Part 3: Research
12 Logical Fallacy
Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that are based on poor or faulty logic. When presented in a formal argument, they can cause you to lose your credibility as a writer, so you have to be careful of them.
Sometimes, writers will purposefully use logical fallacies to make an argument seem more persuasive or valid than it really is. In fact, the examples of fallacies on the following pages might be examples you have heard or read. While using fallacies might work in some situations, it’s irresponsible as a writer, and, chances are, an academic audience will recognize the fallacy.
However, most of the time, students accidentally use logical fallacies in their arguments, so being aware of logical fallacies and understanding what they are can help you avoid them. Plus, being aware of these fallacies can help you recognize them when you are reading and looking for source material. You wouldn’t want to use a source as evidence if the author included some faulty logic.
Last semester, several students worked together to create activities to help their peers understand Logical Fallacy. Now, you can benefit from their work. While there may be errors, these activities are a great way to learn some of the logical fallacies.
There are approximately 145 different logical fallacies. No, you don’t need to know them all! We are going to look at some of the most common logical fallacies in this chapter. Let’s start with a brief interactive page that shows the definitions of different logical fallacies.
Follow this link to see “Your Logical Fallacy”.
If you hover over the images, it will tell you the definition. If you click on it, they will give deeper explanations and examples.
Several students created projects to help you define logical fallacies. Take a look at these student created examples.
These student projects were created with a program called Genially. Genially’s accessibility statement can be found here.
Let’s take a look at some of the most common fallacies that can be found in student essays:
Straw Man Fallacy
False Dilemma Fallacy
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Appeal to Fear Fallacy
Ad Hominem Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Bandwagon Fallacy
Guilt by Association Fallacy
For a fun variation of these same logical fallacies, check out the adventures of Captain Logic and Doctor Fallacy.
Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it, or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
Example
Person 1:I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change.
Person 2:
So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the southwest and perform a “rain dance.”
False Dilemma Fallacy
Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, a false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are actually many shades of gray.
Example
Person 1:
You’re either for the war or against the troops.
Person 2:
Actually, I do not want our troops sent into a dangerous war.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim based on evidence that it is just too small. Essentially, you can’t make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an example or two as evidence.
Example
Some teenagers in our community recently vandalized the park downtown. Teenagers are so irresponsible and destructive.
Appeal to Fear Fallacy
This type of fallacy is one that, as noted in its name, plays upon people’s fear. In particular, this fallacy presents a scary future if a certain decision is made today.
Example
Elizabeth Smith doesn’t understand foreign policy. If you elect Elizabeth Smith as president, we will be attacked by terrorists.
Ad Hominem Fallacy
Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name-calling or the personal-attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.
Example
Person 1:
I am for raising the minimum wage in our state.
Person 2:
She is for raising the minimum wage, but she is not smart enough to even run a business.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event, and so on, until we come to some awful conclusion. Along the way, each step or event in the faulty logic becomes more and more improbable.
Bandwagon Fallacy
The bandwagon fallacy is also sometimes called the appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses because it’s all about getting people to do or think something because “everyone else is doing it” or “everything else thinks this.”
Example
Everyone is going to get the new smartphone when it comes out this weekend. Why aren’t you?
You want to be careful to avoid this fallacy, as it’s easy to fall into this kind of thinking. Think about what your parents asked you when you insisted that “everyone” was doing something that you were not getting to do: “If every one of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?” It’s important to fight the urge to fall into a bandwagon fallacy.
Guilt by Association Fallacy
A guilt-by-association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything.
Example
We cannot have the educational reform that my opponent calls for because Dr. Crazy has also mentioned this kind of educational reform.
Putting It All Together
After completing this activity, you may download or print a completion report that summarizes your results.
Analyze This
Fallacies are everywhere! You have learned about some of the most common logical fallacies but now it’s time to see some examples of how we encounter these fallacies in our everyday lives.
In the video below, a student examines some ads for fallacies. Watch and listen as he identifies fallacies that we should be aware of.
See It in Practice
The key thing to remember with logical fallacies is that we want to avoid faulty logic in our writing and we want to be aware of faulty logic in the source material we find. Even if you can’t remember the different types of fallacies, as long as you are aware of logical fallacies and work to avoid any kind of faulty logic, you’re going to be in good shape as you develop arguments.
In this video, watch as our student revises her essay to make sure she has avoided logical fallacies in her arguments.
Fallacy Quick Reference Chart
The following is a fairly comprehensive table of fallacies, and its purpose is for you to use a reference to ensure that you do not create a logical fallacy as you are writing about your discoveries throughout your rhetorical analysis.
| FALLACY | DEFINITION | EXAMPLE |
| APPEAL TO FORCE | Arguer threatens the reader/listener | If you don’t agree with me, I will beat you up. |
| APPEAL TO PITY | Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener | If you don’t pass me in this course, I will get kicked out of school and have to flip burgers for the rest of my life. |
| DIRECT APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE | Arguer arouses mob mentality | The terrorists came from the middle east. Our only course of action is to turn it into a parking lot. |
| INDIRECT APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE | Arguer appeals to the reader/listener’s desire for security, love, respect, etc. | Of course you want to read my book, it’s what all the intellectuals read. |
| ABUSIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (AD HOMINEM) | Arguer verbally abuses the other arguer | You’re a moron; therefore your point is invalid. |
| CIRCUMSTANTIAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (AD HOMINEM) | Arguer presents the other arguer as predisposed to argue in this way | Of course you’d say I need braces, you’re a dentist. (Anyone may be able to note I need braces.) |
| CONSISTENCY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (TU QUOQUE) | Arguer presents other arguer as a hypocrite | How can you tell me not to drink and drive when you did it last weekend? (Note: don’t drink and drive.) |
| ACCIDENT | The general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover | Americans are entitled to freedom of speech, so you cannot arrest him for yelling “fire” in the theater. (Note: don’t yell “fire” in the theater.) |
| STRAW MAN | Arguer distorts the opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted argument | Our campus is “dry” and doesn’t allow alcohol. Obviously, the administration is composed of a bunch of puritans who don’t speak for the majority and can be ignored. |
| MISSING THE POINT | Arguer draws a conclusion different from that supported by the premises | College education costs are rising exponentially; therefore we should reduce the number of years needed to obtain a degree. |
| RED HERRING | Arguer leads reader/listener off track | People continually talk about the negative effects of tobacco, but did you know that the Native Americans used to smoke tobacco? Many Native American folk remedies are still used today in holistic medicine. |
| APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY | Arguer cites untrustworthy authority | My sixteen-year-old cousin Billy said that there was no moon landing, and he wants to be an astronaut, so it must be true. |
| APPEAL TO IGNORANCE | Premises report that nothing is known or proved, and then a conclusion is drawn | There is no way of disproving the existence of God, therefore he exists. Or, conversely: There is no way of proving the existence of God, therefore he doesn’t exist. |
| HASTY GENERALIZATION | Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample | Mrs. Dobson’s Rottweiler bit a neighbor boy; therefore all Rottweilers are violent dogs. |
| FALSE CAUSE | Conclusion depends on nonexistent or minor causal connection | Every time I change the channel, my sports team scores. Therefore, any time I want my team to score, I need only change the channel |
| SLIPPERY SLOPE | Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction | If Americans’ rights to bear arms is taken away, foreigners will view the country as weak and disarmed and attack, easily crushing our crippled defenses and enslaving our nation to submit to their will and whim. |
| WEAK ANALOGY | Conclusion depends on defective analogy | My cousin Billy is just like Yao Ming, he is tall and loves basketball; therefore he will be a pro ball player just like Yao Ming. |
| BEGGING THE QUESTION | Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out key premises, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle | Of course animals have rights, just look at how they’re being treated. |
| COMPLEX QUESTION | Multiple questions are concealed in a single question | Have you stopped sleeping with your secretary? |
| FALSE DICHOTOMY | “Either/or” statement that hides additional alternatives | Either you buy Axe body spray or you risk not attracting the ladies. Obviously, you want to attract the ladies, so you will buy Axe body spray. |
| SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE | Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion | Of course that child can’t practice medicine, he is only a boy. (If said child is Doogie Howser.) |
| EQUIVOCATION | Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word of phrase | A squirrel is a mammal; therefore a large squirrel is a large mammal. |
| AMPHIBOLY | Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement | John rode his bike past the tree with a helmet. (The tree has a helmet?) |
| COMPOSITION | Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole | Bleach and ammonia individually are strong chemical cleaners; therefore if I mix them I will have a stronger chemical cleaner. (This produces various lethal gases, which would be foolish to do) |
| DIVISION | Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts | Our campus is over one hundred years old; therefore every building on campus is over one hundred years old. |
Your Turn
It’s your turn now to make sure you are aware of fallacies and have worked to avoid them in your writing and in the sources you use in your essay. It’s a good idea to review the fallacy activities to have them fresh in your mind as you revise for logic in your argument.
This is also a good time to get outside feedback and support. It can be especially difficult to identify faulty logic in our own writing, especially if we feel emotionally connected to our content. Have your professor, a classmate, or a friend or family member review your essay with an eye toward the logic in your arguments.
ATTRIBUTIONS
- Content Adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (OWL). (2020). Excelsior College. Retrieved from https://owl.excelsior.edu/ licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International License.
