Fallacies:

Fallacy is a generic term that indicates an error or weakness in an argument or a thought

process. the source of the fallacy may be in data, in reasoning process, language used to
express the argument, or the strategic or psychological basis of the argument. Some fallacies
are always considered to be errors in the argument process. other - especially strategic of
psychological appeal- are more contextual. That means, some fallacies are appropriate under
certain circumstances, such as verbal attacks in courts where a person/ character is an issue.
There is a list of common fallacies and knowing it and being able to identify them, helps to
avoid them in your own argumentation, as well as to protect yourself against fallacious
arguments by others.

Begging the question. A fallacy when the arguer assumes the conclusion she/he intends to
prove for an argument. Example- taxes increase is bad. Argument in this fallacy goes in a
circular reasoning, thus she/he advocates that tax increase is bad because people will have to
pay more. Which is in fact an explanation of the tax increase rather than a reason.This error
leads to an argument that goes around and around, with evidence making the same claim as
the proposition. Because it is much easier to make a claim than to support it, many writers
fall into this trap.
Example: "These movies are popular because they make so much money. They make a lot of
money because people like them. People like them because they are so popular."
The argument continues around in the logical circle because the support assumes
that the claim is true rather than proving its truth.

Fallacy of composition/ fallacy of division. Assuming what holds true for the part of for the
whole holds true for the whole or for the part. For ex. if a member of democrat party is
liberal, that does not imply all democrat party is liberal, and vice versa. If a team has as
superstar basketball payer that does not make a team outstanding, the rest of it could actually
be awful. Also an outstanding team does not imply each and every player to be outstanding.

Non sequitur. Meaning - it does not follow. The fallacy means that the conclusion does not
follow from the argument or data. For ex., in Presidential elections USA, opponents of B.
Clinton argued that he cannot make a good president because he smoke marijuana in his
youth. The communication specialists refuted these claims based on non sequitur fallacy, as
they said it does not follow from the fact he smoked marijuana that he cannot be a president
of USA. Example: "The rain came down so hard that Jennifer actually called me." Rain and
phone calls have nothing to do with one another. The force of the rain does not affect
Jennifer’s decision to pick up the phone.

Ad verecundian/ false authority. Generalisations that rest on higher authority or tradition

without any further rational establishment of their position. For example, parents are good
source of authority in most cases, however they do not hold knowledge on everything and
reasoning on because I am a parent holds educational rather than logical conclusion. That
means that an authority in one field does not necessarily bear the knowledge and expert skills
on the other.

Ad misericordiam. appeal to pity or sympathy. When emotional appeal is a sole reason to

argument it becomes a fallacy. Compassion and empathy is ok, but they should not constitute
reason. Think about the refugee crises and recent argumentation? Is there much reason left
behind or is it solely a fallacy.
Ad hominem. Name calling.

Ad ignoratiam. Claiming it is true simply because it cannot be proven otherwise. For

example, smoking- smokers said smoking is ok, as otherwise does not have conclusive
evidence on harm.

Ignoring the question. This fallacy consists of making the conclusion to be proven or of
endeavouring to prove something that has no importance to the point of issue. It may happen
either unconsciously as a result of poor analysis or as a strategy of evasion. It is similar to
presenting a red herring. Rather than answering the question that has been asked or
addressing the issue at hand, the writer shifts focus, supplying an unrelated argument. In this
way, the writer dodges the real issues of the debate.
Example: During a press conference, a political candidate is asked a pointed, specific
question about some potentially illegal fund-raising activity. Instead of
answering the allegations, the candidate gives a rousing speech thanking all of
his financial supporters. The speech was eloquent and moving, but shifted the
focus from the issue at hand.
Generic fallacy. It occurs when a person argues that a claim should be accepted or rejected
because of its identification with a particular individual or group. It assumes that because an
acceptable person or organization initiated the idea or support for it, it automatically is a bad
idea. It is based on quilt by association. Even though it may hold true in some cases, all ideas
must be judged on their merit rather than initial presumption.
Slippery slope. The slippery slope logical fallacy claims that once we begin to move to a
particular policy direction we will find it difficult to reverse the course and will be forced to
accept the worst form of policy. suggest that one step will inevitably lead to more, eventually
negative steps. While sometimes the results
may be negative, the slippery slope argues that the descent is inevitable and unalterable.
Stirring up emotions against the
downward slipping, this fallacy can be avoided by providing solid evidence of the
eventuality rather than speculation. Example: "If we force public elementary school pupils to
wear uniforms, eventually we will require middle school students to wear uniforms. If we
require middle school students to wear uniforms, high school requirements aren’t far off.
Eventually even college students who attend state-funded, public universities will be forced
to wear uniforms." Or - if we legalise abortion, we are likely to legalize euthanasia of the
aged, the handicapped, and other social undesirables!. This is one of major fallacies. In fact,
minor steps do not necessarily lead to extreme policies, and vice versa. (to refute slippery
slope - ask for probability reasoning!) Also - they assume people always move in one
direction, while in reality, individuals and organisations often move first in one direction and
then another.

Straw argument/straw man. It occurs when an argument is set up for the pure purpose of
refuting it. They try to shift the focus of controversy from the area of real clash to some
peripheral of nonissue. Doing so diverts attention from the real issues and rarely, if ever,
leads to resolution or truth.
Example: The debate over drink machines centers around cost and choice. Opponents
of the new drink machines bring up their location as an important issue. This
insignificant point has little relevance to the actual issues.

Ad populum/ bandwagon fallacy. It is a desire to gain adherence to a position by appealing

to the audience’s desire to identify with the group, she or he is committing ad populum
logical fallacy. It means appeal to the people. It is based on assumption that no argument
can be wrong if masses support it or oppose it. It is the “100 lemmings cannot be wrong”
type of argument, or “2000 years Christianity experience cannot be wrong”. For ex.: all kids
are doing it, or buy product because it is of the most popular brand. Although ti may suggest
Example: The debate over drink machines centers around cost and choice. Opponents
of the new drink machines bring up their location as an important issue. This
insignificant point has little relevance to the actual issues.

Ad populum/ bandwagon fallacy. It is a desire to gain adherence to a position by appealing

to the audience’s desire to identify with the group, she or he is committing ad populum
logical fallacy. It means appeal to the people. It is based on assumption that no argument
can be wrong if masses support it or oppose it. It is the “100 lemmings cannot be wrong”
type of argument, or “2000 years Christianity experience cannot be wrong”. For ex.: all kids
are doing it, or buy product because it is of the most popular brand. Although ti may suggest
support shows there is merit, but it is not the most reliable reasoning. Problems with mass
appeal: sometimes the “mass” is misrepresented. Equally large group can support different
products. Masses may be not necessarily well informed on alternatives, and even when they
are, they may be wrong. The greatest weakness, they provide no analysis of the issue, no
independent basis for making the judgement regarding the soundness of arguments. The fact
that a lot of people believe it does not make it so.

Example: "Fifty million Elvis fans can’t be wrong!" Of course they can. The merit of Elvis
is not related to how many
people do or do not like him or his music.

Pseudo questions, or Plurium Interrogationum. It misuses the questioning process. It takes

two forms: one - involves asking ambiguous questions based on a false assumption or two -
asking so many questions that they can’t be answered. For ex. “when will you stop cheating
on your tax income?” is fallacious as it assumes the truth of the point it aims to prove.

Either—Or arguments reduce complex issues to black and white choices. Most often
issues will have a number of choices for resolution. Because writers who use the either-or
argument are creating a problem that doesn’t really exist, we sometimes refer to this fallacy
as a false dilemma.

Example: "Either we go to Panama City for the whole week of Spring Break, or we
don’t go anywhere at all." This rigid argument ignores the possibilities of
spending part of the week in Panama City, spending the whole week
somewhere else, or any other options.

FOUR ERROS IN THE USE OF DATA:

Hasty generalisation appears when an argument by example is based on too specific

instance. They base an argument on insufficient evidence. Writers may draw conclusions
too quickly, not considering the whole issue. They may look only at a small group as
representative of the whole or may look only at a small piece of the issue.

Example: Concluding that all fraternities are party houses because you have seen three
parties at one fraternity is a hasty generalisation. The evidence is too limited to
draw an adequate conclusion.

The fallacy of part or insufficient cause. It mistakes a single factor as the sole cause when
other causes are operating as well.

Equivocation refers to the changing of the meaning of critical terms during the course of an
argument. It 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. Often when we use vague or ambiguous words like "right," "justice," or
"experience," we aren’t sure ourselves what we mean. Be sure to know how you are using a
word and stick with that meaning throughout your argument. If you need to change
meanings for any reason, let your audience know of the change.
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." In this case, the
Equivocation refers to the changing of the meaning of critical terms during the course of an
argument. It 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. Often when we use vague or ambiguous words like "right," "justice," or
"experience," we aren’t sure ourselves what we mean. Be sure to know how you are using a
word and stick with that meaning throughout your argument. If you need to change
meanings for any reason, let your audience know of the change.
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." 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. While the argument
may be catchy and memorable, the double references fail to support his claim.

The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. (After this therefore because of this). It occurs
when a causal correlation is assumed simply on the basis of a proper time sequence. One
event following another in time does not mean that the first event caused the later event.
Writers must be able to prove that one event caused another event and did not simply
follow in time. Because the cause is often in question in this fallacy, we sometimes call it a
false cause fallacy.
Example: "Eating five candy bars and drinking two sodas before a test helps me get
better grades. I did that and got an A on my last test in history." This arguer
ignores other possible causes like how much he had studied and how easy the
test was.