1 of 14

Fallacies

Don’t think of ‘fallacies’ just as things to avoid, or as an algorithm for finding weaknesses in authors’ arguments. �
Instead, think of fallacies as a way of reflecting on the nature of chains of reasoning, for talking about the strengths and weaknesses of argumentative claims and the evidence, support, strategies, assumptions etc. associated with them. �
Fallacies should get you thinking about the criteria we use to evaluate arguments.�

2 of 14

Fallacies

Most fallacies are not exotic or unusual forms of argument. They draw on common forms of reasoning, but are lacking in some key respect. �
For example, arguments often contain rebuttals and counterarguments that consider opposing views. If this is done well, it adds strength to an argument. However, if an author does not accurately represent an opponent’s argument, or presents a weak, caricatured version of that argument, we can say s/he has committed the fallacy of creating “a straw man.” �
Obviously, fallacies are matters of degree and involve interpretation – you have to make the case that evidence exists for the fallacy. You must consider questions of audience, purpose and context. (Cf concept of “steel man.”)�

Common forms of reasoning

GASDCAP - very common forms of reasoning. �Generalization, analogy, sign, definition, causality, authority, principle.

Each has a corresponding fallacy (or fallacies) associated with it. See textbook for examples.��Eg false analogy (Pittsburgh, Vegas, and riverboat gambling); causality (crime and ice cream sales), generalization (old smoker), authority (Crichton?) etc.

False Dilemma?

The False Dilemma or False Dichotomy Fallacy reduces a complex problem to two radically over-simplified choices, usually entirely good and one entirely bad.
Oversimplifying an issue by declaring that only two alternatives or ways of viewing the issue exist. Often one of these alternatives is clearly bad, so it is implied that there is only one reasonable position to take. Sometimes people criticize such an argumentative strategy by saying that it is “reductive” and “manipulative.”
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/151029/you-hate-children

Slippery Slope

Loaded Question

A loaded question contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda (“answer yes or no!”)�
The traditional example is, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question which narrows the respondent to a single answer. �
The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when these presuppositions are not agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other.

Loaded Question

Attractive activist outside Love Library stopping passersby: “Do you want to stop world hunger?” ��How to say “no”? ��But if framed as, “do you want to give money to our organization today?” it’s easier to say no.

Are these loaded questions?

“Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care?

“So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?” (Also a straw man argument)

Straw Man

False analogy

Ad Hominem

Causal arguments and the “post hoc, ergo procter hoc” fallacy.