Linguistic----Language and Thinking Problem Set

Ling 21 Online - Chart of Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance Personal attack (ad hominum): Arguer attacks the character of a person making an opposing argument but does not address the argument itself. Al Gore says that we need to take action against climate change. He can’t even win an election for President;

he’s a loser, so what does he know? Attacking the motive: Arguer attacks the motive of a person making an opposing argument but does not address the argument itself.

Pediatricians recommend children get an annual check-up. Of course they do; regular patients equal regular profits for doctors.

Look who’s talking (tu quoque): Arguer attacks the behavior of a person making an opposing argument because it is inconsistent with the argument, but does not address the argument itself.

My doctor told me to lose 30 pounds, but he’s pretty chubby, so I don’t need to listen to what that tub of lard says.

Two wrongs make a right: Arguer justifies a wrong action by citing an instance of another wrong action.

Everybody cheats in college, so it’s ok for me to cheat, too.

Scare tactics (appeal to fear): Arguer threatens the reader or listener in order to force acceptance of an argument.

If you don’t install our company’s home alarm system, who knows what might happen; there are a lot of bad guys out there.

Appeal to pity: Arguer inappropriately tries to evoke pity from a reader or listener to support an argument.

Eat your liver! Think about the poor, starving children who don’t have any food.

Bandwagon (appeal to popularity): Arguer uses popular opinion or behavior to support an argument. Ghosts must exist; everyone I know believes in them.

Straw man: Arguer attacks an opposing argument by distorting or misrepresenting it. Advocates of stricter gun laws want us to be helpless in the face of crime! We need to fight them in Congress!

Equivocation: Arguer uses the same word or phrase in two different senses in order to support an argument.

The sign said, “Fine for parking here” and since it was fine, I parked there.

Begging the question (circular reasoning): Arguer supports an argument with a premise that assumes the argument to be true.

We should treat others in the way we want to be treated because it is the golden rule.

Red herring: Arguer supports and argument with a premise that is irrelevant to the claim being made. You say it’s wrong for me to cheat on my spouse. But who knows what is wrong and what is right anyway?

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Inappropriate appeal to authority: An argument is supported with evidence from an expert who is not an authority on the issue being argued.

The President of the United States brushes his teeth with Crest. You should, too! Appeal to ignorance: An argument is supported by the citation of a lack of evidence proving it false; or an argument is attacked with the citation of a lack of evidence proving it true.

Crop circles must have been drawn by alien artists; nobody has any other explanation for them. False alternatives (false dilemma): Arguer presents an argument by elimination that ignores other valid alternatives.

We either keep troops in the Middle East, or let the terrorists attack us again. Loaded question (false supposition): Arguer poses a question in an argument which contains an unsupported or unwarranted assumption or accusation. No matter how the question is answered, the assumption or accusation is confirmed to be true (even though it is not proved).

Senator, have you finally decided to stop lying? Questionable cause: Arguer claims that one thing is the cause of another without sufficient evidence that proves a cause/effect relationship between the two things.

I did very well my exam today; I wore my lucky shoes! Hasty generalization: Arguer draws a general conclusion from a sample that is too small, is biased, or is irrelevant and thus does not offer sufficient evidence for the conclusion being argued.

I was in a café in Paris and the waiter was horrible. French people are so rude! Slippery slope: Arguer claims that a seemingly harmless action or event will lead to a series of increasingly bad consequences without providing sufficient supporting evidence that the consequences will occur. We’ve got to stop the library from banning erotic novels. Next thing you know, they’ll be banning all literature,

and pretty soon they’ll start burning books! Weak analogy: Arguer supports an argument with an analogy based on the comparison of two things that are not comparable, or a comparison that is not relevant to the issue being argued.

The government insisting that I pay taxes is like a mugger putting a gun to my head and demanding my money.

Inconsistency: Arguer presents inconsistent or conflicting claims within the same argument. I know at 18 you’re legally an adult and can make your own decisions, but you must wait to drink until you are

21.