28.1: Readings- Logical Fallacies by H Morrison

6.1 Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are logical errors: they contain reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument and may even completely invalidate the argument.

Logical fallacies indicate weak logic or an inability to oppose another’s argument properly and critically. This is the reason they’re so important to this class: strong, logical arguments are the core of academic writing.

Here is a definition, example, explanation and how to fix it list of some of the most common logical fallacies:

Ad Hominem

Attacking the character or personality of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

Example: “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” purports to be a moral treaty on the unethical behaviors of so-called political moderates, but MLK’s numerous extramarital affairs suggest that his argument should be disregarded.

Why is this illogical? MLK’s affairs are unrelated to his thoughts on or experiences of systemic racism in America. While MLK’s ethos, or character in general, may be called into question, there is no logical ground to assert that his sexual or romantic life informs his understanding of the civil rights movement.

How to fix it: Always address the substance of the argument.

Appeal to Authority

Arguing that a claim is true simply because someone in a position of authority or expertise says it is true, without providing further evidence.

Example: Renowned psychologist Dr. Vincent Smith has long argued that vaccinations are harmful to children—he cites his own children’s autism as a clear indication of this. Therefore, children should not be vaccinated.

Why is this illogical? This example has two issues: one, the source itself is not a good source: a psychologist has not studied vaccines in depth. Secondly, a conclusion (“children should not be vaccinated”) cannot be made based on the thoughts or even evidence of a single source.

How to fix it: One, always choose credible sources. Two, present data or other evidence from multiple sources, or a peer reviewed source, to prove your argument.

Straw Man

Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack and refute.

Example: Supporters of gun control want to take away all firearms, for everyone, leaving citizens defenseless against murders, rapists, and all other criminals.

Why is this illogical? While some people do believe that guns should be illegal, those who support “gun control” do not want to ban all guns for all people: the phrase “gun control” implies that they want stricter control and more limited access to guns, not an outright ban. The writer of the sentence above misrepresents the argument, so any conclusion they draw will be incorrect because the argument they presented simply does not exist.

How to fix it: Accurately present an argument, regardless of your opposition to it. If your own argument and logic is strong enough, you can defeat the other’s argument.

False Dichotomy

Presenting a situation as having only two possible outcomes or options when there are actually more possibilities.

Example: "Either we ban all forms of social media, or our children will be routinely exposed to harmful content."

Why is this illogical? There are many more possible outcomes for this scenario. It is dishonest, or uncritical, to present only two options.

How to fix it: Be honest about all the outcomes. You can still make a point that the undesirable outcome you are arguing against is possible or even likely.

Slippery Slope

Asserting that an initial action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly significant consequences.

Example: If we normalize same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry animals.

Why is this illogical? This fallacy takes a lot of logical leaps. For one, homosexuality is not at all related to bestiality—the two events/things have no relationship. Second, there are too many variables to predict that one thing, and one thing only, will definitely cause another. This fallacy presents complicated events as through there were dominoes: when one, the initial domino, is knocked over, all others eventually fall. This is rarely the case in real life, as each event is caused by many variables.

How to fix it: If two things or events have an actual causal relationship, e.g. I didn’t put enough money away in savings this year, so now I don’t have enough to cover my tuition, be clear how the two things are related and don’t go more than one or two steps from the initial action. For example,

1. I didn’t save enough money this year
2. I don’t have enough right now to cover tuition
3. I won’t be able to continue college.
4. I’ll have to go back to my old job.
5. That boss hates me and will never promote me.
6. I will be broke the rest of my life.

I didn’t save enough money this year, so I will be broke the rest of my life.

Notice that this example goes from A straight to F. Notice too that B through E are just possibilities, not known realities. For item C, other possibilities are present: you could get a scholarship or otherwise be able to raise the funds to be able to pay so that you can continue college.

As you can see, there are too many variables and possibilities to say with any certainty that A will lead to F.

When you establish a causal relationship between two things or events, be sure they are logically related and that they are sequential.

Appeal to Emotion

Using emotional appeals, such as pity, fear, or sympathy, to support a conclusion instead of providing relevant evidence or reasoning.

Example: Even though disability advocates aggressively argue that drinking straws are necessary for many people with disabilities, we should be more concerned with the thousands of displaced baby turtles whose seaside nurseries are plagued by the toxic plastic trash that plastic straws contribute to.

Why is this illogical? The important word to note the definition above is “instead”: using emotions to support a conclusion is acceptable, but in academic writing, it should never be the only means by which you attempt to prove any one point. As we’ve all personally experienced, emotions are not always logical, and often, they are quite illogical. Therefore, arguments that rely heavily or entirely on emotion are typically not logical.

How to fix it: Mix emotional appeals (pathos) with sound logic and reason to prove any point of your argument.

Red Herring

Definition: Introducing irrelevant information or arguments to divert attention away from the main issue or topic.

Example: "The Israeli war against Palestinians is a tragic circumstance, but American’s need to focus their attention on the war at their own borders: the crisis of illegal immigrants flooding our cities and using all our resources. This is the source of terror and violations that we need to concern ourselves with.

Why is this illogical? Presumably, the topic at hand in the example above is the Israeli/Palestine conflict, so the argument for or against the importance of it for Americans should be about that topic. America’s alleged border problems are not related to or in any way pertinent to a discussion about Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Further, American attention can be paid to both issues, so there is no need to choose only one issue to attend to.

How to fix it: Stick to the topic at hand, always. If, as in the example above, you wish to argue that the Israeli/Palestine conflict should not be a major concern for Americans, argue that point by showing how the conflict isn’t crucial to Americans or their values, not by diverting attention to a more localized “threat.”

Appeal to Tradition

Definition: Arguing that something is true or better because it's always been done that way.

Example: "Mail-in ballots are not a valid voting method: we should continue requiring in-person voting for elections because that’s how we’ve done it throughout American history."

Why is this illogical? The fact that something has been done for a long time , by itself, is not a valid reason to continue to support it. Traditional methods are sometimes good, sometimes bad, other times neutral—tradition itself does not carry any inherent positivity or logic.

How to fix it: If an action or ideology is understood as both traditional and successful, examine the tradition itself and determine why that tradition may yield successful results. For example, a restaurant could say they have always used local farms’ produce to appeal to their customers, so that the way they’ll always do it. But, they need to dig deeper: customers may prefer the local produce because it’s fresher and tastes better, or perhaps because “farm-to-table” is an appealing tagline. So, the restaurant should indeed continue to use local produce, not because they always have, but because there is evidence that customers prefer it.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

Definition: Assuming that because one event occurred before another event, it must have caused the second event.

Example: My aunt got sick with COVID 19 after getting the first vaccine, so the vaccine actually causes the virus.

Why is it illogical? Like the slippery slope fallacy, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc creates an illogical causal relationship. It translates from Latin to “after this, therefore because of this.” Just because two events occur close to each other does not mean they are actually related.

How to fix it: Make sure any conclusion is supported by clear evidence, not just chronology.

Hasty Generalization

Definition: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence, without considering all relevant factors.

Example: As Jackson’s argument illustrates, feminism is inherently selfish and anti-men.

Why is it illogical? To make a substantial, logical claim or conclusion, we have to have a good amount of evidence to support it. If we don’t have that evidence, or that evidence is biased, we risk being very wrong about that claim or conclusion, which then risks the validity of the entire argument. We cannot make claims or conclusions based on a single source, or a source that may be itself illogical or unfairly biased.

How to fix it: Don’t conclude or claim anything based on a single source, and don’t use heavily biased sources—they’re not good or appropriate sources! You could fix example above by either not using that source (if it’s heavily biased) or by being clear that the claim is the author’s, and not necessarily yours: Jackson argues that feminism is inherently selfish and anti-men