw Man
Straw Man
When an arguer misrepresents another person’s
position to make it easier to attack.
Example:
Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Suzie: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.“
Singh: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Pattern

16. Red Herring
Red Herring
When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising
an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original
issue has been effectively settled by the
irrelevant diversion.
Example: "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A) Topic A is abandoned.
Pattern

17. Equivocation
Equivocation
When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two
(or more) different senses.
Example: In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed almost very night. To be bombed is to be intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Londoners were intoxicated almost every night.
Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot because
they often appear valid, but they aren’t.
Remember

18. Begging the Question
Begging the Question
When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason)
the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.
Example: I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say whatever I please.
Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.
Reason

19. Genetic Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
To attack the argument not in terms of its content but in terms of its origins.
Example: All claims of the Freemasons can be safely ignored. The Freemasons are just an ancient trade union movement warmed up for modern times.
Arguing with – A is wrong because it has origins which
Should be ignored. No reason is given.
Reason

20. Mini Quiz – Question 1 Which fallacy?
I'm trying hard to understand this guy who identifies himself as a security supervisor and criticizes the police officers in this area. I can only come up with two solutions. One, he is either a member of the criminal element, or two, he is a frustrated security guard who can never make it as a police officer and figures he can take cheap shots at cops through the newspaper (adapted from a newspaper call-in column).
Which fallacy?
Loaded Question
Personal Attack/Ad Hominim
Bandwagon Argument
Scare Tactics

21. Mini Quiz – Question 2 Which fallacy?
The Red Cross is worried about the treatment of the suspected terrorists held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What do they want the U.S. to do with them, put them on the beaches of Florida for a vacation or take them skiing in the Rockies? Come on, let's worry about the Americans. (adapted from a newspaper call-in column)
Which fallacy?
Bandwagon Argument
Personal Attack/Ad Hominim
Straw Man
Scare Tactics

22. Insufficient Evidence
Fallacies of
Insufficient Evidence
“The foolish and the dead alone
never change their opinion.”
- James Russell Lowell

23. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.

24. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Argument from Irrelevant Authority
Confusion of Correlation and Causation
Argument from Ignorance
Slippery Slope
False Dichotomy
Weak Analogy
Loaded Question
Inconsistency
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc
Hasty Generalizations

25. Argument from an Irrelevent Authority
Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.
Example: My dentist told me that aliens built the lost city of Atlantis. So, it’s reasonable to believe that aliens did build the lost city of Atlantis.
Authority Assessment
Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?
Is the source biased?
Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?
Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
Has the source been cited correctly?
Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion?
Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to expert opinion?
Is the claim highly improbable on its face?
Tips

26. Argument from Ignorance
Claiming that something is true because no one has
proven it false or vice versa.
Example:
Yoda must exist. No one has proved that he doesn’t exist.
Agree I do!
“Not proven, therefore false”
If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almost
any conclusion.
Remember

27. Posing a false either/or choice.
False Dichotomy
False Dichotomy
Posing a false either/or choice.
Example: The choice in this MPM election is clear: Either we elect Zubaidah as our next president, or we watch our MPM unity slide into anarchy and frustration. Clearly, we don’t want that to happen. Therefore, we should elect Zubaidah as our next president.
Fallacy of false dichotomy usually involve s
two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a
conditional (if-then) statement.
Remember

28. Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
Loaded Question
Loaded Question
Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
presupposition.
Example: Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard? Ali: Yes. Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser.
To respond to a loaded question effectively, one must
distinguish the different questions being asked and respond
to each individually.
Tip

29. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc
Since that event followed this one, that
event must have been caused by this one.
Example: More young people are attending private schools today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by private school education.
1. A occurred, then B occurred.
2. Therefore, A caused B.
Pattern

30. Confusion of Correlation and Causation
Confusion of Correlation or Causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc )
Where two events that occur together are necessarily claimed to
have a cause-and-effect relationship.
Example: With a decrease in the number of pirates we have seen an increase in global warming over the same time period. Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates
1. A occurs in correlation with B.
2. Therefore, A causes B.
Pattern

31. Slippery Slope Examples:
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly
harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous
outcome.
Examples:
“The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D.
The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be permitted.
In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually lead to D.
Pattern

32. Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.
Weak Analogy
Weak Analogy
Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.
Example: Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for a test drive. Why then shouldn’t two mature UNITAR students live together before they decide whether to get married?
1. List all important similarities between the two cases.
2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases.
3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are
more important.
Tip

33. Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.
Inconsistency
Inconsistency
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.
Example: Note found in a Forest Service Suggestion box: Park visitors need to know how important it is to keep this wilderness area completely pristine and undisturbed. So why not put up a few signs to remind people of this fact?
It is also a mistake to cling stubbornly to an old idea when new
information suggests that the idea is false.
Open-minded to new ideas = Learning
Remember

34. Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that
Hasty Generalization
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that
is biased or too small.
Example: Norwegians are lazy. I have two friends who are from there, and both of them never prepare for class, or do their homework.
1. A biased sample is one that is not representative of the target population.
2. The target population is the group of people or things that the
generalization is about.
3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypes.
Pattern

35. Mini Quiz – Question 1 Which fallacy?
What's to say against [cigars]? They killed George Burns at 100. If he hadn't smoked them, he'd have died at 75. (Bert Sugar, quoted in New York Times, September 20, 2002)
Which fallacy?
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc
Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy

36. Mini Quiz – Question 2 Which fallacy?
According to North Korea's official state-run news agency, "a war between North Korea and the United States will end with the delightful victory of North Korea, a newly emerging military power, in 100 hours The U. S. [will] be enveloped in flames. . . and the arrogant empire of the devil will breathe its last". Given that this prediction comes from the official North Korean news agency, it is probably true. (Passage quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof, "Empire of the Devil," New York Times, April 4, 2003)
Which fallacy?
Argument from Irrelevant Authority
Argument from Ignorance
False Dichotomy
Loaded Question

37. Mini Quiz – Question 3 Which fallacy?
Jurors in tobacco lawsuits should award judgments so large that they put tobacco companies out of business. Respecting the right of tobacco companies to stay in business is akin to saying there are "two sides" to slavery... (Anti-tobacco lawyer, quoted in George F. Will, "Court Ruling Expresses Anti-Smoking Hypocrisy," Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, May 25, 2003)
Which fallacy?
Loaded Question
Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy

38. Group Activity
Break into groups of , and construct five (5) fallacious arguments.
Each group can choose any of the 20 fallacies discussed, but must construct at least two fallacious arguments of each category: Fallacies of Relevance & Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence).
The constructed fallacious arguments must discuss the topics specified in the template provided (Business, Education, Information Technology, Environment, and Tourism).
20 min
Construct 5 fallacious arguments.
5 min
Document constructed arguments into the template provided.
15 min
Group presentation & discussion.
The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the lecturer before or during the next class.

39. YOU TUBE clip showing the strawman fallacy, false dichotomy and the difference between direct and indirect argument. Only a minute or so long. wmv file.
Click on the image to the left. You will need to be connected to the internet to view this presentation.
Enlarge to full screen

40. Summary – 20 Common Fallacies
Fallacy
An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.
Personal Attack
Attacking the Motive
Look Who’s Talking
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Scare Tactics
Appeal to Pity
Bandwagon Argument
Straw Man
Red Herring
Equivocation
Begging the Question
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Ignorance
False Alternatives
Loaded Question
Questionable Cause
Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy
Inconsistency

41. Bibliography
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi.
William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (ca. 1323) Part III.4.
John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, XXIIIff.
The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten - The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), by Arthur Schopenhauer (also known as "Schopenhauers 38 stratagems")
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic - Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion.
C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies. Methuen London, 1970.
Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959.
Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN
D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks,
Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1992.
Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998.
T. Edward Damer. Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5th Edition, Wadsworth, ISBN
Sagan, Carl, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark". Ballantine Books, March 1997 ISBN pgs hardback edition: Random House, ISBN X, xv+457 pages plus addenda insert (some printings). Ch.12.
Wikipedia-Fallacies-
Zaid Ali Allsagoff- Fallacies -