Fallacies of Reasoning PDF

**THE FALLACIES OF REASONING** I. **Fallacies That Violate the RELEVANCE Criterion** A. **Fallacies of Irrelevance** 1. **Irrelevant or Questionable Authority** --- Attempting to support a claim by appealing to the judgment of one who is not an authority in the field, the judgment of a...

**THE FALLACIES OF REASONING** I. **Fallacies That Violate the RELEVANCE Criterion** A. **Fallacies of Irrelevance** 1. **Irrelevant or Questionable Authority** --- Attempting to support a claim by appealing to the judgment of one who is not an authority in the field, the judgment of an unidentified authority, or the judgment of an authority who is likely to be biased. 2. **Appeal to Common Opinion** --- Urging the acceptance of a position simply on the grounds that a large number of people accept it or urging the rejection of a position on the grounds that very few people accept it. 3. **Genetic Fallacy** --- Evaluating a thing in terms of its earlier context and then carrying over that evaluation to the thing in the present, while ignoring relevant changes that may have altered its character in the interim. 4. **Rationalization** --- Using plausible-sounding but usually fake reasons to justify a particular position that is held on other, less respectable grounds. 5. **Using the Wrong Reasons** --- Attempting to support a claim with reasons other than the reasons appropriate to the claim. 6. **Drawing the Wrong Conclusion** --- Drawing a conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence presented in the argument. B. **Irrelevant Emotional Appeals** 1. **Appeal to Pity** --- Attempting to persuade others of a position by appealing to their sympathy instead of to relevant evidence when a more important principle or issue is at stake. 2. **Appeal to Force or Threat** --- Attempting to persuade others of a position by threatening them with an undesirable state of affairs instead of presenting evidence for one's view. 3. **Appeal to tradition** --- Attempting to persuade others of a point of view by appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for a tradition instead of to evidence, especially when a more important principle or issue is at stake. 4. **Appeal to Personal Circumstances or Motives** (Appeal to Advantage) --- Urging an opponent to accept or reject a particular position by appealing solely to his or her personal circumstances or self-interest, when a more important issue is at stake. 5. **Exploitation of Strong Feelings and Attitudes** (shame, anger, guilt, loyalty) --- Attempting to persuade others of one's point of view by exploiting their strong emotions or by manipulating their positive or negative attitudes toward certain groups or ideas, instead of presenting evidence for one's views. 6. **Use of Flattery** --- Engaging in excessive praise of others in order to persuade them of one's view instead of presenting evidence for the position in question. 7. **Assigning Guilt by Association** --- A device used to manipulate an opponent into accepting one's view by pointing out that the opposing view is held by those with negative esteem or by people or groups that the opponent does not like or usually disagrees with, instead of presenting evidence for one's position. II. **Fallacies That Violate the ACCEPTABILITY Criterion** A. **Fallacies of Linguistic Confusion** 1. **Equivocation** --- Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout. 2. **Ambiguity** --- Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by presenting a claim or argument that uses a word, phrase, or grammatical construction that can be interpreted in two or more distinctly different ways, without making clear which meaning is intended. 3. **Improper Accent** --- Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by placing improper or unusual emphasis on a word, phrase, or particular aspect of an issue or claim. This fallacy is sometimes committed by taking portions of another's statement out of their original context in a way that conveys an unintended meaning. B. **Begging-the-Question Fallacies** 1. **Arguing in a Circle** --- Explicitly or implicitly asserting, in one of the premises of an argument, what is asserted in the conclusion of that argument. 2. **Loaded or Complex Question** --- Formulating a question in a way that presupposes that a definite answer has already been given to some other *unasked* question, or in treating a series of questions as if it involved only one question. 3. **Question-Begging Definition** --- Attempting to establish an irrefutable position in an argument by means of a questionable definition. C. **Unwarranted Assumption Fallacies** 1. **Fallacy of the Continuum** --- Assuming that small movements or differences on a continuum between a thing and its contrary have a negligible effect and that to make definite distinctions between points on that line is impossible or at least arbitrary. 2. **Fallacy of Composition** --- Assuming that what is true of the parts of a whole is therefore true of the whole. 3. **Fallacy of Division** --- Assuming that what is true of a whole is therefore true of each of the parts of that whole. 4. **False Alternatives** --- Restricting too severely the number of proposed alternative responses to a problem or situation and assuming that one of the suggested alternatives must be true or the right one. 5. **Is-Ought Fallacy** --- Assuming that because something is now the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, assuming that because something is not now the practice, it ought not to be the practice. 6. **Wishful Thinking** --- Assuming that because one wants something to be true, it is or will be true. Conversely, assuming that because one does not want something to be true, then it is not or will not be true. 7. **Misuse of a General Principle** --- Misapplying a principle or rule in a particular instance by assuming that it has no exceptions. Conversely, attempting to refute a principle or rule by means of an exceptional case. 8. **Fallacy of the Golden Mean** --- Assuming that the moderate or middle view between two extremes must be the best or right one simply because it is the middle view. 9. **Faulty Analogy** --- Assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they necessarily are alike in some other important respect, while failing to recognize the insignificance of their similarities and/or the significance of their dissimilarities. 10. **Fallacy of Novelty** -- Assuming that a new idea, law, policy, or action is good simply because it is new. III. **Fallacies that Violate the SUFFICIENT GROUNDS Condition** A. **Fallacies of Missing Evidence** 1. **Insufficient Sample** --- Drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases. 2. **Unrepresentative Data** --- Drawing a conclusion based on data from an unrepresentative or biased sample. 3. **Arguing From Ignorance** --- Arguing for the truth (or falsity) of a claim because there is no evidence or proof to the contrary or because of the inability or refusal of an opponent to present convincing evidence to the contrary. 4. **Contrary-to-Fact Hypothesis** --- Treating a hypothetical claim as if it were a statement of fact by making a claim, without sufficient evidence, about what would have happened in the past if other conditions had been present or about an event that will occur in the future. 5. **Improper Use of a Cliché** --- Using an aphorism or cliché in place of relevant evidence for a claim. 6. **Inference From a Label** --- Assuming that evaluative or identifying words or phrases attached to people or things constitute a sufficient reason for drawing conclusions about the objects to which such labels are attached. 7. **Special Pleading** --- Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself or to a situation that is of personal interest, without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception. B. **Causal Fallacies** 1. **Confusion of a Necessary with a Sufficient Condition** --- Assuming that a necessary condition of an event is also a sufficient one. 2. **Post Hoc Fallacy** --- Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. 3. **Domino Fallacy** --- Assuming, without appropriate evidence, that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to a specific, usually undesirable, consequence. 4. **Gambler's Fallacy** --- Arguing that because a chance event has had a certain run in the past, the probability of its occurrence in the future is significantly altered. IV. **Fallacies That Violate the REBUTTAL Criterion** A. **Ad Hominem Fallacies** 1. **Abusive Ad Hominem** --- Attacking one's opponent in a personal or abusive way as a means of ignoring or discrediting his or her criticism or argument. 2. **Poisoning the Well** --- Rejecting a criticism or argument presented by another person because of his or her personal circumstances or improper motives. 3. **"You Do it Too" Argument** --- Rejecting a criticism of one's argument or actions by accusing one's critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way. B. **Fallacies of Diversion** 1. **Attacking a Straw Man** --- Misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack. 2. **Trivial Objections** --- Attacking an opponent's position by focusing critical attention on a minor point in the argument. 3. **Red Herring** --- Attempting to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue. 4. **Resort to Humor or Ridicule** --- Injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to an opponent's criticism or counterargument.