1. Fallacies: What not to do in an argument
Ms. Milton
AP Language

2. What is Fallacy?
As a critical reader, you must be alert to an author’s interpretation of information. Sometimes in their arguments, authors make mistakes that destroy the validity of the arguments. These mistakes are called fallacies.
It is important to recognize fallacies for two reasons: 1) so you can avoid fallacies in your own argumentation; and 2) so you can identify fallacies in the argumentation of others.
Fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources.

3. Ad hominem (to the man)
Definition: A strategy that discredits a person in an effort to discredit his or her argument. It attacks the person’s motive or character rather than his/her position on the argument. This is used to prejudice the audience against the opponent and his/her view.
This tactic is used in political debates and ads; it is called mudslinging.
Example: Neil thinks that he can win the Student Council election because he understands the issues that are important to his fellow students, but I don’t think he should win because he is so conceited.
Explanation: Neil may know exactly what his fellow students want and how to get that. Attacking him for being conceited does not address the fact that he understands the important issues.

4. Ad populum
Definition: This fallacy is also known as “bandwagon appeal;” the idea that if many or most people believe something, it must be true.
Example: Nine out of ten voters in the precinct think that Lucinda Smith would be the best mayor, so obviously she is the candidate you should vote for.
Explanation: Because most people are voting for Ms. Smith, then I must jump on the bandwagon and vote for her too regardless of if she is qualified or not.

5. Begging the question
Definition: This fallacy is also called circular reasoning, an argument in which the conclusion you are trying to prove is assumed in the premise. In other words, you are repeating what has already been said to make it look like a cause, explanation, or reason.
Example: That test was hard because the questions were so difficult.
Explanation: The reasoning is circular and basically means that “the test is hard because it is hard.”
Example: Cheating is bad because it is morally wrong.
Explanation: The reasoning is circular and basically means that “cheating is bad because it is bad.”

6. Hasty Generalization
Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate; basing a conclusion on too little evidence.
Stereotypes about people ("All frat boys are drunkards," "All Blonds are dumb," “All Asians are smart) are common examples of hasty generalizations.
Example: I don’t understand how to do my geometry homework today. I probably can’t pass the course since I can’t do the work.
Explanation: One difficult assignment does not mean that an entire course will be impossible to pass. The student was too quick to generalize.
Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!"
Explanation: Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

7. Missing the Point
Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion--but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
Example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So, the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving."
Explanation: The argument actually supports several conclusions--The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious, but it doesn't support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

8. Post hoc (Cause-Effect Error)
Definition: The assumption that an earlier event causes a later event, when there may be no connection between them. In short, assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
Example: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.“
Explanation: An increase in crime does not mean it occurred because the president raised taxes. The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.
Example: I washed my car today, so of course it rained.
Explanation: Because a person is more likely to notice, and be bothered by, rain after washing his/her car, it is tempting to conclude that washing the car caused the bad weather when the two events are really not connected.

9. Slippery Slope
Definition: 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.
Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now."
Explanation: Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take place.
Example: If I don’t have that dress, the whole prom will be ruined for me.
Explanation: One factor on prom night will not nullify all other factors regarding the prom being a success for one person. If the person cannot buy that prom dress, then another will suffice and prom will go on for that person. The worse-case scenario will not occur.

10. Weak/False Analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy. In short, false analogies are comparisons between things that are not actually similar.
Example: "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."
Explanation: While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.
NOTE: If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: "My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains. " So, the mere fact that you draw an analogy between two things doesn't prove much, by itself.

11. Ad verecundiam
Definition: The use of an authority figure in a reference to the argument; implies that authority/respected persons support the argument when in reality they may not.
We try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert.
Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it."
Explanation: While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

12. Straw Man
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. The arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. In other words, we attribute an unreasonable position to our opponents, then counterargue that, rather than the real argument.
Example: "Feminists want to ban all men’s magazines and punish everyone who reads them! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: men’s magazines and their readers should be left in peace."
Explanation: The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated-- in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on men’s magazines or any punishment for those who merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on these magazines, or propose to allow people who are hurt by men’s magazines to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages.

13. Red Herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from the real issue. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.
Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well."
Explanation: Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:
Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.
Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.
When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent--the fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. The audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

14. Either/Or Thinking
Definition: The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.
Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down."
Explanation: The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question--for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.

15. OVERSIMPlification
Definition: Trying to provide a simple solution to a complex problem
Example: If school districts ban weapons, there will be no more shootings in schools.
Explanation: This comment oversimplifies the problem. Just banning weapons does not eliminate the possibility of shootings in schools.

16. Non sequitur
Definition: An attempt to relate two or more ideas which are not related; one idea does not logically lead to the next.
Example: I should be getting an A in writing class—I got an A in my anatomy class last winter.
Explanation: There is no relationship between a grade earned in a science class last year and a writing course this year.
Example: If I can pass AP Language, I can pass AP Calculus.
Explanation: While the speaker hopes this statement is correct, it does not follow that success in an AP Language class guarantees success in another AP class.

17. Slanting
Definition: An argument that selects evidence that only supports your claim and conceals or plays down other evidence
Example: US gun controls need to be tighter: every year, hundreds of people are killed in armed robberies.
Explanation: This argument omits the fact that many guns used in robberies are illegally obtained, and hence would not be affected by gun laws.

18. Equivocation
Definition: This happens when the writer makes use of a word’s multiple meanings and changes the meanings in the middle of the argument without really telling the audience about the shift.
Example: When representing himself in court, a defendant said, “I have told the truth, and I have always heard that the truth would set me free.”
Explanation: In this case, the arguer switches the meaning of truth. In the first instance, he refers to truth as an accurate representation of the events; in the second, he paraphrases a Biblical passage that refers to truth as a religious absolute. Hence, the double references fail to support his claim.

19. You’re Another
Definition: This fallacy avoids the real argument by making similar charges against the opponent.
Example: How can the police ticket me for speeding? I see cops speeding all the time.
Explanation: Although cops may speed, their speeding may be due to the call of duty and this person’s claim is still not justified.

20. Veiled threat Argumentum ad baculum
Definition: Adverse consequences will occur if this action is not taken, or if this argument is not believed.
Example: Brita water filters protect you from harmful contaminants and chemicals.
Explanation: So, it is implied that if you do not have a Brita filter and you drink water that is unfiltered, you will be harmed. This is not necessarily the case. In other words, the audience is persuaded to agree by threats or force.