Logical Fallacies PDF

Fallacies of Irrelevance Poisoning the Well  Poisoning the Well: This fallacy consists in rejecting a claim defended by another because of that person’s special circumstances or improper motives. This fallacy is called poisoning the well because its effect is to discre...

Fallacies of Irrelevance Poisoning the Well  Poisoning the Well: This fallacy consists in rejecting a claim defended by another because of that person’s special circumstances or improper motives. This fallacy is called poisoning the well because its effect is to discredit the source of the particular argument or point of view in such a way that it precludes any consideration of the merit of that position.  Example: “You’re not a woman, so anything you might say about abortion is of no significance.”  Attacking the Fallacy: Call the person out (unless you think this will be too forceful). “Poisoning the well, huh? Afraid I might say something to damage your position? I think I do have something significant to say, and I’d be interested in your response to it.” MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 24  Unwarranted Assumption Fallacies Fallacy of Composition  Fallacy of Composition: This fallacy consists in assuming that what is true of the parts of some whole is therefore true of the whole. (This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, wherein we infer something about a whole class of things on the basis of one or a few instances of that thing).  Example: “Dan is a fine young man; Becky’s a fine young woman. They’ll make a lovely couple.”  Attacking the Fallacy: A careful attempt should be made to show the person who commits this fallacy just how a whole may very well represent something different from simply the sum of its parts. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 26  Begging-the-Question Fallacies Circular Reasoning  Circular Reasoning: Arguing for a conclusion on the basis of a set of premises, where the truth of the premises assumes the truth of the conclusion.  Example #1:  CLAIM: “You can’t give me a C in this course…  REASON: …because I’m an A student!”  WARRANT: An A student is someone who can’t receive a C.  Example #2: “My cult leader is infallible; he tells me so, I know what he tells me is true, because he’s infallible.”  Attacking the Fallacy: You may directly attack circular reasoning by calling attention to the fact that the conclusion has already been assumed to be true as a part of the evidence. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 32  Begging-the-Question Fallacies Loaded or Complex Question  Loaded or Complex Question: This fallacy consists in formulating a question in a way that presupposes that a definite answer has already been given to some other, unasked question.  Example: “Where will you be going to college next year?” MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 33  Begging-the-Question Fallacies Leading Question  Leading Question: This fallacy consists of “planting” a proposed answer to a question at issue by the manner in which the question is asked.  Example: “You did plan to return the money that you borrowed from the cash drawer, did you not?” In this case the defense lawyer is “leading” the witness, by assuming a position on the very question at issue – namely, whether the defendant embezzled the money or whether he inappropriately “borrowed” it. (Planting a proposed answer is not only likely to be disallowed by the judge, it is also a procedure that is likely to weaken the case for the defense).  Attacking the Fallacy: Simply point it out. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 34  Begging-the-Question Fallacies Apriorism  Apriorism: This fallacy consists in refusing to look at any evidence that might count against one’s claim or assumption. An extension of this fallacy consists in being unwilling or unable to specify any conceivable evidence that might possibly count against one’s claim.  Example: “I couldn’t care less what is in your biology textbook. I know that I didn’t come from some monkey or lower form of life or whatever you call it.”  Attacking the Fallacy: To demonstrate whether your opponent is genuinely open to counterevidence, you could ask what particular kind of evidence, if it could be produced, might seriously weaken his or her claim. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 35  Begging-the-Question Fallacies Question-Begging Definition  Question-Begging Definition: This fallacy consists in attempting to establish an irrefutable position in an argument by means of a questionable definition.  Example: When a popular politician switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party several months ago, a number of his critics, especially Democrats, claimed that he had obviously not been a “true-blue” Democrat or he wouldn’t have switched political parties.  Attacking the Fallacy: Ask for a definition. You may have to explain to your opponent and/or the audience the difference between a definitional and an empirical claim. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 36  Causal Fallacies Causal Oversimplification  Causal Oversimplification: This fallacy consists of oversimplifying the relevant causal antecedents of an event or series of events.  Example: “Children spend an average of six hours per day on the phone or computer – time that used to be spent reading. That explains why SAT scores are dropping.”  Attacking the Fallacy: It is almost always possible to question another’s causal explanation, for an explanation of an event rarely includes all the literally hundreds of antecedent conditions that constitute the sufficient condition of that event. Try suggesting additional factors that you think might make the causal explanation more adequate and then ask your opponent for an evaluation of those suggestions. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 38  Causal Fallacies Post Hoc Fallacy  Post Hoc Fallacy: This fallacy consists in assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. This fallacy is the faulty assumption that because one event or action follows another, the first causes the second.  Example: “My soccer team was losing until I bought new shoes.”  Attacking the Fallacy: You should have no trouble finding absurd examples that could demonstrate the fallaciousness of post hoc thinking. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 39  Causal Fallacies Confusion of Cause and Effect  Confusion of Cause and Effect: This fallacy consists of confusing the cause with the effect of an event or in failing to recognize that there may be a reciprocal causal relation between the two events in question.  Example: “It’s no wonder that Phillip makes such good grades and always does what the teacher asks. He’s the teacher’s pet.”  It is more likely the case that Phillip is the teacher’s pet because he makes good grades and cooperates with the teacher. Moreover, it is possible that there is a reciprocal causal relation between Phillip’s being the teacher’s pet and his admirable behavior. The fact that Phillip is the teacher’s pet would probably cause him to want to make even better grades and to be even more cooperative in his behavior. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 40  Causal Fallacies Domino Fallacy  Domino Fallacy: This fallacy – also known as the slippery slope fallacy – consists of 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 some specific consequence.  Example: During the Vietnam War, it was widely argued that “if we let the Communists have Vietnam, they will then take Cambodia, Thailand, then all of Southeast Asia, and before you know it, we will be in a Third World War.”  However, little evidence was ever presented for the view that there was or would be a causal relation between each of the events in that so-called series of events. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 41  Causal Fallacies Gambler’s Fallacy  Gambler’s Fallacy: This fallacy consists of 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.  Example: “It’s been heads five times in a row. I’m sticking with tails.”  Attacking the Fallacy: This is difficult to do because even if you could demonstrate repeatedly that your opponent’s claim is a chance event AND your opponent did agree with your criticism, he or she will likely still hold to the original claim. MR. ROLOFSON/AP CAPSTONE 42