Logical Fallacies 1
LOGICAL FALLACIES HANDLIST: Arguments to Avoid when Writing
Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by
making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able
to spot them in others' arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the vital art of intellectual self-defense.
I. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to
evidence or examples irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Appeal to Force: (Argumentum ad Baculum, or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This
argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience
accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments
fail to convince. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the merits of the points
under consideration. Example: “Superintendent, it would be a good idea for your school to cut
the budget by $16,000. I need not remind you that past school boards have fir ed superintendents
who cannot keep down costs.” While intimidation might force the superintendent to conform, it
does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or
community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many
thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies, and threaten to throw them out of office .
Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that, because an idea, product, or person must
be wrong because of its origin. "That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or,
"Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people
are flakes." This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem,
below.
Argumentum Ad Hominem (Literally, “Argument to the Man.” Also called “Poisoning the
Well” and "Personal Attack"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument rather
than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal c haracter of
an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement
"2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by a criminal, congressmen, or a pastor. There are two
subcategories:
(Abusive): To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous
because they originate with atheists, Christians, Communists, the John Birch Society, Catholics,
anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This
persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to
evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy.
(Circumstantial): To argue that opponents should accept or refute an argument only
because of circumstances in their lives is a fallacy. If one’s adversary is a clergyman, suggesting
that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incom patible with the
scriptures is a circumstantial fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican, he must
vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent’s special
circumstances do not affect the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer
must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case.
Argumentum Ad Populum ("Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often
by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a
favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this
type of argument is Shakespeare’s version of Mark Antony’s funeral oratio n for Julius Caesar.
There are three basic approaches:
(Bandwagon Approach): “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts
that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action,
the argument must be true or the course of action must be the best one. For instan ce, “85% of
consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM
must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be
valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of
people possibly once thought planet earth was flat, but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth
really was flat! Keep this in mind, and remember that all should avoid this logical fallacy.
(Patriotic Approach): “Draping oneself in the flag.” This argument asserts that a certain
stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are
somehow unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent.
The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged
individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never
use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer
belongs in this great country of ours. This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.
(Snob Approach): This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is
doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual
would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who
fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had
best recognize that necessity.
In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is
true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument.
Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must
be true because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the
premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City
has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good
enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an
argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions.
Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-
standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago?
Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundium): An appeal to an improper
authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. This fallacy attempts to
capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to
refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On
the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education is fallacious. To cite
Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on
legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars an d psychic
hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is
one who truly is knowledgeable on the topic, but unfortunately one who may have professional
or personal motivations that render that judgment suspect: “To determine whether fraternities are
