How to Avoid Fallacious Argumentation

Abstract

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning while arguing a case. Most of us either use fallacies or are victims of fallacious arguments. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.

In this article, 15 such common fallacies are explained

Introduction

During any bilateral or group discussion, everyone has to present reasons for a particular claim or interpretation he or she is putting forward. During this process, consciously or unconsciously they would be using Aristotelian logic to press their point of view i.e. if A is equal to B and B is equal to C, then C is equal to? Yes, A.

All of us use this analytical framework almost invariably on daily basis but unfortunately sometimes, without knowing it, we use it in a fallacious way. Space does not permit me to teach you his logic in detail, but a bit of explanation would be in order.

Just remember that each argument you make is composed of three parts

1. Premise-a statement that expresses a piece of evidence i.e., it is cloudy today
2. Arranged in the right way to support your i.e., clouds bring rain
3. Conclusion-the main claim or interpretation you are offering i.e., so it is going to rain

Simple? Not so, I am afraid. Our whole argument may fall to the ground if any of the above three are either not true or irrelevant. Suppose our premise is wrong; it is not clouds but smoke. Similarly, if it is not true that all clouds definitely result in the rain; some clouds are just dry. And if any or both of these above are wrong, then there is no chance of rain; our conclusion falls flat.

Sometimes, a conclusion seems so obvious that we assume it to be true irrespective of the fact that the evidence we have is weak. Similarly, your reasoning may be off the mark with the result that the conclusion you deduced is totally false or irrelevant. To avoid this sort of fallacious argumentation, be careful to

1. Use only those premises (facts and figures) that you are certain are not only true but also relevant to the issue being discussed i.e., it is really cloudy outside
2. Make sure there is a logical and universally accepted connection between your premise and the statement you are making i.e., clouds are an indication of coming rain. Of course, every cloud is not followed by rain but, certainly, there cannot be any rain without clouds.
3. Ensure that you have drawn the right and relevant inference/conclusion from the above two, not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can’t really support them.

Fallacies

Some of the ways in which arguments often fail to successfully perform the above-mentioned tests are known as fallacies. There are dozens of such fallacies, but I would highlight the following most important ones

1. Generalization & Stereotyping

Most common fallacy-making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on an inadequate sample. “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” type of generalizations. Public servants are corrupt, businessmen are tax evaders, politicians are an immoral lot, etc are common generalizations you will come across in every country.

Related to the above but a distinct fallacy is Stereotyping. There is a thin red line between generalization and stereotyping; while the former is a statement about the group as a whole, stereotyping is its application to any member of that group. For example.

a. Generalization

Italians tend to be more romantic compared to many other cultural groups

b. Stereotyping

Antonio is an Italian; as such he must be romantic (generalization applied to a member of the group)

2. Missing the Point (Absentis punctum)

Another common fallacy- the premise is correct, and the arrangement is also OK, but the conclusion is far off the mark. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn.

A: Do your parent agree to your marrying this girl?

B: My parent should do that because — — — -

B missed the point. The question was not if the parents should allow it, but if they do or not.

3. False Cause (Post hoc Fallacy)

Also known as “after this, therefore because of this.”. Sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.

“Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up. That rooster must be very powerful and important!”

TV commercials for beauty products are prime examples of such a fallacy

4. Slippery Slope

A slippery slope argument shifts attention from the issue at hand to a hypothetical, usually extremely disastrous, outcome, offering little or no proof that the outcome is likely. It is a fallacy that often appeals to people’s emotions or fears by claiming that if we take a certain step, there will be a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence. However, it is not backed by enough evidence for such an extreme assumption. Sometimes a chain of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action, but we must be careful to use this line of an argument unless we have sufficient evidence.

Example: Legalizing firearms is undesirable because it would cause more bloodshed in society which would, in turn, cause the break up of the country

5. Weak Analogy

Remember that apples and oranges analogy? Relying on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations that aren’t really alike in the relevant respects. The mere fact that you can draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself. Whether these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy. Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making and see whether the two things you’re comparing both share those properties.

Example: People who buy stocks are no different from people who bet on horse racing. They both risk their money with little chance of making a big profit

6. Appeal to Authority

Adding strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. Trying to prove one’s point simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert. Someone argues that drinking is morally wrong and cites a sermon from her pastor at church. Or a commercial claim that 3 out of 4 dentists would choose this particular brand of toothpaste for their own families to use

7. Bandwagon (Ad populum)

Just because a lot of people do something, it does not make it the right thing to do. It takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does. Keep in mind that popular opinion is not always the right one. The fact that something is popular has no bearing on whether it is beneficial.

8. Personal Attack-1 (Ad hominem)

The ad hominem fallacy is based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument). Rather than facts, reason and logic, an ad hominem argument is often a personal attack on someone’s character or motive rather than an attempt to address the actual issue at hand.

Asserting that witness’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgement in the case — “You’ve only ever lived in the city. The issues that matter to the farmers are clearly beyond your comprehension.”

Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds — “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to grow up black in America. You have no right to argue about the gang violence on our streets.”

Attacking a defendant’s character by pointing out their flaws in a case — “You cheated and lied to your wife, but you expect the jury to believe you now?”

9. Personal Attack -2 (tu quoque)

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Here’s an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons — the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!”

10. Appeal to Ignorance

In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.”

There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.

11. Straw Man

Sets up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace.” The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated. In fact, most feminists do not propose an outright “ban” on porn or any punishment for those who merely view it or approve of it; often, they propose some restrictions on particular things like child porn or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers — not viewers — for damages. So the arguer hasn’t really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.

12. Red herring/ Side tracking the Issue

Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the fairest thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.” Let’s try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what’s wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the fairest thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent — the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it fairer; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

13. False Dichotomy

Sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices, then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option! Probably the best example of false dichotomy is “Either you are with us or against us”. Or how about this by an unknown poet

“In matters controversial,

My perception’s rather fine.

I always see both points of view,

The wrong one, and mine.”

14. Begging the question/Circular Reasoning

Simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion or simply ignores an important but questionable assumption that the argument rests on. A few common examples are

1. Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the hottest new gadget on the market!
2. God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is from God.
3. Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong.
4. Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes are deadly.
5. The rights of the criminal are just as important as the rights of the victim. Everyone’s rights are equal.
6. Fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. After all, a healthy eating plan includes fruits and vegetables.
7. Student: Why didn’t I receive full credit on my essay? Teacher: Because your paper did not meet the requirements for full credit.
8. The greatest thing we can do is to love each other. Love is better than any other emotion.

15. Equivocation

Sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument. Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, you must use the main terms of your argument consistently. Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren’t slipping and sliding between those meanings.