Embedded Files
Objectives
This webpage aims to provide a thorough definition of what a fallacy is.
This webapge will provide a comprehensive list of common fallacies often found in argumentive writing.
This webpage will provide examples of each of these common fallacies and how to go about avoiding similar mistakes.
This webpage will discuss qualifying statements and how to properly include strong qualifiers in argumentative writing.
An Introduction to Fallacies
"Fallacies are argumentative moves flawed by their very nature or structure. Because such tactics can make the productive argument more difficult, they potentially hurt everyone involved, including the people responsible for them" (Everything's an Argument 71).
Fallacies are errors in reasoning that weaken an argument. They can be deceptive, leading writers to include inaccurate or unnecesary points within their arguments, thereby promoting conclusions that are accepted without evidence or valid reasoning. Common fallacies such as cherry picking, hasty generalization, and appeal to authority can significantly undermine the validity of an argument. Awareness of these fallacies is esssential for both writers and readers when evaluating arguments and other source material. This webpage aims to identify and address common fallacies, providing examples and solutions to help students recognizes and combat fallacies in individual writing. Understanding fallacies is crucial for effective argumentation. Below are some common fallacies along with examples to illustrate each one.
Circular Argument
Circular Argument
Begging the question, also known as a circular argument, restates the original claim rather than actually proving it.
Example: Dr. Hamilton is a stellar lecturer because he presents effectively.
This assertion is a circular argument because it merely restates the initial claim without providing any additional reasoning to support the conclusion.
Faulty Causality
Faulty causality is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’
Example: Annabelle ate the chicken tenders from Vista Grande Dining Complex and has food poisoning now, so the chicken tenders must have given Annabelle food poisoning.
The conclusion reached in this claim is that Annabelle got food poisoning from chicken tenders, however, the statement fails to consider other factors that could have contributed to Annabelle being sick.
Red Herring
Red Herring is a diversionary tactic, often done by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
Example:
Person 1: “We should consider banning the sale of cigarettes to reduce the harm caused by smoking.”
Person 2: “ Buf if we ban cigarettes, what will happen to the people who work in the tobacco industry?”
This is a red herring fallacy because Person 2 diverts attention away from the main issue, which is about banning cigarette sales to reduce the harm of smoking.
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.
Example: What he says about famous architect Le Corbusier must be such garbage. Do you realize he is only thirteen years old?
This is ad hominem because the credibility of the speaker is being attacked on the premise of being only thirteen years old, disregarding the argument about famous architect Le Corbusier.
Cherry Picking
Cherry picking occurs when the writer intentionally establishes a conclusion based only on evidence that supports the conclusion, while repressing or ignoring any contradictory evidence.
Example: A student is composing a research paper on the influence of architecture on social interaction. They solely emphasize how architecture fosters social interaction through open spaces, disregarding the possibility that architecture can also restrict interaction when spaces are enclosed.
This is an example of cherry picking because the student selectively focuses on only the evidence that supports their thesis, while ignoring the evidence that contradicts their claims.
Stacking the Deck
Stacking the deck is a type of logical fallacy where the evidence is selectively presented or distorted in order to favor one side of an argument.
Example: In a debate about the health effects of a particular food product, an argument only presents studies funded by the food industry which show no negative health implications, ignoring the harmful effects discovered by independent research.
This is an example of stacking the deck because it presents a biased selection of evidence that favors one side of an argument while disregarding the other.
Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization, also known as an inductive fallacy, is a conclusion based on limited or biased evidence.
Example: Even though this is the first day of Arch 131, I can tell the course is going to be extremely time consuming.
This is an example of an overgeneralization because it draws a broad conclusion about the entire course based on a single observation.
Appeal to Common Belief
An appeal to common belief or majority is a claim which asserts that a proposition is true because it is widely believed or accepted by individuals.
Example: Many people think that English 145 is a challenging course.
This conclusion is an appeal to common belief, relying on the notion that people believe the course to be challenging without providing any objective evidence or reasoning.
Appeal to Authority
Appeals to authority occur when the writer claims something is true on the assumption that someone is an authority.
Example: The sky is blue because the president of Cal Poly said so.
The authority of the president is irrelevant to the sky, yet the claim is still made without any supporting evidence.
Blind Authority
The blind authority fallacy is the use of journalism or other public websites for academic analysis without evaluating the expertise or credibility of the author.
Example: A student in a math class confidently asserts, “the textbook says that the inverse of an exponential function is a logarithmic function, so it must be true.”
The student blindly accepts the statement from the textbook to be true simply because of being presented in the textbook, without critically evaluating or understanding the reasoning.
Non-Sequitur
The non-sequitur fallacy occurs when claims, reasons, and other warrants do not logically connect to one another, resulting in a conclusion that is unrelated or irrelevant to the premises.
Example: The sun rose this morning, so my car must be low on gas.
The statement “the sun rose this morning” does not logically connect with “so my car must be low on gas,” meaning this is an example of the non-sequitur fallacy.
Faulty Analogy
The faulty analogy fallacy is the inaccurate comparison of two objectives or concepts.
Example: Arguing against gun control is like arguing against seatbelt laws. Both aim to protect individual freedoms.
This analogy is faulty due to the fact that these two issues are equated without considering the significant differences between them.
Avoiding Fallacies
Avoiding logical fallacies can be challenging, but providing evidence is the most effective method for steering clear of them. To gather this evidence, writers must dedicate significant time to research. Even the most skilled writers can inadvertently include fallacies, underscoring the importance of fact-checking their work. Additionally, having others peer review individual work can be beneficial as a second set of eyes often catches errors. Another strategy for identifying and avoiding fallacies is to scrutinize the argument for any weaknesses and provide solutions to address them. Ignoring counter-arguments weakens the overall argument and leaves it susceptible to criticism. Ignoring counter arguments weakens the overall argument and also leaves it susceptible to criticism. Ultimately, writers who rely on logic to bolster their arguments are better equipped to avoid fallacies.
Writing Qualifiers
Incorporating qualifying claims into argumentative writing can assist students in avoiding these common fallacies. Kurt Schick and Laura Schubert define a qualifier in their book, So What? In chapter nine, they explain a qualifier as, “a stated restriction that limits a claim's strength” (Schick and Schubert, 201). By integrating qualifiers, writers can prevent undermining their own arguments by acknowledging potential contradictions. For instance, instead of asserting "everyone loves pizza," a writer could qualify the claim by stating "most people seem to enjoy pizza." This revised statement is less absolute and more inclusive, recognizing that not everyone shares the same love for pizza. Employing qualifiers enables authors to maintain credibility by acknowledging common exaggerations and introducing other perspectives. This practice enhances the credibility of individual writing while also working to avoid common fallacies.
Works Cited
Dowden, Bradley. “Fallacies.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/fallacy/. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.
“Logical Fallacies.” Purdue University, owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.
Schick, Kurt, Schubert, Laura."So What?: The Writer's Argument, Second Edition". Oxford University Press, USA. November 2016.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse