8.1: The Reading Types of Fallacies

The following reading from Excelsior OWL (CC-BY) will explain the major types of fallacies, give you examples, and help you avoid them in your arguments.

Analyze This

Fallacies are everywhere! You have learned about some of the most common logical fallacies in this section of the Excelsior OWL, but now, it’s time to see some examples of how we encounter these fallacies in our everyday lives.

In the video below, a student examines some ads for fallacies. Watch and listen as he identifies fallacies that we should be aware be of.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-analyze-this/

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/

Common Fallacies:

Straw Man-

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point. By using a straw man, someone can give the appearance of refuting an argument when they have not actually engaged with the original ideas.

False Dilemma-

Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, a false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides to an issue when there are actually more complexities. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are many shades of gray.

The simplest form of a false dilemma would be a question like: “do you want ketchup or mustard on your hot dog?” Why not both? Or neither? Or maybe a salad? We probably encounter these harmless false dilemmas often in everyday life. Sometimes, simplifying the number of choices available can even be a useful way to reach a consensus.

However, false dilemmas can become harmful when they’re used to purposely exclude options in order to distort an argument. False dilemmas can also be used to imply that two contrasting positions are actually contradictory. ,

Hasty Generalization-

The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a body of evidence that is simply too small. For instance, if your uncle was a lifelong cigarette smoker who lived into his nineties, it would be a hasty generalization to claim that smokers have a high life expectancy based on such limited evidence.

Appeal to Fear-

An appeal to fear fallacy occurs when someone uses fear to drive a response to an argument. Typically, fear is used to make a decision or position seem fraught with negative consequences. Often, an appeal to fear fallacy occurs in conjunction with a slippery slope fallacy,

Ad Hominem-

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument. This approach can act as a method of discrediting an opponent or simply deflecting or avoiding the actual topic of discussion.

Slippery Slope-

A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone claims that a position or decision will lead to a series of unintended negative consequences. These negative consequences are often bad and/or increasingly outlandish. The person using the slippery slope fallacy takes these consequences as a certainty and does not analyze the logic of their own position. A slippery slope fallacy can be used as a deflection to avoid discussing the merits of a position, shifting the field of debate.

Bandwagon-

The bandwagon fallacy is also sometimes called the appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses because it’s all about getting people to do or think something because “everyone else is doing it” or “everything else thinks this.” The bandwagon fallacy presumes that because a position is popular, it must therefore be correct.

Guilt by Association-

A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to or associated with this “bad” group and, therefore, their arguments should be disregarded.

Guilt by association fallacies can often work in concert with hasty generalization or ad hominem fallacies, especially when they’re used to attack a specific group of people.

While guilt by association fallacies often include unfair stereotypes, this is not always the case. Guilt by association can even be factually accurate. For example, imagine two politicians both support a bill for free school lunches. However, one of these politicians has a known history of corruption. Despite being based on fact, it would still be illogical to use the corrupt politician as a means to discredit the second politician and their ideas.