FOR ESSAY GURU

FALLACIES FROM “THE NIX”

BY

NATHAN HILL

HTTP://LITHUB.COM/THE-NIX/

TWO PARTS TO ANY ARGUMENT

• 1) THE FORM—HOW IT ATTEMPTS TO CONNECT THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE TO A CONCLUSION. THIS MAKES IT EITHER VALID OR INVALID.

• 2) THE CONTENT—WHAT IT PUTS FORTH AS EVIDENCE, WHAT IT STATES IS OR SHOULD BE THE CASE. THIS MAKES IT EITHER SOUND OR UNSOUND.

• FALLACIES ARE EITHER: • 1) MISTAKES IN REASONING

• 2) THE CREATION OF AN INFERENTIAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLUSION THAT MAKES A BAD ARGUMENT APPEAR GOOD

FALLACIES, PALMER P. 19-22

ALL WINES ARE BEVERAGES.

CHARDONNAY IS A WINE.

THEREFORE, CHARDONNAY IS A BEVERAGE. • TRUE PREMISES, SOUND INFERENCES

ALL WINES ARE BEVERAGES.

CHARDONNAY IS A BEVERAGE.

THEREFORE, CHARDONNAY IS A WINE. • TRUE PREMISES, UNSOUND INFERENCES

ALL WINES ARE WHISKEYS.

GINGER ALE IS A WINE.

THEREFORE, GINGER ALE IS A WHISKEY. • FALSE PREMISES, SOUND INFERENCES

FACT CHECKING ALONE WON’T KEEP US SAFE FROM BEING

MISLED!!

A FALLACY IS A DEFECT IN AN ARGUMENT THAT CONSISTS IN

SOMETHING OTHER THAN FALSE PREMISES.

THE LOADED QUESTION

“I WONDER WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SOFTWARE?”

• A QUESTION THAT HAS A PRESUPPOSITION BUILT IN. THE QUESTION ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT DIRECT REPLIES TO BE THOSE THAT SERVE THE QUESTIONER'S AGENDA. THE FALLACY RELIES UPON CONTEXT FOR ITS EFFECT: WHEN SOME OF THESE PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE NOT AGREED TO BY THE PERSON BEING ASKED, THE QUESTION BECOMES FALLACIOUS.

• EX: HOW MANY TIMES A DAY DO YOU BEAT YOUR DOG?

• EX: HOW MANY SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SHOULD WE TOLERATE BEFORE WE CHANGE THE GUN LAWS?

THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT “YOU SHOULDN’T PUNISH SOMEONE FOR CHEATING BECAUSE THEN THEY HAVE TO CHEAT MORE TO PASS THE CLASS”

• THE ARGUER LEAVES OUT A POSSIBLY FALSE KEY PREMISE WHILE CREATING THE ILLUSION THAT NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE CONCLUSION. OR, THEY RESTATE A SHAKY PREMISE AS THE CONCLUSION USING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. IT IMPLIES THE SAME TRUTH THAT IT PURPORTS TO PROVE.

• EX: STEM CELL RESEARCH IS IMMORAL BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES KILLING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS IS IMMORAL.

• EX: ITS OK TO HELP MINORS BUY CIGARETTES BECAUSE THEY CAN’T BUY THEM THEMSELVES.

• EX: THE BOOK OF REVELATION IS DIVINELY-INSPIRED BECAUSE IT WAS DELIVERED TO MAN FROM GOD.

APPEAL TO PITY “NOBODY EVER TAUGHT ME IT WAS WRONG.”

¨ OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUER ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT HER CONCLUSION BY EVOKING PITY FROM THE LISTENER. NO EVIDENCE IS GIVEN; THEY ONLY ASK FOR A CERTAIN OUTCOME REGARDLESS OF RESPONSIBILITY, LACK OF EFFORT, ETC.

• EX: I SHOULD RECEIVE AN 'A' IN THIS CLASS. AFTER ALL, IF I DON'T GET AN 'A' I WON'T GET INTO THE BUSINESS SCHOOL NEXT FALL.

• EX: YOU SHOULD NOT FIND MY CLIENT GUILTY OF MURDER AND SENTENCE HIM TO BE EXECUTED. HE GREW UP IN TERRIBLE POVERTY, RAISED ONLY BY HIS MOTHER WHO WAS RARELY AROUND BECAUSE SHE SPENT ALL HER TIME WORKING AT MENIAL JOBS TO JUST MAKE ENOUGH MONEY FOR RENT AND FOOD. HIS MOTHER WILL BE DEVASTATED IF HE IS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER.

FALSE (OR WEAK) ANALOGY

“WHY SHOULD I GET PUNISHED AND SHE DOESN’T?”

• OCCURS WHEN THE ARGUER DRAWS AN ANALOGY THAT IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION; A FALLACIOUS VERSION OF THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY

• EX: BELIEVING IN THE LITERAL RESURRECTION OF JESUS IS LIKE BELIEVING IN THE LITERAL EXISTENCE OF ZOMBIES. (SINCE THEY BOTH DIED AND DID NOT STAY DEAD.)

• EX: THOSE BOARDING A BUS ARE NEVER REQUIRED TO PASS THROUGH A SECURITY CHECKPOINT. THEREFORE, THOSE BOARDING AN AIRLINER SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PASS THROUGH A SECURITY CHECKPOINT. (SINCE THEY ARE BOTH MODES OF PUBLIC TRANSIT.)

SLIPPERY SLOPE

“IF YOU FAIL ME YOU’LL HAVE TO FAIL EVERYONE. BECAUSE EVERYONE’S DOING IT. AND THEN YOU WON’T HAVE NO ONE LEFT TO TEACH.”

• OCCURS WHEN THE ARGUER DRAWS A CONCLUSION BASED UPON A CAUSAL CHAIN REACTION THAT PROBABLY WILL NOT TAKE PLACE

• EX: YOU SHOULD NEVER BUY YOUR CHILD A GOLDFISH, BECAUSE NEXT IT WILL BE A HAMSTER AND THEN A RABBIT. AFTER THAT THE KID WILL SCREAM FOR A CAT, AND THEN A DOG. NEXT IT WILL BE A HORSE, THEN A WATER BUFFALO, AND FINALLY AN ELEPHANT. THE COST OF PET FOOD WILL DRIVE YOU TO THE POOR HOUSE.

• EX: YOU CAN NEVER GIVE ANYONE A BREAK. IF YOU DO, THEY'LL WALK ALL OVER YOU.

SLIPPERY SLOPE, CON’T. • MANY SLIPPERY SLOPES REST ON A MERE EMOTIONAL CONVICTION ON THE PART OF THE ARGUER THAT A

CERTAIN ACTION OR POLICY IS BAD. ONE ATTEMPTS TO TRUMP UP SUPPORT FOR HIS POSITION BY CITING ALL SORTS OF DIRE CONSEQUENCES THAT WILL RESULT IF THE ACTION IS TAKEN OR THE POLICY FOLLOWED.

• EX: IF TODAY YOU CAN TAKE A THING LIKE EVOLUTION AND MAKE IT A CRIME TO TEACH IT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL, TOMORROW YOU CAN MAKE IT A CRIME TO TEACH IT IN THE PRIVATE SCHOOL…THE NEXT DAY THE PREACHERS AND THE LECTURES, THE MAGAZINES, THE BOOKS, THE NEWSPAPERS. AFTER [A]WHILE, YOUR HONOR, IT IS THE SETTING OF MAN AGAINST MAN AND CREED AGAINST CREED UNTIL WITH FLYING BANNERS AND BEATING DRUMS WE ARE MARCHING BACKWARD TO THE GLORIOUS AGES OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY WHEN BIGOTS LIGHTED FAGOTS TO BURN THE MEN WHO DARED TO BRING ANY INTELLIGENCE AND ENLIGHTENMENT AND CULTURE TO THE HUMAN MIND.

- CLARENCE DARROW, SCOPES TRIALS, DAY 2

NON SEQUITUR

““ALSO?” LAURA SAYS. “I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY UNFAIR THAT YOU GAVE A QUIZ.”

• IN LATIN, MEANS “IT DOES NOT FOLLOW”

• EX: ALL MEN ARE MORTAL, AND SOCRATES IS A MAN, THEREFORE SOCRATES LIKES WOMEN.

POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC

“JUST BECAUSE I SKIPPED CLASS, DOESN’T MEAN I SHOULD FAIL. THAT’S REALLY UNFAIR.”

• TRANSLATES TO: “AFTER THIS, THEREFORE ON ACCOUNT OF THIS”. RELIES ON MERE TEMPORAL SUCCESSION. OCCURS WHEN THE ARGUER DRAWS A CONCLUSION BASED ON A CAUSAL LINK THAT PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS A FALLACIOUS VERSION OF THE INDUCTIVE CAUSAL INFERENCE; IT IS HOW WE JUSTIFY SUPERSTITIONS, ETC.

• EX: SHORTLY AFTER RETIRING FROM HIS JOB, MR. LOPEZ HAD A HEART ATTACK AND DIED. I THINK THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR: WHATEVER YOU DO, NEVER RETIRE FROM YOUR JOB.

• EX: BABIES ALWAYS HAVE HAIR BEFORE THEY HAVE TEETH. THUS, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT HAVING HAIR IS NECESSARY FOR GROWING TEETH.

FALSE COMPROMISE

“I CAN ADMIT I WAS WRONG ABOUT COPYING THE PAPER, IF YOU CAN ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT GIVING THE QUIZ.”

• LOOKS FOR A MIDDLE WAY BETWEEN TWO OPTIONS THAT ARE SET UP AS EXTREMES (AND THEREFORE, UNACCEPTABLE. IT CLAIMS THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE GONE TOO FAR, AND THAT THE SOLUTION MUST BE IN THE MIDDLE.

• EX: JIM WANTS TO GO NORTH, AND FRED WANTS TO GO SOUTH. SO, WE SHOULD GO WEST.

• EX: ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS SAY THAT ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS. THAT'S AN EXTREME VIEW, BUT IT IS EQUALLY EXTREME TO SAY THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS AT ALL. I THINK WE SHOULD REJECT BOTH EXTREMES.

RED HERRING “I DON’T EVEN NEED THIS CLASS. I SHOULDN’T EVEN BE IN THIS CLASS. WHEN AM I EVER GOING TO

NEED THIS IN REAL LIFE? ”

• OCCURS WHEN THE ARGUER DIVERTS THE LISTENER’S ATTENTION BY SHIFTING THE SUBJECT MID- ARGUMENT

• EX: BETTY IS OPPOSED TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY LETHAL INJECTION. BUT THE WORST KIND OF CRIMINALS HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. THE PRISON SYSTEM IS OVERCROWDED AS IT AS, AND THE TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR FOOD AND SHELTER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. WE DON’T EVEN HAVE THAT KIND OF SUPPORT IN THIS COUNTRY FOR INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.

• THE ARGUER DOES NOT DRAW A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC, BUT BY DIVERTING THE ATTENTION OF THE READER OR LISTENER, THE ARGUER CREATES THE PRESUMPTION OF HAVING WON THE ARGUMENT.

ARGUMENTUM VERBOSIUM • “I CANNOT FAIL THIS CLASS BECAUSE I NEED IT TO SATISFY A HUMANITIES CREDIT SO I HAVE ROOM IN MY FALL

SCHEDULE TO TAKE STATISTICS AND MICRO SO I CAN BE AHEAD FOR THE NEXT SUMMER WHEN I’LL NEED TO GET INTERNSHIP CREDIT SO I CAN

STILL GRADUATE IN THREE AND A HALF YEARS, WHICH I HAVE TO DO BECAUSE MY PARENTS’ COLLEGE FUND WON’T COVER FOUR FULL YEARS EVEN THOUGH THERE USED TO BE PLENTY OF MONEY IN IT BUT THEY HAD TO USE IT FOR THE DIVORCE LAWYER AND THEY EXPLAINED TO ME THAT ‘EVERYONE IN THE FAMILY HAS TO MAKE SACRIFICES IN

THIS DIFFICULT TIME’ AND MINE WOULD BE EITHER TAKING OUT A LOAN FOR MY LAST SEMESTER IN COLLEGE OR BUSTING MY BUTT TO FINISH EARLY AND SO IF I HAVE

TO REPEAT THIS CLASS IT’LL SCREW UP THE WHOLE PLAN. AND MY MOM WASN’T DOING VERY GOOD POST-DIVORCE ANYWAY BUT NOW THEY’VE FOUND A TUMOR?...”

• ATTEMPTS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT BY THAT IS TOO COMPLEX, OBTUSE OR VERBOSE TO REASONABLY DEAL WITH.

• EX: INSOMUCH AS IT REMAINS WITHIN OUR AGENCY, IT BEHOOVES US TO ESCHEW OBFUSCATION, AND ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION.

APPEAL TO EMOTION

“IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT LAURA POTTSDAM IS NOW CRYING.”

• USING A DISPLAY OF EMOTION OR STRONG EMOTIONAL IMAGERY TO SWAY SOMEONE INTO AGREEMENT WITH YOU. IT IS A KIND OF MANIPULATION USED IN PLACE OF VALID LOGIC.

• EX: THERE MUST BE OBJECTIVE RIGHTS AND WRONGS IN THE UNIVERSE. IF NOT, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT TORTURING BABIES FOR FUN COULD EVER BE RIGHT?

• EX: THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH ARE INVADING OUR TOWNS, TAKING OUR JOBS AND RUINING OUR SCHOOLS. VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL CURB THIS TIDE OF OPPRESSION AND DEGRADATION!

FALSE DILEMMA

“IF I GET AN F I’M GOING TO LOSE MY FINANCIAL AID AND WON’T BE ABLE TO AFFORD COLLEGE AND I’LL HAVE TO DROP OUT!”

• WHEN ONLY TWO CHOICES ARE PRESENTED YET MORE EXIST, OR A SPECTRUM OF POSSIBLE CHOICES EXISTS BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES. FALSE DILEMMAS ARE USUALLY CHARACTERIZED BY “EITHER THIS OR THAT” LANGUAGE, BUT CAN ALSO BE CHARACTERIZED BY OMISSIONS OF CHOICES.

• EX: YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS.

• EX: I THOUGHT YOU WERE A GOOD PERSON, BUT YOU WEREN’T AT CHURCH TODAY.

AD HOMINEM

“WHY DO YOU HATE ME SO MUCH?”

• OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUER ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO A PREVIOUS ARGUMENT BY IGNORING THE REASONS GIVEN AND ATTACKING THE PERSON GIVING THEM

• THREE KINDS: AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE, AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL, AND TU QUOQUE

• EX: PROFESSOR SMYTH ARGUES FOR THE ADOPTION OF STRONGER STANDARDS FOR WELFARE APPLICANTS. BUT SMYTH IS A DISGUSTING LEFTIST EX HIPPIE WHO REPORTEDLY DOES NOT EVEN RECYCLE ANYMORE. SMYTH'S ARGUMENTS ARE TRASH, JUST AS HE IS.

AD HOMINEM, CON’T.

• TWO OTHER FORMS OF ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON

• AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL, EX: BENNY HAS ARGUED FOR A LONG TIME FOR A NEW NATIONAL PARK IN MONTANA, BUT YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T LISTEN TO HIM. BENNY OWNS A GENERAL STORE IN THE PROPOSED VICINITY, AND IF THE PARK IS CREATED, HE STANDS TO PROFIT HANDSOMELY FROM THE FLOW OF VISITORS.

• TU QUOQUE, EX: OUR WEIGHTLIFTING COACH ARGUES WITH GREAT CONVICTION ABOUT THE DANGERS OF STEROIDS, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY. I'VE BEEN TOLD BY A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE THAT WHEN THE COACH WAS OUR AGE HE POPPED STEROID PILLS EVERY DAY.

KILL ROMNEY

AD HOMINEM, CON’T.

• THE PURPOSE OF AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT IS TO DISCREDIT ANOTHER PERSON’S ARGUMENT BY PLACING ITS AUTHOR IN A BAD LIGHT.

• ARGUMENTS ABOUT PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE NOT AD HOMINEM • EX: IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT BEETHOVEN ACTUALLY COMPOSED THE 9TH SYMPHONY ATTRIBUTED

TO HIM. AFTER ITS PREMIERE PERFORMANCE, HE HAD TO BE TURNED AROUND TO SEE THE THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE OF THE CROWD BEHIND HIM.

• THE CONCLUSION IS NOT THAT SOME ARGUMENT BEETHOVEN WANTED TO MAKE WAS BAD, BUT THAT BEETHOVEN DID NOT WRITE A CERTAIN SYMPHONY.

STRAW MAN

“YOU CAN’T FAIL ME BECAUSE IT’S THE LAW.”

• OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUER DISTORTS OR MISCHARACTERIZES A PREVIOUS ARGUMENT, DEFEATS THE DISTORTED ARGUMENT, AND CONCLUDES SHE HAS DEFEATED THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT

• EX: KAREN ARGUES THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT TO POST THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTERS ON THE INTERNET. OBVIOUSLY KAREN SUPPORTS CHILD MOLESTATION. BUT THESE MONSTERS HAVE COMPLETELY RUINED THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN. THEY CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO WREAK THEIR HAVOC ANY LONGER. CLEARLY, KAREN'S ARGUMENT IS MISGUIDED.

STRAW MAN, CON’T.

• EX: FRANK ARGUES FOR STRICTER GUN CONTROL. IT APPEARS THAT FRANK WANTS TO ABOLISH ACCESS TO GUNS ALTOGETHER. BUT IF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS CAN'T OWN A GUN, THEN THEY WILL HAVE NO MEANS OF DEFENDING THEMSELVES AGAINST CRIMINALS. OBVIOUSLY FRANK'S ARGUMENT IS NO GOOD.

• OFTEN, THESE ARE AN ATTEMPT TO EXAGGERATE THE FIRST PERSON’S ARGUMENT OR MAKE IT LOOK MORE EXTREME THAN IT REALLY IS.

STRAW MAN, CON’T.

• SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE RED HERRING: • STRAW MAN DISTORTS AN OPPONENT’S ARGUMENT AND CONCLUDES BY KNOCKING

DOWN THE DISTORTED ARGUMENT.

• RED HERRING IGNORES THE OPPONENT’S ARGUMENT (IF THERE IS ONE) AND SUBTLY CHANGES THE SUBJECT.

• ASK YOURSELF: HAS THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT BEEN DISTORTED, OR HAS THE TOPIC BEEN CHANGED?

STRAW MAN OR RED HERRING?

• SHERI ARGUES IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. IT APPEARS WHAT SHERI WANTS IS NO DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AT ALL. BUT WITHOUT A DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, WE WOULD HAVE NO ARMY, NAVY, OR AIR FORCE, AND ANY FOREIGN NATION COULD INVADE OUR COUNTRY AT WILL. CLEARLY WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS. THUS, SHERI'S ARGUMENT IS CRAZY.

• PET OWNERS ARGUE FOR A LAW TO ENSURE THAT PET FOOD IS FREE OF LETHAL CONTAMINANTS. APPARENTLY THEY ARE UNAWARE THAT HALF THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD EAT CONTAMINATED FOOD AND DRINK POLLUTED WATER EVERY DAY. THOUSANDS OF THESE KIDS DIE REGULARLY FROM CHOLERA. THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD SHOULD UNITE TO HALT THIS ONGOING TRAGEDY. IN THE MEAN TIME, WE CAN FORGET ABOUT PETS.

Straw Man

Red Herring

APPEAL TO THREATS

“I COULD GET YOU FIRED FOR THAT!”

• OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUER MAKES THE IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT CLAIM THAT ONE WILL BE HARMED IF SHE DOES NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CONCLUSION

• EX: SAY THAT THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH, RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND, OR YOU’LL BE EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE CHURCH. (THEREFORE, THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH.)

• EX: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO GO ALONG WITH OUR PLAN TO USE PAKISTAN AS A BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR INVADING IRAN. AFTER ALL, I'M SURE YOU DON'T WANT YOUR COUNTRY BOMBED BACK TO THE STONE AGE. (SINCE YOU DON’T, THEREFORE, YOU OUGHT TO GO ALONG WITH THE PLAN.)

APPEAL TO WEALTH

“I PAY TUITION HERE! I PAY GOOD MONEY! I PAY YOUR SALARY AND YOU CAN’T TREAT ME LIKE THIS!

• ANY ARGUMENT THAT ASSUMES THAT MONEY IS ASSOCIATED WITH TRUTH. OR, IT ASSUMES SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS BETTER SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE WEALTHIER OR MORE EXPENSIVE. WEALTH NEED NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH ALL THAT IS GOOD, AND ALL THAT IS GOOD NEED NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH WEALTH.

• EX: SOCRATES, SUN-TZU, AND SPINOZA WERE ALL DIRT POOR COMPARED TO DONALD TRUMP, MARK ZUCKERBERG, AND ALEX JONES. HOW SMART COULD THOSE PHILOSOPHERS THEY REALLY BE?