Logic and Fallacies Compilation

8/19/2019 Logic and Fallacies Compilation

1/21

syllogism

(ˈsɪləˌdʒɪzəm)

n

1. (Logic) a deductive inference consisting of two premises and a conclusion, all of which are categorial prop

ositions.he su!"ect of the conclusion is the minor term and its predicate the major term; the middle term

occurs in !othpremises !ut not the conclusion. here are #$% such arguments !ut onl& #' are valid. Some m

en are mortal; somemen are angelic; so some mortals are angelic is invalid, while some temples are in ruins;

all ruins are fascinating; sosome temples are fascinating is valid. ere fascinating, in ruins, and temples are r

espectivel& ma"or, middle, and minorterms

2. (Logic) a deductive inference of certain other forms with two premises, such as the hypothetical syllogis

m,if Pthen Q; if Q then R; so if P then R

3. (Logic) a piece of deductive reasoning from the general to the particular

4. (Logic) a su!tle or deceptive piece of reasoning

*+' via Latin from -ree sullogismos, from sullogizesthai to recon together, from sul- s&n/ 0 logizesthai to calcul

ate, fromlogos a discourse1

APPEAL TO AUTHORITYargumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse

dixit, testimonials [form of])

Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority

on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to

the claim being made.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, is true!

"herefore, is true!

Examle !":

#y $th grade teacher once told me that girls will go cra%y for &oys if they learn how to dance!

"herefore, if you want to make the ladies go cra%y for you, learn to dance!

Exlanation: Even if the #th grade teacher were an exert on relationshis, her belief about what ma$es

girls %go cra&y' for boys is seculative, or erhas circumstantial, at best.

Examle !(:


2/21

"he 'ope told me that priests can turn &read and wine into esus &ody and &lood! "he 'ope is not a

liar! "herefore, priests really can do this!

Exlanation: )he *oe may believe what he says, and erhas the *oe is not a liar, but the *oe is not an

authority on the fact that the bread and wine are actually transformed into +esus body and blood. After all,

how much flesh and blood does this guy +esus actually have to give-

Excetion: Aealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate debatable/ authority

on the facts of the argument. 0n the above examle, if +esus testified that this was actually haening, 0

guess wed have to believe him. )he above examle demonstrates the $ind of subtle difference in being an

authority on theidea of transubstantiation vs. the actual effectiveness of transubstantiation.

)i: 1uestion authority 22 or become the authority that eole loo$ to for answers.

3ariation: )estimonials are statements from, %authorities', in the sense that they are said to $now about

what they are testifying to. 0n business, vendor2rovided testimonials should not be ta$en too seriously as

they can easily be excetions to the norm or 4ust made u 22 as in, %+ohn 5. from 6hio says...'

NON SEQUITUR(also known as: derailment, *that does not follow+, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, nonsupport,

argument &y scenario [form of], false premise [form of], -uestiona&le premise [form of])

Descrition: 7hen the conclusion does not follow from the remises. 0n more informal reasoning, it can be

when what is resented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little suort to the conclusion.

Logical Form:

.laim A is made!

/vidence is presented for .laim A!

"herefore, claim . is true!

Examle !":

'eople generally like to walk on the &each! 0eaches have sand! "herefore, having sand floors inhomes would &e a great idea

Exlanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the

remises. )he fact that eole generally li$e to wal$ on sand does not mean that they want sand in their

homes, 4ust li$e because eole generally li$e to swim, they shouldnt flood their houses.

Examle !(:


3/21

0uddy 0urger has the greatest food in town! 0uddy 0urger was voted 21 &y the local paper!

"herefore, 'hil, the owner of 0uddy 0urger, should run for 'resident of the 3nited 4tates!

Exlanation: 0 bet *hil ma$es one hec$ of a burger, but it does not follow that he should be *resident.

Excetion: )here really is no excetions to this rule. Any good argument must have a conclusion that

follows from the remises.

)i: 6ne of the best ways to exose non se8uiturs is by constructing a valid analogy that exoses the

absurdity in the argument.

3ariations: )here are many forms of non se8uiturs including argument by scenario, where an irrelevant

scenario is given in an attemt to suort the conclusion. 6ther forms use different rhetorical devices that

are irrelevant to the conclusion.

False or 8uestionable remises could be seen as errors in facts, but they can also lead to the conclusion not

following, so 4ust $ee that in mind, as well.

2rrelevant *onclusion(ignoratio elenchi )

Definition:

3n argument which purports to prove one thing instead proves a differentconclusion.

Examples:

i. 4ou should support the new housing !ill. 5e can6t continue to see peopleliving in the streets7 we must have cheaper housing. (5e ma& agree thathousing s important even though we disagree with the housing !ill.)

ii. 2 sa& we should support affirmative action. 5hite males have run thecountr& for $88 &ears. he& run most of government and industr& toda&. 4oucan6t den& that this sort of discrimination is intolera!le. (he author hasproven that there is discrimination, !ut not that affirmative action will endthat discrimination.)

Proof:


4/21

9how that the conclusion proved !& the author is not the conclusion that theauthor set out to prove.

I. False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to

establish a causal connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.

A.Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the

fallacy of arguing that one eent was caused by another eent merely because it

occurred after that eent.

A. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal

connection. E.g., consider "!ince hair always precedes the growth of teeth

in babies, the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."

.#onsider also "$ery seere recession follows a %epublican &residency'

therefore %epublicans are the cause of recessions." Accidental

generaliations need not always be causal relations..#ausal connections are difficult to establish' the nature of causality is an actie

area of inuiry in the philosophy of science.

#.Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy

of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the

general category of "false cause."

II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.

$ent x is related to (or is followed by) eent y.$ent x caused eent y.

or

$ents of kind x are followed by eents of kind y.

$ents of kind x cause eents of kind y.

III. $*amples of false cause:

"+e hear that a writer has ust filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the #oors

beer company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large

uantities of #oors- ./ beer, containing only ./ percent alcohol and so

supposedly non0into*icating, at his local taern. ut, the suit contends, the stuff

was insidiously marinating his mind' and as a result he has been unable to finish


5/21

writing his second noel. The author may hae a point. ut we hae to wonder

whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of product

liability suits." Wall Street Journal (1/.23.45).

There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, the Journal -s, is tongue0in0

cheek

"6apoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."

(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)

"7ear A8: If 9I69 A;7 doesn-t hae any sighs of rash, or sores on herhead, she should make a mi*ture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her

head eery night. (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won-t mess up her

pillow.) I started losing my hair after the birth of my child.


6/21

ne can only call chest pain idiopathic after they hae ruled out other causes."

%andy %obinson,


7/21

identify problems of gender bias, and we know this firsthand. #okie-s mom,

;indy 9oggs, sered 2= years in #ongress and authored legislation banning

discrimination against women in bank lending practices.

H#okie %oberts and !tee %oberts, "+omen Are le*ing Their &olitical


8/21

than their counterparts. #ertainly, the last four years proes the point."

H%obert $. Anderson, "


9/21

much more in line with the tyical or average situation.

Logical Form:

4ample 4 is taken from population '!

4ample 4 is a very small part of population '!

.onclusion . is drawn from sample 4!

Examle !":

#y father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixtynine!

"herefore, smoking really cant &e that &ad for you!

Exlanation: 0t is extremely unreasonable and dangerous/ to draw a universal conclusion about the health

ris$s of smo$ing by the case study of one man.

Examle !(:

5our out of five dentists recommend 6appy 7lossy 4miley toothpaste &rand! "herefore, it must &e

great!

Exlanation: 0t turns out that only five dentists were actually as$ed. 7hen a random samling of "999

dentists were olled, only (9 actually recommended the brand. )he four out of five result was not

necessarily a biased samle or a dishonest survey, it 4ust haened to be a statistical anomaly common

among small samles.

Excetion: 7hen statistics of a larger oulation are not available, and a decision must be made or oinionformed if the small samle si&e is all you have to wor$ with, then it is better than nothing. For examle, if

you are strolling in the desert with a friend, and he goes to et a cute sna$e, gets bitten, then dies instantly,

it would not be fallacious to assume the sna$e is oisonous.

)i: Dont base decisions on small samle si&es when much more reliable data exists.

3ariation: )he hasty conclusion is leaing to a conclusion without carefully considering the alternatives 22 a

tad different than drawing a conclusion from too small of a samle.

CIRCULAR REASONINGcirculus in demonstrando

(also known as: paradoxical thinking, circular argument, circular cause and conse-uence, circular

definition [form of])

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/101-hasty-generalization#BiasedSampleFallacyhttp://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/101-hasty-generalization#BiasedSampleFallacy


10/21

Descrition: A tye of reasoning in which the roosition is suorted by the remises, which is suorted

by the roosition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. )his fallacy

is often 8uite humorous.

Logical Form:

8 is true &ecause of !

is true &ecause of 8!

Examle !":

'vt! oe 0owers: 9hat are these electrolytes ;o you even know

4ecretary of 4tate: "hey


11/21

COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY plurium interrogationum

(also known as: many -uestions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded -uestion, trick -uestion, false

-uestion)

Descrition: A 8uestion that has a resuosition built in, which imlies something but rotects the one

as$ing the 8uestion from accusations of false claims. 0t is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy

when the audience does not detect the assumed information imlicit in the 8uestion, and accets it as a

fact.

Examle !":

6ow many times per day do you &eat your wife

Exlanation: Even if the resonse is an emhatic, %none@', the damage has been done. 0f you are hearing

this 8uestion, you are more li$ely to accet the ossibility that the erson who was as$ed this 8uestion is a

wife2beater, which is fallacious reasoning on your art.

Examle !(:

6ow many school shootings should we tolerate &efore we change the gun laws

Exlanation: )he resuosition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school

shootings. )his may be the case, but it is a claim that is imlied in the statement and hidden by a more

comlex 8uestion. eactively, when one hears a 8uestion such as this, oneBs mind will attemt to search for

an answer to the 8uestionCwhich is actually a distraction from re4ecting the imlicit claim being made. 0t

is 8uite brilliant, but still fallacious.

Excetion: 0t is not a fallacy if the imlied information in the 8uestion is $nown to be an acceted fact.

6ow long can one survive without water

ere, it is resumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.

AMBIGUITY FALLACY(also known as: amphi&oly, semantical am&iguity, typetoken am&iguity [form of], vagueness)

Descrition: 7hen an unclear hrase with multile definitions is used within the argument therefore, does

not suort the conclusion. ?ome will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a


12/21

secific form of a fallacy $nown as e8uivocation.

Logical Form:

.laim 8 is made!

is concluded &ased on an am&iguous understanding of 8!

Examle !":

=t is said that we have a good understanding of our universe! "herefore, we know exactly how it

&egan and exactly when!

Exlanation: )he ambiguity here is what exactly %good understanding' means. )he conclusion assumes a

much better understanding than is suggested in the remise therefore, we have the ambiguity fallacy .

Examle !(:

All living &eings come from other living &eings! "herefore, the first forms of life must have come from

a living &eing! "hat living &eing is 7od!

Exlanation: )his argument is guilty of two cases of ambiguity. First, the first use of the hrase, %come

from', refers to reroduction, whereas the second use refers to origin. )he fact that we $now 8uite a bit

about reroduction is irrelevant when considering origin. ?econd, the first use of, %living being', refers to

an emirically verifiable, biological, living organism. )he second use of, %living being', refers to a belief of

an immaterial god. As you can see, when a term such as, %living being', describes a Dodo bird as well as the

all2owerful master of the universe, it has very little meaning and certainly is not secific enough to draw

logical or reasonable conclusions.

Excetion: Ambiguous hrases are extremely common in the English language and are a necessary art of

informal logic and reasoning. As long as these ambiguous hrases mean exactly the same thing in all uses

of hrase in the argument, this fallacy is not committed.

3ariation: )he tye2to$en fallacy is committed when a word can refer to either a tye cars/ or to$en *rius,

A3, Gamry / is used in a way that ma$es it unclear which it refers to, the statement is ambiguous.

"oyota manufactures do%ens of cars!

)his obviously refers to the different tyes of cars, not how many instances or to$ens/ of each car were

manufactured.

Description of omposition

he fallac& of *omposition is committed when a conclusion is drawn a!out awhole !ased on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no "ustificationprovided for the inference. here are actuall& two t&pes of this fallac&, !oth of

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/44-ambiguity-fallacy#Equivocationhttp://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/44-ambiguity-fallacy#Equivocationhttp://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/44-ambiguity-fallacy#Equivocation


13/21

which are nown !& the same name (!ecause of the high degree of similarit&).

he first t&pe of fallac& of *omposition arises when a person reasons from thecharacteristics of individual mem!ers of a class or group to a conclusionregarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taen as a whole).:ore formall&, the ;reasoning; would loo something lie this.

+.2ndividual < things have characteristics 3, =, *, etc.#.herefore, the (whole) class of < things has characteristics 3, =, *, etc.

his line of reasoning is fallacious !ecause the mere fact that individuals havecertain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taen as awhole) has those characteristics.

2t is important to note that drawing an inference a!out the characteristics of aclass !ased on the characteristics of its individual mem!ers is not alwa&sfallacious. 2n some cases, sufficient "ustification can !e provided to warrant the

conclusion. ample, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealththan an individual poor person. 2n some nations (such as the ?9) it is true thatthe class of wealth& people has more wealth as a whole than does the class ofpoor people. 2n this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference andthe fallac& of *omposition would not !e committed.

he second t&pe of fallac& of *omposition is committed when it is concludedthat what is true of the parts of a whole must !e true of the whole without there!eing ade@uate "ustification for the claim. :ore formall&, the line of ;reasoning;would !e as follows

+.he parts of the whole A have characteristics 3, =, *, etc.#.herefore the whole A must have characteristics 3, =, *.

hat this sort of reasoning is fallacious !ecause it cannot !e inferred that simpl&!ecause the parts of a comple> whole have (or lac) certain properties that thewhole that the& are parts of has those properties. his is especiall& clear inmath he num!ers + and B are !oth odd. + and B are parts of '. herefore, thenum!er ' is odd.

2t must !e noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the propertiesof the whole is not alwa&s fallacious. 2f there is "ustification for the inference from

parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. ample, if ever& part ofthe human !od& is made of matter, then it would not !e an error in reasoning toconclude that the whole human !od& is made of matter. 9imiliarl&, if ever& part of a structure is made of !ric, there is no fallac& comitted when one concludesthat the whole structure is made of !ric.


14/21

Examples of omposition

+.3 main !attle tan uses more fuel than a car. herefore, the main !attletans use up more of the availa!le fuel in the world than do all the cars.

#.3 tiger eats more food than a human !eing. herefore, tigers, as agroup, eat more food than do all the humans on the earth.

B.3toms are colorless. *ats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.

'.;Cver& pla&er on the team is a superstar and a great pla&er, so the teamis a great team.; his is fallacious since the superstars might not !e a!leto pla& together ver& well and hence the& could !e a lous& team.

$.;Cach part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is amasterpiece. 9o, the whole show is a masterpiece.; his is fallacious sincea show could have great acting, great special effects and such, &et still failto ;come together; to mae a masterpiece.

%.;*ome on, &ou lie !eef, potatoes, and green !eens, so &ou will lie this!eef, potato, and green !een casserole.; his is fallacious for the samereason that the following is fallacious ;4ou lie eggs, icecream, pizza,cae, fish, "ello, chicen, taco sauce, soda, oranges, mil, egg rolls, and&ogurt so &ou must lie this &umm& dish made out of all of them.;

D.9odium and *hloride are !oth dangerous to humans. herefore an&com!ination of sodium and chloride will !e dangerous to humans.

Description of Di!ision

he fallac& of Eivision is committed when a person infers that what is true of awhole must also !e true of its constituents and "ustification for that inference isnot provided.

here are two main variants of the general fallac& of Eivision

he first t&pe of fallac& of Eivision is committed when +) a person reasons thatwhat is true of the whole must also !e true of the parts and #) the person fails to

"ustif& that inference with the re@uired degree of evidence. :ore formall&, the;reasoning; follows this sort of pattern

+.he whole, A, has properties 3, =, *, etc.#.herefore the parts of A have properties 3, =, *, etc.

hat this line of reasoning is fallacious is made clear !& the following case ' isan even num!er. + and B are parts of '. herefore + and B are even.

2t should !e noted that it is not alwa&s fallacious to draw a conclusion a!out theparts of a whole !ased on the properties of the whole. 3s long as ade@uateevidence is provided in the argument, the the reasoning can !e accepta!le.


15/21

e>ample, the human !od& is made out of matter and it is reasona!le to inferfrom this that the parts that mae up the human !od& are also made out ofmatter. his is !ecause there is no reason to !elieve that the !od& is made up of non/material parts that somehow form matter when the& get together.

he second version of the fallac& of division is committed when a person +)

draws a conclusion a!out the properties of indvidual mem!ers of a class orgroup !ased on the collective properties of the class or group and #) there is notenough "ustification for the conclusion. :ore formall&, the line of ;reasoning; isas follows

+.3s a collective, -roup or class A has properties 3, =, *, etc.#.herefore the individual mem!ers of group or class A have properties 3,=, *, etc.

hat this sort of reasoning is fallacious can !e easil& shown !& the following 2t istrue that athletes, taen as a group, are foot!all pla&ers, trac runners,

swimmers, tennis pla&ers, long "umpers, pole vaulters and such. =ut it would !efallacious to infer that each individual athlets is a foot!all pla&er, a trac runner,a swimmer, a tennis pla&er, a swimmer, etc.

2t should !e noted that it is not alwa&s fallacious to draw a conclusion a!out anindividual !ased on what is true of the class heFsheFit !elongs to. 2f the inferenceis !aced !& evidence, then the reasoning can !e fine. ample, it is notfallacious to infer that =ill the 9iamese cat is a mammal from the fact that allcats are mammals. 2n this case, what is true of the class is also true of eachindividual mem!er.

Examples of Di!ision

+.;he !all is !lue, therefore the atoms that mae it up are also !lue.;

#.;3 living cell is organic material, so the chemicals maing up the cellmust also !e organic material.;

B.;=ill lives in a large !uilding, so his apartment must !e large.;

'.;9odium chloride (ta!le salt) ma& !e safel& eaten. herefore itsconstituent elements, sodium and chloride, ma& !e safel& eaten.;

$.;3mericans use much more electricit& than 3fricans do. 9o =ill, who livesin primitive ca!in in :aine, uses more electricit& than Gelson, who lives ina modern house in 9outh 3frica. ;

%.;:en receive more higher education than women. herefore Er. Hane9mart has less higher education than :r. =ill =uffoon. ;

D.;:inorities get paid less than 6whites6 in 3merica. herefore, the !lac


16/21

*CI of a multi/!illion dollar compan& gets paid less than the white "anitorwho cleans his office.;

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE Ad =gnorantium

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, a&sence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment,

argument from =ncredulity)

Descrition: )he assumtion of a conclusion or fact based rimarily on lac$ of evidence to the contrary.

Usually best described by, %absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

Logical Form:

8 is true &ecause you cannot prove that 8 is false!

8 is false &ecause you cannot prove that 8 is true!

Examle !":

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ri&s, we have not proven that its core

cannot &e filled with them> therefore, the moons core is filled with spare ri&s!

Exlanation: )here is an infinity of things we cannot rove 22 the moon being filled with sare ribs is one of

them.


17/21

im&o: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum &ut finding none!!!) ackass

)i: Loo$ at all your existing ma4or beliefs and see if they are based more on the lac$ of evidence than

evidence. >ou might be surrised as to how many actually are.

Description of "d #ominem

ranslated from Latin to Cnglish, ;3d ominem; means ;against the man; or;against the person.;

3n 3d ominem is a general categor& of fallacies in which a claim or argumentis re"ected on the !asis of some irrelevant fact a!out the author of or the personpresenting the claim or argument. &picall&, this fallac& involves two steps.


18/21

4ustify a conclusion.

Logical Form:

=f you dont accept 8 as true, = will hurt you!

Examle !":

#elvin: 0oss, why do = have to work weekends when no&ody else in the company does

0oss: Am = sensing insu&ordination = can find another employee very -uickly, thanks to .raigslist,

you know!

Exlanation: Helvin has as$ed a legitimate 8uestion to which he did not get a legitimate answer, rather his

8uestion was deflected by a threat of force as being forced out of his 4ob/.

Examle !(:

ordan: ;ad, why do = have to spend my summer at esus camp

;ad: 0ecause if you dont, you will spend your entire summer in your room with nothing &ut your

0i&le

Exlanation: 0nstead of a reason, dad gave +ordan a descrition of a unishment that would haen.

Excetion: 0f the force, coercion, or threat of force is not being used as a reason but as a fact or

conse8uence, then it would not be fallacious, esecially when a legitimate reason is given with the %threat',

direct or imlied.

#elvin: 0oss, why do = have to wear this goofylooking hardhat

0oss: =t is state law> therefore, company policy! ?o hat, no @o&!

)i: Unless you are an indentured servant slave/ or still living with your arents slave/, do not allow

others to force you into acceting something as true.

3ariation: Argument by vehemence is being very loud in lace of being right. )his is a form of force, or

basically frightening your oonent into submission.

Description of "ppeal to Emotion

3n 3ppeal to Cmotion is a fallac& with the following structure

+.


19/21

emotions in place of evidence for a claim. 2f the favora!le emotions associatedwith A influence the person to accept A as true !ecause the& ;feel good a!outA,; then he has fallen pre& to the fallac&.

his sort of ;reasoning; is ver& common in politics and it serves as the !asis fora large portion of modern advertising. :ost political speeches are aimed at

generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act acertain wa&. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoingemotions that will influence people to !u& certain products. 2n most cases, suchspeeches and commercials are notoriousl& free of real evidence.

his sort of ;reasoning; is @uite evidentl& fallacious. 2t is fallacious !ecauseusing various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence fora claim. ample, if a person were a!le to inspire in a person an incredi!lehatred of the claim that +0+ # and then inspired the person to love the claimthat +0+ B, it would hardl& follow that the claim that +0+ B would !e

ade@uatel& supported.2t should !e noted that in man& cases it is not particularl& o!vious that theperson committing the fallac& is attempting to support a claim. 2n man& cases,the user of the fallac& will appear to !e attempting to move people to tae anaction, such as !u&ing a product or fighting in a war. owever, it is possi!le todetermine what sort of claim the person is actuall& attempting to support. 2nsuch cases one needs to as ;what sort of claim is this person attempting to getpeople to accept and act onK; Eetermining this claim (or claims) might taesome wor. owever, in man& cases it will !e @uite evident. ample, if a

political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certainacts of violence !& the use of a hate speech, then her claim would !e ;&oushould participate in these acts of violence.; 2n this case, the ;evidence; would!e the hatred evoed in the followers. his hatred would serve to mae themfavora!le inclined towards the claim that the& should engage in the acts ofviolence. 3s another e>ample, a !eer commercial might show happ&, scantil&clad men and women prancing a!out a !each, guzzling !eer. 2n this case theclaim would !e ;&ou should !u& this !eer.; he ;evidence; would !e thee>citement evoed !& seeing the !eautiful people guzzling the !eer.

his fallac& is actuall& an e>tremel& effective persuasive device. 3s man& peoplehave argued, peoples6 emotions often carr& much more force than their reason.Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarel& has thepower to spurn people to action. 2t is the power of this fallac& that e>plains itsgreat popularit& and wide usage. owever, it is still a fallac&.

2n all fairness it must !e noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is animportant sill. 5ithout an appeal to peoples6 emotions, it is often difficult to getthem to tae action or to perform at their !est. ample, no good coach


20/21

presents her team with s&llogisms !efore the !ig game. 2nstead she inspiresthem with emotional terms and attempts to ;fire; them up. here is nothinginherentl& wrong with this. owever, it is not an& accepta!le form ofargumentation. 3s long as one is a!le to clearl& distinguish !etween whatinspires emotions and what "ustifies a claim, one is unliel& to fall pre& to this

fallac&. 3s a final point, in man& cases it will !e difficult to distinguish an 3ppeal toCmotion from some other fallacies and in man& cases multiple fallacies ma& !ecommitted. ample, man& 3d ominems will !e ver& similar to 3ppeals toCmotion and, in some cases, !oth fallacies will !e committed. 3s an e>ample, aleader might attempt to invoe hatred of a person to inspire his followers toaccept that the& should re"ect her claims. he same attac could function as an

3ppeal to Cmotion and a Jersonal 3ttac. 2n the first case, the attac would !eaimed at maing the followers feel ver& favora!le a!out re"ecting her claims. 2nthe second case, the attac would !e aimed at maing the followers re"ect theperson6s claims !ecause of some perceived (or imagined) defect in hercharacter.

his fallac& is related to the 3ppeal to Jopularit& fallac&. Eespite the differences!etween these two fallacies, the& are !oth united !& the fact that the& involveappeals to emotions. 2n !oth cases the fallacies aim at getting people to acceptclaims !ased on how the& or others feel a!out the claims and not !ased onevidence for the claims.

3nother wa& to loo at these two fallacies is as follows

3ppeal to Jopularit&

+.:ost people approve of A.#.9o, 2 should approve of A, too.B.9ince 2 approve of A, A must !e true.

3ppeal to Cmotion

+.2 approve of A.#.herefore, A is true.

In this view, in an 3ppeal to Jopularit& the claim is accepted !ecause most

people approve of the claim. 2n the case of an 3ppeal to Cmotion the claim isaccepted !ecause the individual approves of the claim !ecause of the emotionof approval he feels in regards to the claim.

Examples of "ppeal to Emotion

+.he new Jowerangerine computer gives &ou the power &ou need. 2f&ou !u& one, people will env& &our power. he& will loo up to &ou and

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


21/21

wish the& were "ust lie &ou. 4ou will now the true "o& of power.angerineJower.

#.he new ?ltra9inn& diet will mae &ou feel great. Go longer !e trou!led!& &our weight. Cn"o& the admiring stares of the opposite se>. Mevel in&our new freedom from fat. 4ou will now true happiness if &ou tr& our dietN

B.=ill goes to hear a politician spea. he politician tells the crowd a!outthe evils of the government and the need to throw out the peoople who arecurrentl& in office. 3fter hearing the speach, =ill is full of hatred for thecurrent politicians. =ecause of this, he feels good a!out getting rid of theold politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do !ecause of how hefeels.

Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dan-gloria
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Logic and Fallacies Compilation

Documents