Which of the following is the fallacy that forces listeners to choose between?

LESSON # 7

Fallacies of Relevance

Reading Assignment: 3.1 and 3.2 (pp. 113-134)

Click here to skip the following discussion and go straight to the assignments.

In Chapter 3 we will be dealing with the content of the argument and not with the form. We will be identifying various types of defects in argument that can't be recognized by merely looking at the form. We call these defects informal fallacies. (Defects that have to do with the form are called formal fallacies, not surprisingly.) Each section will introduce a number of new fallacies and then you will be asked to identify the types of fallacies in particular arguments. You will need to consider carefully the relation between the conclusion and the reasons given to support the conclusion, i.e., the inferential relationship. Try to determine what is really going on in the argument.

The way the fallacies are presented in this textbook is a bit problematic, in my opinion. Grouping them together in their own chapter encourages us to forget that these are all merely problematic instances of otherwise good reasoning forms. Sometimes students get so excited about "fallacy hunting" that they consider any analogy a false analogy, or any generalization a hasty one; or they reject any reference to authority, forgetting that these are the main ways we get new information.

"Fallacy hunting" can also lead us to forget that only intended arguments can be fallacies. No matter how dire my threats, I am not committing the fallacy of appeal to force if I am not presenting the threat as a premise in an argument. I'm simply being a bully. Similarly with attacking someone's character. It may be a bad thing to do, but it isn't ad hominem abusive unless the character smear is given as a reason to disregard the smeeree's argument.

This said... it's fallacy season--happy hunting!!

Summary of Section 3.2

All of these fallacies lack a logical connection between the premises and the conclusion, though there might be a psychological or emotional connection.

1. Appeal to Force - This argument uses a physical or psychological threat as a reason to believe a conclusion. Obviously if someone uses force to argue that you should do something, self-preservation may give you a strong motive to do what they say, But even if you comply, you wouldn't say that they have used good reasoning to get you to do it.

2. Appeal to Pity-This argument uses pity; tries to act on sympathy, rather than reason.

3. Appeal to the people- This group of arguments uses our desire to be admired or accepted by others to convince us of something, rather than logically relevant reasons.

A - Direct approach - uses loaded or charged language to evoke a mob mentality either in speech or writing

B-D Indirect approach -used frequently by advertising industry

B Bandwagon - everyone else is doing it, so you should too

C Appeal to vanity -usually associated with a celebrity. Don't you want to be like this celebrity or model?

D Appeal to snobbery - somewhat the reverse of bandwagon, i.e., not everyone else is doing it, but only very special people like you

4. Argument against the person, or ad hominem argument- This argument always involves two arguers. the first arguer is attacked, rather than the argument she presented. To give a sound argument in response to an argument you must deal with the argument itself.

A - Abusive - a second arguer attacks the first arguer with verbal abuse

and personal criticism instead of attacking the argument

B - Circumstantial - a second arguer tries to show that first arguer has

ulterior motives instead of attacking the argument itself

C - You too - (tu quoque) - In a nutshell this fallacy calls the first arguer a hypocrite. This may be true, but is still attacking the arguer and not the argument.

5. Accident - A general rule is wrongly applied to a specific case where an exception should obviously be allowed.

6.*Straw Man- This involves two arguers. The second arguer misinterprets or restates in a weaker, easier to refute version the argument of the first arguer and then attacks the new argument, rather than the real one. In other words, the second arguer creates a figure made of straw that is much easier to knock down than a real man.

7. *Missing the point- The argument seems to be leading to a particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion is submitted, which is irrelevant or too strong to be warranted by the premises. In these arguments the premises are usually coherent and work together, distinguishing them from red herring.

8. *Red Herring- The arguer tries to divert the attention of the reader/listener in a different direction than that in which the argument began. Arguer tries to draw you off track. The new subject is relevant to the original subject, but only mildly so. These arguments tend to "meander"

*These three fallacies are the most difficult to distinguish. Read carefully the last two paragraphs of 3.2 on p. 128-129.

Assignment: (10 points each)

Identify the following arguments as one of the 13 different fallacies listed above or as no fallacy. If you have any doubts about your answer, explain how you got it--you might get me to agree with you.

1. The boss's business practices aren't shady; because if you think they are she might find out and fire you.

2. My client is innocent and deserves to go free. He has a wife and five children who will become destitute without his income to support them.

3. Everybody who is anybody wears Levis.

4. Don't vote for her for governor, she's immoral. She divorced her husband and ran off with a younger man.

5. (Bumper sticker) As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school. (This one leaves a lot of the argument unstated)

6. Without checks to corporate power, capitalism fosters greed and corruption. therefore we should be anarchists.

7. When you say you oppose affirmative action programs, you obviously mean that you are against any efforts to improve the lot of minorities and women and to give them the opportunities they have long been denied. This view is unconscionable and unsupportable. You are, therefore, a bigot.

8. Candidate: "In response to your questions on the death penalty let me just say this about that. I have always been a strong advocate of making the punishment fit the crime. That's why I support longer sentences for convicted criminals and stricter controls of those who are paroled. The parole board has been far too lax in its duties."

9. Dr. Harrison has argued that the open position in the mathematics department should be given to Dr. George. But Harrison's arguments should be discounted since Harrison and George are good friends.

10. Stealing is wrong. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to steal the spark plug wires from that getaway car while the driver is busy robbing the First National Bank.

Home | Table of Contents | Next Assignment | Questions

Which of the following is the fallacy that forces listeners to choose?

Which of the following is the fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives?

Which of the following is the fallacy that assumes that because something is popular it is therefore good or correct?

What type of fallacy is it when a speaker makes an assumption that when one event follows another?