please answer all the questions
2. Fallacies in General 1
There are two basic ways in which an argument may be defective: (1) It may have one or more false premises, or (2) it may contain a defective pattern of reasoning, such that its conclusion does not follow from its premises, whether or not those premises happen to be true. This second type of defect is what we mean when we say an argument “commits a fallacy.” In its most general sense, a fallacy is any defect in an argument’s reasoning (as opposed to the argument’s having one or more false premises). Of course, an argument may both commit a fallacy and have one or more false premises. However, if its only defect is one or more false premises, then the argument is not fallacious.
Each of the following arguments is defective. Consider each argument and indicate whether it commits a fallacy or whether its only defect is false premises.
Argument A
P1:
All stones are living beings.
P2:
Some stones can be found on the surface of Mars.
C:
There is life on Mars.
Argument A at least one false premise, and it a fallacy.
Argument B
P1:
All fish are animals.
P2:
Some animals are reptiles.
C:
Therefore, some fish are reptiles.
Argument B at least one false premise, and it a fallacy.
Argument C
P1:
Some birds can fly.
P2:
All airplanes can fly.
C:
Some birds are airplanes.
Argument C at least one false premise, and it a fallacy.
Argument D
P1:
Tiger Woods is a really bad golfer.
P2:
Golfers are people.
C:
Tiger Woods must be a really bad person!
Argument D at least one false premise, and it a fallacy.
3. Fallacies in General 2
Two things are fundamental to a “good” argument (that is, a “sound” or “cogent” argument, for deductive and inductive arguments, respectively):
1.
The argument’s premises must be true statements that can serve as evidence for the conclusion.
2.
The argument’s conclusion must follow from the evidence presented in the premises.
Hence, there are two basic ways in which an argument may be defective. An argument can be defective simply because its premises are not all true. But an argument may also be defective because its premises fail to support its conclusion—even if all those premises happen to be true. This second type of defect is what we mean when we say an argument “commits a fallacy.” If an argument is not fallacious and has all true premises, then it meets the two conditions for a “good” argument.
For each argument, first determine whether it has at least one false premise. Then determine whether the argument commits a fallacy. Keep in mind that if the only defect in the argument is that its premises are not all true, then this alone does not make the argument fallacious (even though it is still a “bad” argument). Finally, use this information to determine whether the argument is “good” or “bad.”
Argument A
P1:
Many consider Orson Welles to be a filmmaking genius.
P2:
Orson Welles often said that Paul Mason wines were exceptional wines.
C:
Given Welles’s genius, Paul Mason wines must be exceptional indeed!
Argument A have at least one false premise; and it commit a fallacy.
Argument A a “good” argument.
Argument B
P1:
All humans are mammals.
P2:
All canines are mammals.
C:
All humans are canines.
Argument B have at least one false premise; and it commit a fallacy.
Argument B a “good” argument.
Argument C
P1:
Most doctors agree that smoking a pack of cigarettes every day qualifies as chronic smoking.
P2:
Doctors also agree that chronic smoking poses no significant health risks.
C:
So, I can smoke up to a pack of cigarettes every day without having to worry about increased health risks.
Argument C have at least one false premise; and it commit a fallacy.
Argument C a “good” argument.
Argument D
P1:
If an animal is a mammal, then it cannot be a reptile.
P2:
Boa constrictors are reptiles.
C:
Consequently, a boa constrictor is not a mammal.
Argument D have at least one false premise; and it commit a fallacy.
Argument D a “good” argument.
4. Formal Fallacies 1
Fallacious arguments involve defective patterns of reasoning that preclude the premises from supporting the conclusion, even when those premises are true. You can further distinguish these defective patterns of reasoning by considering two distinct types of fallacies:
Formal fallacy:
A formal fallacy arises from a defect in the structure of a deductive argument such that these fallacies are evident simply from examining the argument’s form, without regard to the specific content of the argument. Any argument having an invalid form contains a formal fallacy, so you can use methods you have learned for detecting invalidity (for example, the counterexample method) to determine whether an argument commits a formal fallacy.
Informal fallacy:
By contrast, an informal fallacy arises from mistaken presumptions about the content of an argument and can only be detected by examining the specific content of the argument’s statements.
Consider the following arguments, given along with their forms. Inspect both the content and form of each argument and determine whether it commits a formal fallacy. (Note: Only one argument form is given for each argument, even though a particular argument may in fact be a substitution instance for several forms.)
Argument A
P1:
Either this tree is an evergreen, or it is not a sequoia.
P2:
This tree is an evergreen.
C:
So, this tree is a sequoia.
Form of Argument A
P1:
Either E or not S.
P2:
E.
C:
S.
Argument A a formal fallacy.
Argument B
P1:
If this animal is a mammal, then it has lungs.
P2:
If this animal has lungs, then it also has a heart.
C:
If this animal is a mammal, then it has a heart.
Form of Argument B
P1:
If M, then L.
P2:
If L, then H.
C:
If M, then H.
Argument B a formal fallacy.
5. Formal Fallacies 2
Formal fallacies can be identified by abstracting the form of an argument and evaluating it without regard to the specific content of the argument. Hence, if you are able to identify an argument’s form, you should be able to determine whether the argument commits a formal fallacy. (Remember, you can determine an argument’s form by replacing the content words with placeholder letters while leaving the connecting phrases alone. For example, a statement such as “If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Tuesday” could be represented as “If M, then T”—where M stands for “today is Monday” and T stands for “tomorrow is Tuesday.”)
Identify the correct form of each of the following arguments. (Note: Only one of the given argument forms is correct, even though a single argument may in fact be a substitution instance for several forms.) Then inspect both the content and form of each argument and determine whether it commits a formal fallacy.
Argument 1
P1:
No canines are felines.
P2:
All cats are felines.
C:
No canines are cats.
Argument Form A
P1:
All A are B.
P2:
No C are B.
C:
No A are C.
Argument Form B
P1:
No A are B.
P2:
All C are B.
C:
No A are C.
Argument Form C
P1:
All A are B.
P2:
All C are B.
C:
No A are C.
Argument 1 is an instance of .
Argument 1 a formal fallacy.
Argument 2
P1:
If this is Blackbeard’s chest, then there is treasure in this chest.
P2:
This is not Blackbeard’s chest.
C:
There is not treasure in this chest.
Argument Form A
P1:
If S, then T.
P2:
Not T.
C:
Not S.
Argument Form B
P1:
If S, then T.
P2:
Not S.
C:
T.
Argument Form C
P1:
If S, then T.
P2:
Not S.
C:
Not T.
Argument 2 is an instance of .
Argument 2 a formal fallacy.
6. Recognizing Informal Fallacies
Whereas formal fallacies can be detected without regard to the specific content of an argument, informal fallacies are a type of fallacy that can be detected only by examining the content of an argument’s statements. This is because informal fallacies rely upon some mistaken presumption about the meaning, relevance, or implications of the specific content of the argument. Consequently, to detect such fallacies, you will need to have some knowledge of the key content words in the argument in order to adequately evaluate the meaning, relevance, and implications of the argument’s statements.
Each set of three arguments includes one argument that commits an informal fallacy. For each set, determine which one of the three arguments is fallacious.
Argument Set 1:
Argument A
P1:
Riding a motorcycle is similar to riding a bicycle.
P2:
Studies show that wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle greatly reduces the risk of fatal head injury.
C:
Accordingly, it is probably important that you wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.
Argument B
P1:
I can rip each page of this phone book in half with one quick tear.
P2:
I can also rip the cover of this phone book in half with one quick tear.
C:
Consequently, I can rip the whole phone book in half with one quick tear.
Argument C
P1:
My mama used to say, “Life is like a box of chocolates.”
P2:
A good box of chocolates is usually filled with a wide variety of flavors.
C:
Mama’s point was that, in life, “you never know what you’re going to get.”
Which of the three arguments from Argument Set 1 commits an informal fallacy?
Argument A
Argument B
Argument C
Argument Set 2:
Argument A
P1:
Maria Sharapova is an excellent tennis player who has won several professional tournaments.
P2:
Maria Sharapova was also on TV saying that Canon cameras were excellent cameras.
C:
Given her expertise, people who need a camera should buy a Canon camera!
Argument B
P1:
An experienced structural engineer told me that termite damage to a load-bearing beam posed a risk of the roof collapsing over my garage.
P2:
Soon afterward, the roof over my garage collapsed.
C:
If I had replaced that beam, I could have prevented the roof’s collapse.
Argument C
P1:
The burning of fossil fuels increased dramatically during the 20th century.
P2:
Scientists have concluded that, during that same time, the physical manifestations of global warming also increased disproportionately compared to typical variations throughout history.
C:
The burning of fossil fuels probably contributes to global warming.
Which of the three arguments from Argument Set 2 commits an informal fallacy?
Argument A
Argument B
Argument C
7. Formal and Informal Fallacies – Practice
“Good” arguments (1) have all true premises, but they also (2) avoid fallacious reasoning. Thus, if you can detect either a false premise or a fallacy within an argument, then you know the argument is not a “good” argument (that is, a “sound” or “cogent” argument, for deductive and inductive arguments respectively). However, not all defective arguments commit a fallacy. Specifically, a fallacy is a defect in an argument that arises from faulty reasoning in the argument, not because the argument has one or more false premises. Furthermore, there are two distinct types of fallacies to look out for: informal and formal fallacies. A formal fallacy arises from a defect in the structure of an argument, so that you can identify these fallacies by simply examining the argument’s form, without regard to the specific content of the argument. By contrast, an informal fallacy arises from mistaken presumptions about the content of an argument and can only be detected by examining the specific content of the argument’s statements.
Determine whether each argument is a “good” argument or a defective argument. If it is defective, determine whether it also commits a fallacy, and indicate which type of fallacy (formal or informal) it commits.
Argument A
P1:
If the Concorde was a propeller plane, then there is no way that the Concorde flew faster than the speed of sound.
P2:
The Concorde was a propeller plane.
C:
So, there is no way that the Concorde flew faster than the speed of sound.
Argument A a “good” argument; and it commit a fallacy.
Does Argument A commit an informal or a formal fallacy?
Argument A commits no fallacy.
Argument A commits an informal fallacy.
Argument A commits a formal fallacy.
Argument B
P1:
Hawks and eagles are formally classified as belonging to the same family, Accipitridae.
P2:
In most cases, female eagles are considerably larger than male eagles.
C:
Female hawks are probably also larger than male hawks.
Argument B a “good” argument; and it commit a fallacy.
Does Argument B commit an informal or a formal fallacy?
Argument B commits a formal fallacy.
Argument B commits no fallacy.
Argument B commits an informal fallacy.
8. True/False Review and Chapter Summary
Use your knowledge of formal and informal fallacies to determine which of the following statements are true. Check all that apply.
Some fallacious inductive arguments are cogent.
Fallacies occur only in inductive arguments.
Some fallacies can be detected by inspecting the form of the argument alone.
Some fallacious inductive arguments are valid.
Arguments that commit a formal fallacy can sometimes be made into valid arguments by rearranging the letters that are used in the argument’s form.
Fallacies that arise because the arguer tries to appeal to a listener’s emotions (rather than appealing to rational inference) are formal fallacies.
All defective arguments commit a fallacy.
There are multiple distinct types of informal fallacies.
Formal fallacies never occur in inductive arguments.
Formal fallacies occur in inductive arguments.
All arguments with false premises are either unsound or uncogent.
Deductive arguments never contain an informal fallacy.
Not all fallacious arguments have false premises.
Some defective arguments do not have false premises.
Some fallacies arise because the arguer tries to appeal to a listener’s dispositions or prejudices, rather than appealing to rational inference.
1. Appeal to Force
Fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically. In a good argument, the premises provide genuine evidence in support of the conclusion. In an argument that commits a fallacy of relevance, on the other hand, the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional. To identify a fallacy of relevance, therefore, one must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as an appeal to force (or argumentum ad baculum) fallacy. An appeal to force fallacy attempts to scare someone into accepting a conclusion by appealing to some information that might be physically or psychologically intimidating to the particular listener but would otherwise be irrelevant to an objective evaluation of the argument.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an appeal to force fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “appeal to force” fallacy.)
Passage A
If you get another speeding ticket, your license will be suspended. But since you need a driver’s license to do your job, you also need to be more careful about obeying speed limits.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to force fallacy.
Passage B
You can either make cookies for our bake sale or my conscience may force me to tell your wife the truth about how much you really spent on that new TV. Now, we both know you don’t want your wife to find out how much that TV cost. Therefore, I’m sure you will want to make cookies for our bake sale.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to force fallacy.
Passage C
I know you think this ball is yours, but it belongs to me. And if you can’t see things my way, then I’m sure my big brother can help me change your mind. Oh, look—here he comes now.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to force fallacy.
Passage D
I have two reasons why you should give me your sandwich. First of all, I haven’t eaten all day because I can’t afford to buy food. Second, when I get hungry, I tend to punch people in the eye.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to force fallacy.
Passage E
I have an obligation to my employer to show up for work everyday. So even though my doctor says I have a highly contagious virus and should rest at home for a couple of days, I am sure my boss will expect me to be in the office.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to force fallacy.
2. Appeal to Pity
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as an appeal to pity (or argumentum ad misericordiam) fallacy. This fallacy is often classified as a fallacy of relevance. In general, fallacies of relevance are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. In particular, the appeal to pity fallacy attempts to lure someone into accepting a conclusion by appealing to some information that might provoke pity from the particular listener. But otherwise, the premises would be irrelevant to an objective evaluation of the argument.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an appeal to pity fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “appeal to pity” fallacy.)
Passage A
Some people have argued that it is time for the United States to reduce its stockpiles of nuclear arms. But the second amendment protects the right to bear arms and is a crucial part of American liberty. In addition, the right to bear arms is fully endorsed by the National Rifle Association.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to pity fallacy.
Passage B
Since you are in such intense pain and the swelling has continued to increase, you should go to the doctor. The bone may be broken.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to pity fallacy.
Passage C
I have two reasons why you should give me your sandwich. First of all, I haven’t eaten all day because I can’t afford to buy food. Second, when I get hungry, I tend to punch people in the eye.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to pity fallacy.
Passage D
Dr. Doolittle’s misfeasance has left Mr. Payne permanently disabled and unable to work. Accordingly, not only does Dr. Doolittle deserve to lose his medical license, but Mr. Payne should also receive compensation for his pain and suffering.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to pity fallacy.
Passage E
That community of Arctic natives does not deserve special recompense for our company’s use of their indigenous lands. They accuse us of exploiting the land and disrespecting the natural habitat. But their own hunting practices involve the slaughter of seals. Imagine if you were clubbed to death in such a way! Doesn’t the thought of their suffering break your heart? We cannot reward such behavior with special recompense!
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to pity fallacy.
3. Appeal to the People
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as an appeal to the people (or argumentum ad populum) fallacy. This fallacy is often classified as a fallacy of relevance. Fallacies of relevance, in general, are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. In particular, an appeal to the people fallacy attempts to lure the listener into accepting a conclusion by appealing to his or her desire to be valued, esteemed, admired, or otherwise given special regard by others. But such desires are irrelevant to an objective evaluation of the argument. The appeal to the people fallacy can take several forms:
Direct approach:
An arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions or the enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion.
Appeal to fear:
Also known as fear mongering, appeal to fear is a variety of the direct form of the appeal to the people that occurs when an arguer trumps up a fear of something in the mind of the crowd and then uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion.
Bandwagon argument:
An arguer attempts to gain acceptance for a conclusion by appealing to the listener’s desire to fit in with others, or to be part of the crowd or group.
Appeal to vanity:
An arguer links the love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of (celebrities, trendsetters, and so on).
Appeal to snobbery:
An arguer appeals to a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way—more wealthy, more powerful, more culturally refined, more intelligent, and so on.
Appeal to tradition:
An arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for some conclusion.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an appeal to the people fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “appeal to the people” fallacy.)
Passage A
Talent helps, but all the truly great players put a lot of extra time and effort into improving their game. So, if you want to be the best you can be, then you need to be willing to put in the extra time and effort, too.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to the people fallacy.
Passage B
The best players wear only the best shoes: They wear Nikverse brand shoes. You should get yours at Shoe Locker today.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to the people fallacy.
Passage C
Over thirty million men have discussed Medivex brand with a health care professional. Ask your doctor about Medivex brand today!
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to the people fallacy.
Passage D
That company has been voted number one in customer satisfaction each of the last 10 years. So, if you are looking for a company you can rely on should you encounter a problem, then that company is a pretty safe bet.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to the people fallacy.
Passage E
The German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party and, even after the war, he never offered a convincing repudiation of its principles. Clearly, his philosophy should be rejected.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to the people fallacy.
4. Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem)
Now you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as an argument against the person (or argumentum ad hominem) fallacy. This fallacy is often classified as a fallacy of relevance. In general, fallacies of relevance are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. The argument against the person fallacy always involves a rebuttal to someone else’s argument. But rather than directly addressing points that are relevant to the other person’s argument, the rebuttal distracts the listener by directing his or her attention to some irrelevant point about the other person. The argument against the person fallacy can take several forms:
Ad hominem abusive:
Directs verbal abuse against the personality, traits, or identity of an opponent rather than directly addressing the merits of the opponent’s argument
Ad hominem circumstantial:
Casts aspersions on the opponent’s circumstances (for example, accusations of a hidden agenda or vested interest) rather than directly addressing the merits of the opponent’s argument
Tu quoque:
Accuses the opponent of hypocrisy or of arguing in bad faith (for example, by claiming that the opponent’s behavior contradicts his or her argument) rather than directly addressing the merits of the argument itself
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an argument against the person fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “argument against the person” fallacy.)
Passage A
Some argue that our city is growing too quickly. Studies do show that a large increase in the number of people moving to this city has led to urban sprawl and caused the local cougar population to disappear completely. But there are a lot of things to like about big cities. The abundance of cultural and entertainment options is so exciting. Don’t you agree?
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an argument against the person fallacy.
Passage B
William is right when he says I should lose some weight. But, William is overweight himself, and my doctor says that the types of food William eats are key contributors to problems with weight control. So, if I want to lose weight, then I shouldn’t follow William’s diet.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an argument against the person fallacy.
Passage C
You would think that slicing another human being open with a knife should be a crime. But if that were the case, we would have to send all surgeons to jail.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an argument against the person fallacy.
Passage D
If someone enters my home without permission, they should be arrested for breaking and entering. When that fire broke out in my garage, I never gave the firemen permission to break down the door and enter my garage in order to put the fire out. So all of those firemen should be arrested.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an argument against the person fallacy.
Passage E
My doctor said I should lose some weight to help lower my cholesterol. But she’s not exactly skinny herself! Maybe she should lose a few pounds before telling me to lose weight.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an argument against the person fallacy.
5. Accident
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as an accident fallacy. This fallacy is often classified as a fallacy of relevance. In general, fallacies of relevance are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. In particular, the accident fallacy attempts to lure someone into accepting a conclusion by appealing to some general rule that has broad appeal or acceptance among common listeners. The fallacious arguer then attempts to apply that rule to specific cases that the rule is not intended to cover. Thus, even though the rule itself may be appealing, it is irrelevant to the specific case at hand.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an accident fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “accident” fallacy.)
Passage A
The Bible says to humans: “Thou shalt not kill.” Clearly, the Bible intended for humans to be scavengers, not hunters.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an accident fallacy.
Passage B
Some people say that a sophisticated and open-ended ability to speak is what distinguishes a human being from other animals. But that’s ridiculous: A mute person is still a human being.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an accident fallacy.
Passage C
The leader of the student organization argues that we must have more student participation in the administration’s decision-making process. But we have to reject such proposals to let the students run the school. If her suggestion is implemented, chaos will ensue. Teachers and administrators will have no authority, and the school will no longer be a place of learning.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an accident fallacy.
Passage D
Honesty, compassion, fairness, and good judgment are traits that Sally admires in her friends. So if I want Sally to remain my friend, I should try to be honest, compassionate, fair, and wise in my dealings with her.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an accident fallacy.
Passage E
Speeding is against the law. The driver of that speeding fire truck deserves a ticket.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an accident fallacy.
6. Straw Man
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as the straw man fallacy. This fallacy can be classified as a fallacy of relevance. Fallacies of relevance are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. In particular, the straw man fallacy attempts to lure someone into accepting a conclusion by distorting an opposing argument so that the opposing argument appears easier to rebut than it actually is. This may cause the arguer’s own position to seem stronger than the opposition’s, even though the distorted argument bears little relevance to a genuine rebuttal of the opponent’s true argument.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits a straw man fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “straw man” fallacy.)
Passage A
I think you should give me a special discount on this product. After all, I know some people around here who would do just about anything to see your store go out of business. And I may be the only person who can stop them.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a straw man fallacy.
Passage B
Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson insist that a citizen’s right to bear arms should remain an inviolable liberty. But if they think we are just going to stand by and let criminals flood our streets with guns, then they’ve got another thing coming. We have a responsibility to our children, our society, and ourselves to see that this never happens. Accordingly, we have a responsibility to reject Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Wesson’s position.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a straw man fallacy.
Passage C
I will not deny that the defendant’s action might seem heinous. Nevertheless, such a competent jury cannot deny the dire circumstances of the defendant’s upbringing! Orphaned at birth, a loveless foster home, little encouragement in either schooling or vocation: Who among us cannot understand the desperation that such circumstances might inspire? I submit that the defendant’s crime would never have happened except for such desperate circumstances. You must acquit.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a straw man fallacy.
Passage D
An advertisement for Chronos watches: “A Chronos watch isn’t just a timepiece, it’s a work of art. Distinguish yourself with a Chronos today.”
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a straw man fallacy.
Passage E
These scientists insist that their research has revealed enormous potential for cold fusion as a cheap, safe, and efficient source of energy, and they are recommending that enormous sums of money be devoted to cold-fusion technologies. But no independent researchers have been able to reproduce these scientists’ results, and many have called their research methods into question. Hence, it would be unwise to devote too much money to these technologies.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a straw man fallacy.
7. Missing the Point
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as missing the point (or ignoratio elenchi). This fallacy can be classified among the fallacies of relevance, which are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. In particular, missing the point occurs when an arguer ignores the clearest implications of an argument’s premises in order to put forward a different conclusion that, at best, only vaguely relates to the correct conclusion. Thus, missing the point involves an argument that appears ignorant of the logical implications of its premises.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits a missing the point fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “missing the point” fallacy.)
Passage A
Who are you to fault me for drinking too much? You smoke too much, and you know it. No matter how many times you’ve tried, you can’t seem to give up that filthy habit. So you should worry about your own faults rather than hounding me about mine.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a missing the point fallacy.
Passage B
Bob was in tears when he heard that, during the earthquake, his parent’s garage had collapsed and killed the family dog. He shouldn’t be so upset, though: I’m sure his parents have earthquake insurance, which will pay for the rebuilding of their garage.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a missing the point fallacy.
Passage C
Heidegger was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party, and even after the war, he never offered a convincing repudiation of its principles. Clearly, his philosophy should be rejected.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a missing the point fallacy.
Passage D
As mayor of this town, I have been a tireless advocate of the business community. I have streamlined government processes that are essential to businesses in our area, and I have decreased municipal costs enough to lower taxes on local businesses. If you would like to continue to see such advocacy from the mayor’s office, you have ample reason to believe you can have it by reelecting me.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a missing the point fallacy.
Passage E
Bill’s mom said people should never drink and drive, but I disagree. Public transportation is terrible around here, and it’s impossible to find a cab. So if someone can’t drive home, they’re likely to have to walk home. As it is, there are already too many drunks walking the streets downtown.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a missing the point fallacy.
8. Red Herring
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is referred to as the red herring fallacy. This fallacy can be classified among the fallacies of relevance, which are distinguished by the tendency to rely on premises that appeal to some psychological motivation for accepting a conclusion and, thereby, distract the listener from recognizing that the premises are logically irrelevant to determining whether the conclusion is actually true. In particular, red herring fallacies occur when an arguer diverts a listener’s attention from the real subject matter of an argument by changing the subject to something that makes a conclusion appear to follow (even though the original subject matter does not support the conclusion).
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits a red herring fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy but not the “red herring” fallacy.)
Passage A
The congressman has argued that a slight increase in the federal income tax could go a long way toward addressing the problems that plague our inner cities. But the problems cited by the congressman are much more costly than he suggests. Consequently, if tax increases are the only means we employ for dealing with those problems, then we will require much more than the “slight” tax increase he has recommended so far.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a red herring fallacy.
Passage B
I deserve a higher grade on my paper. After all, I was up all night working on the paper even though I had just found out that my grandmother is sick. And I have had to work really hard in this class because I find the material to be so difficult. Can’t you please appreciate my effort and raise my grade?
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a red herring fallacy.
Passage C
I should overlook all the assignments this student has failed to hand in. After all, he said that if he failed another class, he would lose his scholarship. And he says that if he loses his scholarship, he will have to get a job. Of course, a job would interfere with his studies…. I can’t bear the guilt of that.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a red herring fallacy.
Passage D
The congressman has argued that a slight increase in the federal income tax could go a long way toward addressing the problems that plague our inner cities. Apparently, the congressman thinks we’ve forgotten about the sex scandal that nearly ruined his marriage a few years back. I’ve heard his two oldest children were so hurt and embarrassed by the episode that they still won’t talk to him. The congressman should figure out how to fix the problems in his own home before he tries to take on the problems that plague our cities.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a red herring fallacy.
Passage E
Mr. Jones has argued that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and, therefore, that it should be abolished. But Mr. Jones has to explain what the purposes of “punishment” under the law are and what specifically would be “cruel and unusual” given these purposes. Since he has not done this, we do not have ample reason to accept Mr. Jones’s conclusion.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit a red herring fallacy.
9. Fallacies of Relevance – Practice
Now that you have had an opportunity to consider all of the fallacies of relevance, you should be able to distinguish each fallacy of relevance from the others.
Consider the following argumentative passages, and indicate the type of fallacy that best describes each passage. If the passage is not fallacious, choose “no fallacy.”
Passage A
An advertisement for Chronos watches: A Chronos watch isn’t just a timepiece, it’s a work of art. Distinguish yourself with a Chronos today.
Which of the following best describes the type of fallacy committed in Passage A?
An accident fallacy
An appeal to the people (appeal to snobbery) fallacy
No fallacy
A straw man fallacy
A red herring fallacy
Passage B
I should overlook all the assignments this student has failed to hand in. After all, he said that if he failed another class, he would lose his scholarship. And he says that if he loses his scholarship, he will have to get a job. Of course, a job will interfere with his studies. I can’t bear the guilt of that.
Which of the following best describes the type of fallacy committed in Passage B?
An appeal to force fallacy
An accident fallacy
No fallacy
A straw man fallacy
An appeal to pity fallacy
Passage C
It hurts Joey’s feelings when you are mean to him. So, if you want Joey to be your friend, you must not be mean to him.
Which of the following best describes the type of fallacy committed in Passage C?
An appeal to pity fallacy
An appeal to the people (bandwagon) fallacy
No fallacy
An ad hominem (argument against the person) abusive fallacy
A red herring fallacy
Passage D
Of course the teacher’s union is going to be opposed to merit pay for teachers. The teachers are just worried about losing their jobs.
Which of the following best describes the type of fallacy committed in Passage D?
No fallacy
An appeal to force fallacy
An ad hominem (argument against the person) circumstantial fallacy
An ad hominem (argument against the person) tu quoque fallacy
A red herring fallacy
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy. This fallacy is often classified as a fallacy of weak induction. In general, fallacies of weak induction mimic the forms of typical inductive arguments but rely on premises that are clearly inadequate to support a proposed conclusion. In particular, an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy mimics the form of a typical argument from authority, but the authority cited is someone whose expertise is inadequate to justify belief in the conclusion.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy, but not the “appeal to unqualified authority” fallacy.)
Passage A
The guide who leads that whitewater rafting tour says that the water is far too rough for beginning rafters to attempt rafting today. Since neither of us has been whitewater rafting before, we should wait to try it some other day.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy.
Passage B
Many consider Orson Welles to have been a filmmaking genius. Orson Welles often said that Paul Masson wines were exceptional wines. Given Welles’s genius, Paul Masson wines must be exceptional, indeed!
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy.
Passage C
Francis Crick was a world-renowned molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist who won a Nobel Prize as one of the codiscoverers of the structure of DNA. Crick was also an avowed atheist who publicly argued that God does not exist. If someone like Crick said that God does not exist, then God must not exist.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy.
Passage D
In 1933, the U.S. Congress repealed the Prohibition laws that forbade the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption. Around that same time, severe drought and dust storms swept across the Great Plains states of the central United States. The repeal of Prohibition must have caused the severe dust storms.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy.
Passage E
My neighbor is a logic professor at the local college, and she is always grumpy when I speak to her. Logic professors must be grumpy people.
Passage E commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to unqualified authority fallacy.
2. Appeal to Ignorance
In this exercise, you will practice identifying a fallacy that is usually referred to as the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This fallacy is often classified as a fallacy of weak induction. In general, fallacies of weak induction mimic the forms of typical inductive arguments but rely on premises that are clearly inadequate to support a proposed conclusion. In particular, an appeal to ignorance fallacy leaps to a conclusion based on the lack of evidence to refute that conclusion. By contrast, the premises of a good inductive argument are supposed to provide positive evidence in support of a conclusion.
Consider each of the following argumentative passages and indicate (i) whether it commits a fallacy and (ii) whether, specifically, it commits an appeal to ignorance fallacy. (Note: It is possible for a single argument to commit more than one type of fallacy. Also, if an argument commits a different fallacy altogether, indicate that it does commit a fallacy, but not the “appeal to ignorance” fallacy.)
Passage A
Some have argued for the creation of a world food bank, where stores of extra food could be kept to aid countries stricken by famine or natural disaster. But programs like the food bank would just encourage such countries to become dependent on the help of others rather than preparing ahead for times of misfortune. Besides, sometimes misfortunes like famines and natural disasters serve the useful purpose of curbing the tendency toward overpopulation. So the food bank would simply lead to overpopulated, destitute countries that are woefully unprepared to take care of themselves.
Passage A commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Passage B
Mr. Jones insists that he was at home sleeping peacefully when the murder occurred. And yet he is unable to produce a single person to confirm his alibi! Clearly, Mr. Jones is lying, and he is the murderer.
Passage B commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Passage C
There’s been a lot of talk lately about legalizing marijuana. But if we start legalizing drugs, there’s no reason to stop at marijuana. We’ll have to legalize hallucinogens and heroin. Eventually, kids will be buying crack cocaine at the local pharmacy. Surely we can all agree that we don’t want that.
Passage C commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Passage D
I have gone camping in the Mohave Desert three times, and it has rained all three times. It is hard to understand why the Mohave Desert is such an arid landscape since it clearly rains there almost every day.
Passage D commit a fallacy; specifically, it commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Passage E
There is broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures continue to increase as long as carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise. Furthermore, studies show that the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 36% since the mid-1700s and that carbon dioxide concentrations are cont
