Fallacies

Aigerim Kazhigaliyeva
MA in Multilingual Education
PhD c.
AIU
April 1st, 2024
Argument Structure

• The basic structure of all arguments involves three

interdependent elements:
1.Claim (also known as the conclusion)—What you are trying to
prove. This is usually presented as your essay‘s thesis
statement.
2.Support (also known as the minor premise)—The evidence
(facts, expert testimony, quotes, and statistics) you present to
back up your claims.
3.Warrant (also known as major premise)—Any assumption that
is taken for granted and underlies your claim.
Consider the claim, support, and warrant for the following examples:
Example 1

Claim: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) has led to an increase in high school student drop-out rates.

Support: Drop-out rates in the US have climbed by 20% since 2001.

Warrant: (The claim presupposes that) it‘s a "bad" thing for students to drop out.
Example 2

Claim: ADHD has grown by epidemic proportions in the last 10 years

Support: In 1999, the number of children diagnosed with ADHD was 2.1 million; in 2009, the number was 3.5
million.

Warrant: (The claim presupposes that) a diagnosis of ADHD is the same thing as the actual existence of
ADHD; it also presupposes that ADHD is a disease.
 Fallacies
…..are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of
your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or
irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence
that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own
arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.
Slippery Slope:
This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then
eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will
happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur,
A must not be allowed to occur either.
Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment

eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban
Hummers.
In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning
all cars, which is not the same thing.
Hasty Generalization:
This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other
words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.
Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring
course.
In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on
only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks
for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must
attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook,
talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the
course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc:
• This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B'
must have caused 'A.' Example:
• I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made
me sick.
• In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically
follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the
illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu
bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill
across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume
the water caused the person to be sick.
Genetic Fallacy:
• This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person,
idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.
Example:
• The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally
designed by Hitler's army.
• In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the
character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not
inherently related.
Begging the Claim:
• The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the
claim. Example:
• Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
• Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would
be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal
causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed
in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."
Circular Argument:
• This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:
• George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.
• In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence
used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence
such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his
points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.
• Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only
two sides or choices. Example:
• We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
• In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a
range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems
for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily
driving.
Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal:
• This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people
think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the
bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.
• Example:
• If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to
choose whatever vehicle they want.
• In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept
that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war,
with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there
is no inherent connection between the two.
Red Herring:
• This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by
avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:
• The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers
do to support their families?
• In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the
safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the
livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other
it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of
possible economic consequences to a few individuals.
Straw Man:
• This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
• People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.
• In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position.
In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic
arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not
treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.
Moral Equivalence:
• This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities,
suggesting that both are equally immoral.
• That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.
• In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless
actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler.
This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.
 Conclusion
As you can see from the examples above, there are many ways arguments can
fall apart due to faulty connection making. When trying to induce inferences from
data, for instance, it‘s important not to draw conclusions too quickly or too
globally; otherwise, you may end up with errors of hasty or sweeping
generalization that will weaken your overall thesis. Similarly, it‘s important not to
construct an either-or argument when dealing with a complex, multi-faceted issue
or to assume a causal relationship when dealing with a merely temporal one; the
ensuing errors—false dilemma and post hoc ergo procter hoc, respectively—may
weaken argument as well. Being attentive to logical fallacies in others‘ writings
will make you a more effective "critic" and writer of literature review assignments,
annotated bibliographies and article critiques. Being attentive to fallacies in your
own writing will help you build more compelling arguments, whether putting
together a dissertation prospectus or simply writing a short discussion post on
the applications of a particular theory.
References
Fallacies - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University
 Homework
Assignment on Fallacies