5.4: Logical Errors: Flawed Arguments

Many people would sooner die than think-in fact, they do so.
-Bertrand Russell

Some of you may have studied formal logic in school. These classes used a lot of complex language and theory to describe what makes an argument "good" or "bad." Unfortunately, many real-life arguments outside of math and engineering are more "squishy" ... and sometimes it’s hard to draw a diagram or write an equation to explain exactly what’s wrong.

Common errors in reasoning are called informal fallacies. They are called "informal" fallacies because they’re harder to pin down than some of the "formal" errors in logic. Still, you see them around you every day - especially in advertising, talk radio or political debates. Keep them out of your staff work and learn to identify them in others.

The informal fallacies below have been grouped into categories that make sense to the editors, but there’s no universally accepted approach to categorizing them. Also note that labeling something as a fallacy requires some judgment—after all, many of these are "gray areas.”

Asserted Conclusion

An asserted conclusion is the practice of slipping in an assertion and passing it off as a fact. There are two variations of asserted conclusions: circular reasoning and loaded questions.

Circular reasoning (also known as begging the question) involves rewording your claim and trying to use it as evidence, usually with a lot of other "filler sentences" designed to confuse the other person. This is popular in advertising where different versions of the claim are repeated over and over again. If the advertisers have their way, you may not notice that the "support" merely restates the claim using different words—a textbook case of circular reasoning. After a while, it’s easy to forget there’s absolutely no support there at all.

CLAIM: "Hey guys! Drink Energy Drink X and you’ll be great at sports!”

SUPPORT:

• “Great athletes are alert and energized—Energy Drink X keeps you alert and gives you energy to perform!”
• "You’ll have many good looking and physically fit friends!"

A Loaded question has an assertion embedded in it-it’s another form of an asserted conclusion. One example of a loaded question is "Do you think John Smith is going to improve his rude behavior?" The phrasing of the question itself implies that John has behaved poorly in the past-regardless of how you answer the question. "When are we going to stop sinking money on this expensive program?" has an embedded assumption: the money we’ve spent to date hasn’t been effective.

Sometimes an arguer will assert a conclusion and then challenge someone else to disprove it. The best defense is to ask him or her to prove their claim. "How do you know these programs are effective?" puts the listener on the defensive. The proper response would be, "How do you know the programs are not effective?" Those who assert should have the burden of proof.

Character Attack

The classic name for a character attack is the ad hominem fallacy (in Latin, Ad Hominem means "to the man"). Character attacks are also sometimes called poisoning the well. A character attack involves an assault on your opponent as an individual, instead of his or her position. It’s very common in political advertisements, but you see it in the workplace as well. Here are some examples:

• "Mr. Smith is a tax and spend liberal who voted himself a pay raise last year." (Depending on the topic being discussed, this may be irrelevant to the core of the debate).
• "That guy is an egotistical windbag-what would he know about A-76 contract transitions?" (He may know a lot-his personality is irrelevant to the issue).

Emotional Appeals

Emotional appeals try to persuade the heart, not the head. Though emotion plays a role in persuasion, when emotion replaces reasoning in an argument, you’ve committed a foul. Often arguers attempt to appeal to our emotions in an argument through biased language, vivid language and stirring symbols. They may try to persuade us using "character" issues such as glowing testimonials from popular but non-credible sources. Here are some examples of logical fallacies in this area:

Emotional appeal (to force):

These arguments target the audience’s fear of punishment. What characterizes these examples as fallacies is that they make no attempt to persuade using anything other than pressure.

• "Keep this quiet, or I’ll implicate you in my wrongdoing."
• "Give me your lunch money, or I’ll give you a busted lip."

Emotional appeal (to pity):

This is an argument that targets the audience’s compassion and concern for others. Though most people would agree that ethics and values should be part of the decision-making process, an appeal solely to emotion, even a positive one, can be dangerous and misguided.

• "You can’t give me a D on this paper-I’ll lose my tuition assistance!"
• "We’ve got to stop the warlords-look at the poor, starving people on the news!"

Emotional appeal (to popularity or tradition):

• Stirring Symbols: Using a powerful symbol or attractive label to build support.
  • "I stand before our nation’s flag to announce my run for President...."
  • "Good management principles demand we take this course of action."
• Bandwagon Appeal: Using peer pressure to build support.
  • "It must be right-everybody else thinks so."
  • "Buy the Ford Escort; it’s the world’s #1 best seller."
  • "Every good fighter pilot knows...."
• Precedent as sole support: Using custom as the only justification for a decision.
  • "It must be right-we’ve always done it that way."
  • "The Royal Air Force has found the procedure very useful and we should try it."
  • "The last three commanders supported this policy and that’s good enough for me."

False Authority

False authority is a fallacy tied to accepting facts based on the opinion of an unqualified authority. The Air Force is chock-full of people who, because of their position or authority in one field, are quoted on subjects in other fields for which they have limited or no expertise. Don’t be swayed (or try to sway someone else).

A false authority variant is called the primacy-of-print fallacy, where facts are believed because they are published in a book, periodical or on a website. Be as skeptical and thoughtfully critical of the printed word as you are of the spoken word.

False cause

False cause (also known as the Post Hoc fallacy) occurs when you assume one event causes a second event merely because it precedes the second event. Many people observe that Event B occurred after Event \(\mathrm{A}\) and conclude that \(\mathrm{A}\) caused \(\mathrm{B}\). This is not necessarily true-maybe a third factor, Event C, caused both \(\mathrm{A}\) and \(\mathrm{B}\). Consider the following example:

Event \(\mathrm{A}=\) At Base \(\mathrm{X}\), "Retreat" plays over the intercom at 1635 each day.

Event \(\mathrm{B}=\) At Base \(\mathrm{X}\), outbound traffic increases at the gate at 1640 each day.

There is a statistical correlation between these two events: if Event A happens, Event B is more likely to happen and vice versa. Does that mean A causes B? Not necessarily-possibly a third event may "cause" both \(\mathrm{A}\) and \(\mathrm{B}\) :

Event \(\mathrm{C}=\) At Base \(\mathrm{X}\) the official duty day ends at 1630 for much of the workforce.

Single Cause

A single cause fallacy occurs when you assume there is a single cause for an outcome, when in fact multiple causes exist.

Let’s consider a real-life example of a single cause fallacy. Suppose you’re very physically fit, and in a few months you’ll take a fitness test. You can’t run due to an injury so you are required to walk a certain distance while having your heart rate measured. You’ve set a goal to score in the top 10 percent for your age group–an "excellent" rating. You know that a disciplined exercise program will cause you to improve your score, but is it this simple?

Event \(\mathrm{A}=\) disciplined, intense exercise program CAUSES
Event \(\mathrm{B}=\) excellent score on the fitness test

People who’ve had trouble with similar fitness tests would be quick to point out that cause and effect may be a little more complicated in this case:

Event \(\mathrm{A}=\) disciplined, intense exercise program;
Event \(\mathrm{B}=\) genetically low resting heart rate;
Event \(\mathrm{C}=\) no caffeine or nervousness about the test; CAUSES
Event \(\mathrm{D}=\) excellent score on the fitness test

On the other hand, people who have the genetically low heart rate and nerves of steel may think an excellent rating has a single cause because they’ve never had to deal with the other ones.

Faulty Analogy

The faulty analogy is very common. Though we often make analogies to make a point, sometimes they go astray - there’s something about the comparison that isn’t relevant. A faulty analogy implies that because two things are alike in one way, they are alike in all the ways that matter. It can be thought of as one example of a non sequitur fallacy (see item 11) such as in this example:

"Leading a coalition is just like leading a squadron.”

Well, not exactly. Leadership is required in both situations, but leading a coalition requires technical expertise as well as the ability to work with people from other services and countries; it requires great communication skills, tact, and diplomacy. Leading an Air Force squadron requires a high level of technical proficiency but this does not ensure success leading a coalition.

Faulty Dilemma

A faulty dilemma implies there is no middle ground between two options. Typically one option is what the speaker prefers and the other option is clearly unacceptable, such as in this example:

"Spend one hour a day reading The Tongue and Quill to improve your writing skills ... or remain ignorant of writing standards. It’s your choice."

Clearly this is a faulty dilemma-it falsely suggests you only have two choices, when you really have many options. Maybe you can read The Tongue and Quill once a week or once a month. Maybe you’ll find some other way to improve your writing skills - take a class, find a grammar website, get feedback from your boss, etc. Though sometimes life really does give us an "eitheror" choice, in most cases we find a considerable range of options between two positions.

Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalization results when we "jump to conclusions" without enough evidence. A few examples used as proof may not represent the whole.

"I asked three student pilots what they thought of the program and it’s obvious that Undergraduate Pilot Training needs an overhaul.”

One of the challenges with this fallacy is it’s hard to determine how much evidence is "enough” to form a reasonable conclusion. The rules will vary with the situation; more evidence is needed to form a conclusion if the stakes are high. The Food and Drug Administration may require a great deal of evidence before deciding a drug is safe for human use, while SSgt Snuffy may require very little evidence before forming a generalized conclusion about which candy bars should be sold at the snack bar.

Non sequitur

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow" and is the generic term for a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the facts presented. The facts may not be relevant, or there may be some sort of illogical leap made. Several fallacies, such as hasty generalization and faulty analogy, can be thought of as different types of non sequitur. For example, "John Doe will make a great squadron commander because he is an expert in his career field.” This is a non sequitur error because it implies strong technical skills equate to the skills needed to command. A similar non sequitur argument assumes athletic prowess indicates strong leadership skills.

Slippery Slope

The slippery slope implies that if we take one small step in an unpleasant or dangerous direction, we’ll have to go all the way-like slipping down a hill. Here’s an example from Writing Arguments by Ramage, Bean and Johnson: "We don’t dare send weapons to Country \(X\). If we do so, next we will send in military advisors, then a Special Forces battalion and then large numbers of troops. Finally, we will be in an all-out war." Though not every slippery slope argument is false, in some cases we can identify lines that we will not cross. In general, it is best to evaluate each argument on its merits using a foundation of agreed-upon principles.

Red Herring

Red herring fallacies occur when an arguer deliberately brings up irrelevant information to get the audience off track. The origins of the "red herring" name are debatable, but the central idea is to divert attention from the topic with content that has no bearing on the outcome.

Stacked Evidence

Stacked evidence is the tendency to withhold facts or manipulate support so that the evidence points in only one direction. This happens when you gather only the data or opinions that support your position. This may be done deliberately or may occur due to unconscious bias or carelessness. We may not see counterarguments or alternative interpretations of the facts because of our firm belief in our own position, or we just stop gathering information once we we’ve found enough support to make our case. Even if you decide to push for your favorite interpretation of the data, never stack evidence by misrepresenting or manipulating the basic information. If you decide that you don’t want to discuss the opposing viewpoint, you should at least be aware of it, so you can prepare a counterpunch if needed.

Straw Man

Straw man is a fallacy where you attack a weaker, grossly simplified version of the opponent’s argument rather than directly addressing the argument presented. In effect, you are attacking a "straw man"-the argument that you wished your opponent made, not the one he actually did. The straw man fallacy is popular in political campaigns. For example, suppose a candidate believed that a major goal of prisons should be rehabilitation, not just punishment. An opponent could exploit that with a straw man attack: "My opponent coddles convicted felons and wants to make life easier behind bars than on the street. Prison should be a deterrent, not a reward for bad behavior!"

This list of fallacies captures most of the common errors we hear and see daily. Our challenge is to sharpen our professional senses so we can quickly sniff out the rational from the ridiculous and avoid adding to the epidemic of poor reasoning and weak support we encounter around us.

We’ve all had experience with using logical arguments to persuade someone else. In the middle of such a discussion, you may have asked yourself, "What’s my goal-to persuade the other guy and make my case; or to find out the truth and the best answer to the problem?” (This usually comes up when your opponent comes up with a valid point you hadn’t considered before.) Ever since the ancient Greeks were walking around in togas, people have struggled with this issue. The next section introduces this tension between truth and persuasion so that you are aware of it in both your arguments and those of others.