we see so many common fallacies included in posts here on perb (mostly in the lounge, but not exclusively) that i thought it might be entertaining to post this compilation of common fallacies listed by ubc's department of continuing studies
see if your posts are guilty of falling into any of the following categories:
see if your posts are guilty of falling into any of the following categories:
http://cstudies.ubc.ca/writing-resources/argument/fallacies-argument.htmlA fallacy is a flaw in logic that occurs when making an argument. These happen frequently and can not only destroy an argument, but harm the credibility of the person making the argument. Learning the common fallacies will help you to both avoid them in your own writing and recognize them in the work of others, which will benefit you as a writer, researcher, and critical thinker.
Below are some of the more common fallacies that show up in student writing. As you read through these, keep in mind that the examples show only some forms that these fallacies can take. The more practice you get looking for and avoiding fallacies, the easier it will be to recognize these flaws in any form they may take.
Evading the Issue:
To produce this fallacy, a writer avoids the central point of an argument, instead drawing attention to a minor (or side) issue. This is sometimes done intentionally, in order to draw the reader away from a weak argument or to disguise what the writer is really suggesting, but it may also be the result of a poorly organized paragraph or essay.
Ex. You've put through a proposal that will cut overall loan benefits for students and drastically raise interest rates, but then you focus on how the system will be set up to process loan applications for students more quickly.
Ex. You oppose an oil pipeline going through British Columbia, but instead of focusing on reasons why it would be a bad idea, you discuss the number of bald eagles that live in and migrate through British Columbia each year.
Ad hominem:
Here, the writer attacks a person's character, physical appearance, or personal habits instead of addressing the central issues of an argument. This type of attack sometimes comes in the form of character assassination (especially in politics). Before looking at a person’s character/personal traits rather than ideas and policies, one must be positive that those personal traits actually play a role in the argument. Otherwise, they are distracting and a way of evading the issue or distracting readers.
Ex. A group of executives wants to oppose electing a new board member because he has been through four messy divorces due to his infidelity; his experience and background, however, would make him an ideal candidate for the open place.
Ex. You are putting together a campaign for a friend to be elected as president of the student council. You suggest that he would be a better representative than the competition because he is good looking and photogenic, while the other candidate is not.
Ex. You read in a music review that Lady Gaga can’t be taken seriously as a musical artist because of how she dresses.
Keep in mind, however, that character/personality are sometimes relevant to an argument. For example, one could make a strong and logically sound argument against hiring a candidate who has a record of taking bribes to be in charge of the finance for a campaign.
Genetic Fallacy:
This fallacy looks at where a person or idea originated, rather than the person or idea itself.
Ex. Susan shouldn't be put in charge of this project. How can anyone born and raised in the tiny town of Dundas ON understand the problems/complexities of the transit system in a city as large as Vancouver?
Ex. A writer suggests that film critiques by Roger Ebert aren’t valid for an international audience since he is a critic from the United States.
On the other hand, there are times when where a writer or idea originates might tie into and have an impact on the validity of the argument. If context is a key component of the argument, it would not be fallacious reasoning to discuss whether or not an idea is valid based on its place of origin. This comes into play frequently in papers dealing with topics in the liberal arts. For example, if you were to write a paper about Canadian interpretations of American action films, dismissing a review by Roger Ebert because he is offering an American interpretation, rather than a Canadian one, would be valid.
Ad populum:
This type of argument uses illegitimate emotional appeal, drawing on people's emotions, prejudices, and stereotypes. The emotion evoked here is not supported by sufficient, reliable, and trustworthy sources. Ad populum tends to appeal to the general population and may take a “lowest common denominator” approach. You will see this frequently in arguments dealing with community or civic interests as well as advertising.
Ex. A commentator on a conservative talk show suggests that women should have to undergo more rigorous job interview procedures than their male counterparts because they are more emotional, likely to need maternity leave, easily distracted, and other reasons that play to sexist stereotypes of women.
Ex. A classmate writes a paper suggesting that smoking needs to be outlawed because smoking creates people who have bad teeth, bad breath, poor health, and impose secondhand smoke on those around them.
Hasty Generalization:
A hasty generalization is based on insufficient, unreliable, and unverifiable evidence. This is a common fallacy in student writing, to the point where many writing instructors take special care to discuss it in class. It is easy to fall into this fallacy based on direct observation and limited research, as it may seem like a complete picture is presented from just a few snapshots. To avoid this fallacy, be sure that you have done thorough research in a variety of sources that offer differing perspectives on the issue you are discussing.
Ex. Based on your student community at UBC, you write a paper suggesting that Canada is the model the world should follow for immigrant and cultural relations. Although there are communities and cities within Canada that would provide further examples to uphold this idea, there are places in Canada where relations are strained and poor. Generalizing for the whole nation based on an individual example makes for a weak argument.
Ex. You read a source that says violent video games cause violence in communities, based on an isolated incident where a teen who played violent video games brought a gun to school.
Ex. A speaker tells the audience that women over 40 who are having a baby for the first time make the best mothers, based on the fact that many of the women in his workplace were first-time mothers in their 40s and they have avoided making parenting “mistakes” that he has observed in younger mothers.
Loaded Question:
Here, the writer asks a question in such a way that an unjustified or unfound assumption is a part of the question. The questions usually imply something negative about their subjects, though they might be used to suggest a positive answer about the subject if the writer wants the reader to be favourably disposed towards the subject.
Ex. At what point did the oil company decide it wanted to destroy our beautiful wilderness?
Ex. You are opposed to another fast food restaurant opening on campus, so you write, “It is unclear when UBC stopped caring about the health of its students, but this new restaurant shows that this lack of care continues.” Note that the loaded question fallacy can take the form of an implied question, rather than one that is asked directly.
Ex. Why should the charitable work of celebrities go unnoticed and un-praised, just because they are famous?
Gambler's Fallacy:
This issue assumes that the chances of something happening increases because it hasn't happened for a long time. This type of fallacy disregards the law of probability.
Ex. Let me handle this next sales pitch. My losing streak has to end at some point.
Setting up a Straw Person (commonly referred to as “straw man”):
Here you address the weakest point of an opponent's argument, instead of focusing on a main issue. Or, you imply that an opponent is arguing something that he/she is not.
Ex. An instructor argues that in order to do well in a composition course, you have to work hard outside of class, and practice your writing. A classmate responds by saying that not everyone can afford to pay a tutor.
Red Herring:
This type of fallacy manipulates the audience by avoiding the central argument, shifting attention to an irrelevant or unrelated issue. The user of a red herring intends to distract the audience from the important issues. Unlike the “evading the issue” fallacy, this one intentionally sets up a distraction rather than simply focusing on another aspect of the issue besides the one being argued.
Ex. A teacher accused of taking bribes might answer that he/she devotes many overtime hours in order to prepare her/his class material. In doing so, the teacher will start to make the argument seem to be about her/his level of preparedness, rather than the issue at hand.
Ex. You want to convince your brother to loan you money, but he knows that you plan to use it for an upcoming camping trip and he says no. You respond by saying that it is difficult for a student to make money because work/study programs limit hours, and then go on to talk about the difficulties of balancing work and school.
Slippery Slope:
This fallacy takes an issue or event and escalates potential effects unrealistically. This happens frequently in advertising (“buy our product and all the girls will love you – don’t buy our product and you will be a social outcast”) and in arguments related to politics and causes.
Ex. If we keep adding Starbucks locations in Vancouver, they will have a complete monopoly and that will open the door for other corporate monopolies in the food and retail sectors. Soon, Vancouver will have only the same few businesses, block after block, and the economy of the city will be destroyed.
Lack of Contrary Evidence (also known as an appeal to ignorance):
This is an easy mistake to make if you haven’t done strong research or if you are basing your argument on an incomplete understanding of the issue. It indicates that something must be true because it has never been proven to be false. This fallacy is common in persuasion that deals with social, political, and cultural issues.
Ex. The Loch Ness monster must exist because no one has ever proven that it doesn't.
Ex. The Loch Ness monster must not exist because no one has ever proven that it does.
Ex. Sarah would be an ideal candidate for this job because she’s never failed at managing a store (when, in fact, there is no data to show that she has ever worked at a store, much less managing one).
Oversimplification:
This occurs when you avoid the complexities of an argument, or ignore the larger implications of the ideas being put forward. Like most of the fallacies listed here, this can happen based on insufficient research and preparation or on purpose to manipulate an audience. The latter happens frequently in political arguments.
Ex. Mandatory sentencing for heroin users will quickly put an end to heroin addiction.
Ex. Development in the mountains of British Columbia needs to stop if humans and black bears are to live in harmony.
Ex. Violent video games cause violent teens.
Bandwagon:
This is a type of the ad populum fallacy in that it draws on our irrational fears of being left out of "the group." Humans generally want to feel like they "belong", so this can impact readers on an emotional level. This fallacy also appeals to the idea that if a majority of the population does or believes something, it must be right or beneficial.
Ex. Every Torontonian needs to be cheering for the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team in the playoffs, even when the team has played dismally all season.
Ex. Sixty percent of people living in Kitsilano want to cut back on corporate businesses in their neighbourhood, so corporate businesses should think about moving away from Vancouver.
Ad Misericordiam:
This type of argument uses illegitimate emotional appeal to beg for mercy. It plays on the compassion of the audience. The plea is based on emotion, rather than on logic.)
Ex. Pleading with an instructor for an "A" on a paper, not because it's a good paper, but because you need a certain grade in the class to keep a scholarship.
Ex. A company denies that their CEO should be indicted for fraud because, although he handled the company’s money unethically, he is a loving husband and fantastic father to his three little girls.
Ad Verecundiam ("to authority"):
This is appealing to weak (inappropriate) authority, or arguing that we should continue doing something because it's tradition. Like ad misericordiam and others are illegitimate uses of emotional appeal, this is an illegitimate appeal to tradition.
Ex. We should get completely drunk on Canada Day because we've done it since we were teenagers.
Ex. My English teacher says that Stephen Hawking’s writing contain everything a person could want to know about astrophysics, so his books should form the basis for the curriculum in astrophysics courses at universities.
Tu Quoque ("you too"):
This is where you accuse an opponent of the same thing he/she has accused you of (instead of addressing the accusation itself). This fallacy avoids addressing the issue by reflecting blame back onto the other party. Although this appears in debates and other forms of published, widely-available persuasion, it is perhaps most familiar from the everyday arguments people get into with each other.
Ex.
accusation: "You should exercise."
reply: "Well, I don’t see you working out".
Ex.
accusation: "You need to make more sustainable choices in your daily life."
reply: "Last time I was at your house, you had all the lights in every room on, and it wasn’t even dark yet."
Begging the Question:
This is a type of circular reasoning where you use your own claim to support the claim. This is much like saying that a certain book is the authority on film studies because the book itself claims to be the authority on film studies.
Ex. This vital legislation on Aboriginal Peoples must pass now. (Assumes that the legislation is vital.)
Ex. I can vouch for the authenticity of this antique jewellery that I am selling.
Non Sequitor (also known as Guilt by Association):
In this type of reasoning, the conclusion does not follow from the premises set out in the argument.
Ex. All drug dealers conduct their business in East Vancouver. Danny conducts his business in East Vancouver. Therefore, Danny must be a drug dealer.
Ex. Americans love ranch dressing. Aziz loves ranch dressing. Therefore, Aziz is an American.
Ex. Corporate workers wear suits to work. Pang wears a suit to work. Therefore, Pang is a corporate worker.
False Dichotomy:
Offers only two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist. This is used frequently in political arguments, especially over sensitive or divisive issues. For example, in the United States it is common to see arguments suggesting that either abortion should be outlawed or parents will start murdering their children if their children become burdensome to them. This example includes slippery slope, as well; often, the two fallacies go together.
Ex. An angry person suggests that if you don’t like the way things work in Canada, you should just move to the United States.
Ex. The sales person in the shoe store tells you that if you don’t buy the boots you are trying on, you can count on wet feet in the winter.
False Cause/Effect:
This fallacy claims that certain causes or effects are linked to a specific event, without clear evidence to show that this is the case.
Ex. On the same night as one of the International Fireworks Competition displays, a nearby balcony catches on fire. This is a coincidence, though one might assume that the fireworks were to blame because of the timing of the fire and the inherent dangers of fireworks. However, closer inspection would show that not only were the fireworks fired from a barge in English Bay, there were no strong winds to carry embers from the display to the city. The fire would have come from some other cause, which would be revealed by further research and inspection; in this case, perhaps a lit cigarette wasn’t put out thoroughly or a grill was tipped over to cause the fire.
