Term
|
Definition
In seeking to establish a cause-effect relationship, an advocate may settle on a “cause”
which, by itself, does not have the potency or power to produce the alleged “effect.”
|
|
|
Term
| INSUFFICIENT CAUSE (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
(a) the error of distance.
“The shooting in Tucson in January 2011 – which left six people dead and
critically wounded U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the suspected target –
was a tragedy. But more importantly, it was an unfortunate outcome of Sharon
Angle’s insistence on “Second Amendment remedies” to political problems. A
media sound byte caused the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, to attempt an
assassination of a political official.” |
|
|
Term
| INSUFFICIENT CAUSE (ex. b) |
|
Definition
(b) the error of conjunction or inappropriateness.
“Violence plays a big part in the bar scene in Albany. In early 2011, mayor Jerry
Jennings requested that all city bars be closed at two a.m. rather than four a.m.
‘It’s my conclusion,’ he said, ‘that between 2 and 5 [a.m.] not a lot of good things
happen.’ Given Jennings’ testimony, and the increase in police calls for fights,
disorderly behavior, and sexual assaults between those hours, it is obvious that
criminal activities are a direct result of the time until which city bars are open.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Nearly everyone has a tendency to oversimplify objective reality to rational principles.
Most common is the belief that there is a single, definitive explanation for social
problems. In argumentation, this impulse leads an advocate to assert, sometimes
intentionally, that there is a single cause of a problem when, in fact, most problems
are the result of several causative factors working in concert. |
|
|
Term
| MULTIPLE CAUSATION (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
(a) the assertion that a partial cause is the cause.
“The twentieth century saw the buildup of industrial infrastructures supported by
government policy that facilitated the construction of telephone networks,
highways, and the Internet. However, the government is no longer ‘energetic’ in
fostering what James Pinkerton calls ‘America-strengthening policies.’ The takeover
of, in Pinkerton’s words, ‘hulking nanny-state government’ has caused the
impoverishment of policymaking for industry.” |
|
|
Term
| MULTIPLE CAUSATION (ex. b) |
|
Definition
“As syndicated columnist George Sill argues, cable television talk shows and
partisan pundits are to blame for the public’s misunderstanding of political
debates. If these talks shows were cancelled, and if punditry was contained, the
public would better understand contemporary politics.” |
|
|
Term
| POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC |
|
Definition
“After the fact, therefore because of the fact.” As aforementioned, a cause-and-effect
relationship is defined by linearity and chronology: the cause invariably occurs before
the effect. An advocate commits the fallacy of __________ when a
cause-and-effect relationship is said to exist between two phenomena simply because
they occur sequentially in time. |
|
|
Term
| POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“In 1993, President Bill Clinton increased taxes on the highest marginal tax rate.
The tax increase created a disincentive for the wealthy, essentially penalizing them
for increasing their wealth while growing the economy. Is it any surprise that a
mild recession ensued soon thereafter? In August 2011, President Obama again
proposed a tax hike on the wealthy. If enacted, history tells us what will follow.”
“In August 2011, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) – a well known credit rating agency
– downgraded the United States’ credit score from AAA to AA+. The Dow Jones
industrial average then plunged. It rebounded, though, because the very next day
the Federal Reserve promised ‘exceptionally low’ interest rates through 2013.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Occasionally, advocates will advance propositions that are either self-contradictory,
ridiculous, erroneous—in a word, absurd. This is apparent when they assume a claim
for the sake of argument, reach an obviously absurd conclusion, and then confirm the
falsity of an original assumption based on the absurd outcome. A _________ occurs when an advocate attempts to push
the logic of another’s claims to its most absurd conclusions. It is thus a tactic of
refutation, and sarcastic refutation at that. Specifically, since cause-and-effect chains
invite extensions, either in the past (Why? Why? Why?) or into the future (What is
the result of that? And that? And that?) – and since increasing distance in either
direction decreases the confidence of the original claim – causation chains ultimately
result in comic conclusions, humorous because of an obvious absurdity. ________ is a means by which an advocate can ridicule an opponent’s reasoning by
performing a cause-end-effect chain. Of course, even though it might appear as an
illustration of an opponent’s error, it does not prove either that an opponent is wrong
or that his or her detractor is right. ___________ is, after all, not itself
reasonable. |
|
|
Term
| REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“My opponent has claimed that smoking marijuana leads to heroin addiction. He
says that 98 percent of heroin addicts once smoked pot. I believe that. I’ll bet
they also smoked cigarettes. Better yet, I’ll bet they all drank coffee—and every
one of them tasted mother’s milk! Freud missed something: If you suckle your
mother, you’ll become a heroin addict!”
“My opponent argues that one’s ability to discriminate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
art is a sign of intelligence. This makes sense. Furthermore, I wouldn’t be
surprised if it was a sign of sexual prowess, athleticism, or even one’s facility to
roll or fold his or her tongue. I discovered I could roll my tongue as early as age
three. Parents, test your children: If they can fold or roll their tongues, they could
be geniuses, if not closet art critics.” |
|
|
Term
| SUBSTITUTION OF SIGN FOR CAUSE |
|
Definition
A sign is an indication of presence. It is not the reason for a phenomenon’s
occurrence. An advocate ________ for a cause not simply by establishing a
single relationship between two phenomena A and B, but in doing so to assert that A
causes B. Where there is smoke there is fire; when you have the measles, you get tiny
red bumps. Smoke is a sign of fire. The presence of red bumps is a sign of the
measles. However, it is neither necessary that fire is the cause of smoke nor that
measles is the cause of red bumps. Again, correlation is not causation. |
|
|
Term
| SUBSTITUTION OF SIGN FOR CAUSE (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
|
“Catastrophic weather is taking place across the globe. Consider, in particular, the
Midwest’s unprecedented outbreak of tornadoes in 2011. Global warming is
known to produce wildly different and disastrous weather patterns, just one example of which is increasingly severe tornadoes. If the Midwest tornado
outbreak proves anything, it is that global warming is a serious problem.”
“College students who work ten hours a week tend to earn better grades than
those who do not work at all. You should seek part-time employment during
college; you’ll get higher grades.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This is literally an “appeal to the stick.” In more contemporary terms, it is an appeal
to force, oftentimes manifest as a more or less explicit threat of either physical or
psychological violence that will befall those who do not accept an advocate’s
proposition or conclusion. It is a causal fallacy insofar as it positions the effect of
force as directly resultant of an audience’s disagreement. In this way, it is the use of
coercion rather than reason to incite – that is, to cause – agreement. |
|
|
Term
| ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“We, the members of the Republican Study Committee, admonish President
Obama to withdraw his executive order that would require government
contractors to publicly disclose political contributions. Should President Obama
proceed with a draft of the order, ‘we would immediately introduce legislation in
the House of Representatives to prevent it from taking effect.’ Rest assured that
this is not an empty threat.”
“If the President were presented this bill (Cut, Cap and Balance) for signature, he would veto it.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Almost all signal relations require corroboration. That is, we need to have more than
one sign to have confidence that the phenomenon signaled actually exists—a doctor
needs to know that you have a fever, are lightheaded, and have itchy, sore eyes in
addition to having little red bumps before she will diagnose the measles. An advocate
commits the fallacy of __________ when he or she draws a conclusion from
one, or just a few, fallible signs without diligently searching for additional
corroboration. In short, an advocate is too quick to offer an unwarranted judgment. |
|
|
Term
| HASTY GENERALIZATION (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“As singer-songwriter, Ted Nugent, argues: ‘Where you have the most armed
citizens in America, you have the lowest crime rate. Where you have the worst
gun control, you have the highest crime rate.’ Clearly, in order to solve the
problem of crime in the U.S., we need to arm more citizens.”
“I was in Indianapolis and watched a homeless man use the money a passerby so
generously gave him to purchase a handle of whiskey. The homeless take charity
only to piss it away—literally. It should be illegal to give them money. All they do
is use it to get drunk.” |
|
|
Term
| THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION |
|
Definition
This is a sophisticated and more specific version of the hasty generalization. It occurs
when an advocate assumes that what is true of the “parts” is true of a “whole.” In
other words, an advocate composes a conclusion about a whole based upon its parts.
For example, one might argue that every player on the Indiana Pacers is outstanding
and so, then, must be the team itself. Of course, any sports team is much more than
just the sum of its parts; it is also a function of who organizes the parts, how they
interact, etc. This occurs when an advocate ignores such
considerations in the course of making his or her generalized judgment. |
|
|
Term
| THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Professor Johnson and Professor Roseland are going to team-teach a course in
the fall. Both of them are great teachers, so the course will undoubtedly be great.”
“Every member of the jury has been deemed reasonable. When they deliberate,
we can be sure that their judgment will be both reasonable and unanimous.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
It occurs when an advocate assumes that what is true of a “whole” is
also true of the “parts.” In other words, an advocate divides a whole into parts and
apportions equal judgments across the board. Here, one might argue that, because
the Indiana Pacers has an outstanding team, so must be each player on the team. It
should be easy to see why such a claim is problematic. |
|
|
Term
| THE FALLACY OF DIVISION (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“The Catholic Church is pro-life, and does not believe in abortion. It recently
decided to excommunicate a nun for performing an abortion that actually saved
the mother from fatal complications with the pregnancy. Some people have
voiced concern, but we can be sure that none of them were Catholics. After all,
the Catholic Church is pro-life and so, we can assume, are all of its members.
They must have agreed with the Church’s decision.”
“The number one concern of Republicans is taxes. House Speaker John
Boehner might express concern over governmental revenues, but he lest we
forget that he is a Republican—he is really only concerned with lenient tax codes
and lower interest rates.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Very often, signs are open to more than one interpretation. This has much to do with
the fact that signs are often associated with many phenomena. A fever and
lightheadedness, for instance, can signal many illnesses, not just the measles. An
advocate commits a fallacy of the _________ when he or she argues, without
adequate evidence, that a sign which could be associated with several different things
signifies one particular thing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“Anyone who says that the characters on Sarah Palin’s electoral map are
surveyor’s symbols is either dead wrong or lying. They are obviously crosshairs,
used only to mark the congresspersons she wishes to be physically attacked.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“The 1969 western ‘True Grit’ was successful during a time of political struggle in
the United States. Its 2010 remake did incredibly well at the box office, which is
not at all surprising, considering the times.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
To reiterate, two phenomena must be related to one another naturally before we can
even think about either a fallible or a necessary signal connection between them.
Sometimes, an advocate is fooled by his or her own value system and/or personal
superstitions, and therefore ends up arguing that a signal relationship exists between
two phenomena A and B on no other basis than common belief or partisan value
judgments. In such instances, an advocate imposes a signal relationship that is
warranted by nothing other than faith. That is, the relationship between two
phenomena does not exist logically or in nature, but in something outside of
reasoned proof. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“The American flag is the symbol of our greatness as a nation. Anyone who burns
it, for whatever personal reason, is a traitor and probably a rebel.”
“President Obama’s penchant for ‘Big’ government is nothing but a form of
political extremism. His idea of democracy is more akin to plutocracy, or even
oligarchy, than any conception the Founding Fathers had in mind.”
“The Tea Party’s stubborn and staunch behavior amidst the debt ceiling crisis in
August 2011 was utterly impeachable. What is more, it was about nothing more
than political revenge—an attempt at throwing a stick in the spokes of democracy
in order to say, “I told you so.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The “base” is synonymous with the population. An advocate commits the fallacy of
_________ when he or she cites percentages without identifying the population
from which they are drawn. For example, if an advocate asserts that 48 percent of
people surveyed support the President, we should feel compelled to ask: Really? 48
percent of whom? The entire citizenry of the U.S.? The citizens of Durham, New
Hampshire? The “red” states? The “blue” states? Put simply, for statistics to be
worthwhile as pieces of evidence, we need to know their base. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
“The war in Iraq began in 2003. Since then, U.S. policy has floundered at best
and Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, could not as of late 2010 secure any political grounding for his country, let alone for his precarious governing body.
Plus, violence and outrage persist. Is it any surprise, then, that 90 percent believed
that Iraq was worse off in 2006, as a survey indicated? And would it be any
surprise to find that 90 percent or more still believe that Iraq is worse off today?”
“Reports show that 7 percent more Americans believe after the debt ceiling crisis
that the Tea Party Movement is having a negative effect on Congress.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Has to do with the advocate’s deception of his or
her audience into believing that he or she took a survey him- or herself. However, it
also has to do with the sample size. An advocate commits the fallacy of __________ when (a) he or she gives the impression of having taken a survey when in fact
he or she has only looked at a sample, and when (b) the sample is not large enough
to be representative or typical of the population to which an advocate’s generalization
applies. Note that it is conventionally assumed that a sample size of 800 to 1,000 is
necessary for statistically determining public opinion. |
|
|
Term
| INADEQUATE SAMPLE (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“CBN reports that a nationwide survey of 100 voters indicates that 77 percent of
citizens believe prayer helped saved U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords’ life
following the January 2011 shooting in Tucson. Only 17 percent of voters do not
believe prayer helped save her.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An advocate
commits the fallacy of a __________ when he or she accurately identifies a
population, indicates the statistics’ basis on sampling, reports on a sample which is
large enough, but fails to account for all groups to which a generalization applies. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“After interviewing 10,000 students at 5 different schools nationwide, we found
that over 65 percent of college students eat fast food at least once per week. We
were surprised to find that such a great majority of college students eat fast food
so frequently.”
“Of some 20,000 white, middle class male residents polled in America, 73
percent supported Arizona’s controversial immigration law. It seems silly that the
general public appears to be so up in arms about it. If the people support the law,
why should it be a problem?” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A “consequent” is that which follows as a result of something else. In argumentation,
it is the second aspect of a conditional (if…then) statement. One does this when he or she declares as true the “then.” Starting with the premise that
“if x is true, then y is true,” the advocate reasons that “if y is true, then x is true.” This
is a mistake because such relationships are not inherently reversible. |
|
|
Term
| AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“The teacher said that if I am to get an ‘A’ I must work hard. I worked hard, so I
should get an ‘A’.”
“A recent government-funded study found that brain activity increases when one
talks on a cell phone. Increased brain activity can cause damage. Anyone who
gets brain damage should blame their cell phone.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In _________________, an advocate commits another fallacy of the “if…then”
variety. In this case, an advocate denies the “if” and reasons as though such a denial
also entails the rejection of the “then.” In other words, if the “if” is denied, the “then”
follows suit. |
|
|
Term
| DENYING THE ANTECEDENT (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Since good education has given us good technology, it follows that bad education
will give us bad technology.”
“If the car doesn’t have gas, it won’t run, but if it does have gas, the car will run.”
“Controversy begets bad politics; if we could avoid controversy, American politics
would improve. |
|
|
Term
| UNSTATED ASSUMPTION (OR FAULTY ENTHYMEME) |
|
Definition
Good reasons are built on clearly stated premises. When an advocate reasons on __________, he or she does so from a premise never named. By not naming
the assumption, an advocate does not (technically) have to prove it—in other words,
he or she lets an audience supply the missing proof out of their own reservoir of
common/shared beliefs and/or general knowledge. If the missing assumption is
indeed a matter of general knowledge, we call this an enthymeme and there is no
inherent fallacy. But if the missing assumption is actually highly debatable – a thing
which the audience would be inclined to question seriously or even to reject if it were
brought specifically to their attention – then the advocate has committed a fallacy. |
|
|
Term
| UNSTATED ASSUMPTION (OR FAULTY ENTHYMEME) (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Many people who say they want to be fit oftentimes forget that actions speak
louder than words. Put simply, they don’t actually work out! They also don’t eat
right. However, if we look at memberships in fitness clubs we can determine not
only people’s concern for but their commitment to fitness.” |
|
|
Term
| BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITIO PRINCIPI) |
|
Definition
Literally means “assuming the principle,” or
assuming precisely what one wants to prove. It is a species of circular reasoning.
When committed, an advocate attempts to “prove” an assertion with the assertion
itself (or a variant of it). As a result, he or she reasons in a circle: “A is true because B
is true, and we all know that B is true because A is true.” An advocate thus ____________ by stating a premise as a restatement of a conclusion. When simply put, the
tautology, or redundancy, is easy to spot and often sounds silly. |
|
|
Term
| BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITIO PRINCIPI) (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Organic food is more expensive than non-organic food. I prefer organic food to
non-organic food, but I have been nervous about spending more money on food
than I can afford. My wife reminded me that she got a raise, though, and Engel’s
Law states that as income rises the proportion of money spent on food falls. This
means I can afford to by organic food, because I’ll spend proportionately less on
it. After all, it’s Engel’s Law.” |
|
|
Term
| BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITIO PRINCIPI) (Ex. b) |
|
Definition
“Don’t be fooled by deceptive claims to academic freedom. Liberal professors
know that claims to freedom eclipse their attempts to indoctrinate students to
particular left-leaning ideologies. Don’t believe the claims. If you buy into them,
you buy into a lie.” |
|
|
Term
FAULTY DILEMMA (OR FALSE DICHOTOMY, OR BLACK AND
WHITE FALLACY) |
|
Definition
“Either-or” arguments are powerful. They reduce the problem of choice and appear
as if they contain a good and bad, a right and wrong. However, an advocate posits a ___________ when he or she reduces logical alternatives in an argument to only
two: the advocate’s way and the wrong way. There are certainly times when this is
good argumentative strategy. But if an advocate fails to take into account all
possibilities – if he or she asserts that there are only two when there are or could be
more – he or she creates a __________. Such reasoning generally occurs (at the
policy level of argument) in two ways: |
|
|
Term
FAULTY DILEMMA (OR FALSE DICHOTOMY, OR BLACK AND
WHITE FALLACY) (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Either you support the United States and its ‘War on Terror’ or you support the
terrorists.”
“Given our cultural interest in social welfare, people would do well to read Part
Two of Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged. In it, Rand puts forth an warning that
is more appropriate today than ever: ‘the choice is clear-cut: either [we adopt] a
new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice,
progress and man’s happiness on earth – or the primordial morality of altruism,
with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial
furnaces.’ This is not ethical egoism; it is a question of right and wrong.” |
|
|
Term
FAULTY DILEMMA (OR FALSE DICHOTOMY, OR BLACK AND
WHITE FALLACY) (Ex. b) |
|
Definition
“We should be skeptical about the numerous state-sponsored initiatives to
legalize the adoption of foster children by same-sex couples. While they represent
a more wide-ranging respect for gay lifestyles, such adoptions can really only
result in one of two things: either the children will grow up being ostracized,
ridiculed, and tormented by their social peer groups, or they will run the risk of
becoming gay themselves. I understand that we need homes for the tens of
thousands of foster children in America; legalizing adoption by same-sex couples
is not the way to get them.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a wrong dichotomy reduces the problem of choice to two distinct alternatives, _________ reduces the problem of complexity to a blending of difference. In other
words, an advocate who posits a __________ argues that two sides which appear
to be distinct are actually not; they are simply two opposite extremes.
For example, an advocate might establish __________ if he or she argues that,
whether or not you support the troops or the terrorists, you sanction the “War on
Terror.” Such an argument takes two extremes – support for the troops, support for
the terrorists – and calls them twin endorsements. Though potentially convincing, _______________– like a dichotomy – closes off choice. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“Tea Party activists push an ‘originalist’ agenda, arguing that the Founding
Fathers’ conception of American politics should continue – or better, should
once again – reign supreme. They read the constitution as if it were gospel. It is
not difficult to grasp that their ‘originalism’ is just another name for
‘fundamentalism.’ The two are one.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An advocate commits the fallacy of _________________
when he or she repeats the same argument over and over again in an attempt to
convince an audience of its veracity. Consider an (obvious, if not notorious) example:
George W. Bush’s assertion after 9/11 that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass
destruction. The important thing to keep in mind is that ___________________
rarely – if not never – appears in the course of one argument. Instead, it is an
argument repeated over time; it is recurrent. Notice, however, that it is only fallacious
when it is clear that the supposed veracity of an argument has everything to do with its
mere repetition and nothing to do with logical reasoning. For instance, a false
statement is a false statement is a false statement no matter how many times it is
repeated. Of course, repetition is not a substitute for argumentation even when a
“truth” is assured. ________________ is therefore propagandistic only when
it is deceptive, distorted, or intentionally misleading. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
_________________ are, in general, easy to spot. They are manifest in an advocate’s
attempt to advance an argument by way of rousing affect. In other words, an
unproven proposition is couched in heavily emotional, highly evaluative language,
relying on the force of words to push an audience along. Such an argument is
__________ insofar as it is showy and oftentimes alluring; and it as a ____________ in that
it ignores detail for the sake of oversimplification. Consequently, a __________
never actually “proves” a point, but rather persuades an audience to belief through
“pretty” language. |
|
|
Term
| GLITTERING GENERALITY (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Many political figures are speaking out about the growing concern of Islamic
extremism—and rightfully so. Islamic fundamentalism runs, well, fundamentally
counter to Western values. If people are racist, we are right to denounce them.
Islamic extremists are worse than racist. We need to stand against them. We
need to assert our values and resist our own fears of being condemned. Let’s
move forward with a new tolerance—a tolerance of Western values!”
“[The U.S.] will always be a superpower. But one thing that has kept us a
superpower has been freedom, free market economists. We are in the process of
watching the deconstruction of free market economists before our very eyes,
something we have never seen. But as the ice ripped that hole in the Titanic,
water started being taken on, and the engineer came out and brought the
blueprints of the Titanic. Water came into the first chamber, spilled over to the
second, spilled over to the third, and by the time it filled up so many chambers, it
was over. It was impossible to resurrect that ship.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When an advocate asserts that an audience should accept a proposition
because “everyone else” does, he or she probably commits the _________ fallacy.
Consider the popular admonishment parents issue to their kids in the form of a
rhetorical question: “If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it?” Silly as it
seems, this query provides a heuristic for testing out possible _____________ appeals.
The phrase “everyone else,” after all, can refer either to important others or
significant numbers of people (thus implying that opting in aligns you with the “in”-
group, whereas opting out puts you in the undesirable minority). “All the cool kids
are doing it” is another hackneyed example, specifically with regard to its coercive
force. In general, advertisements are the stomping ground of ________ appeals. But
they occur elsewhere as well. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“I have had two 8:00 a.m. classes in the last two semesters. And so far, I have yet
to meet one student who thinks that 8:00 a.m. classes are necessary. I have written
a petition to have 8:00 a.m. classes banned from IU course schedules indefinitely,
beginning next semester. Any self-respecting student would sign it.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An appeal to an audience as ________ is an assertion that “like goes with like.”
Such an appeal is propagandistic when an advocate asks an audience to accept an
argument solely on the basis of blind faith in their membership in that audience. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“Above all else, you should vote for me because I am one of you. I attended the
same schools, I shop at the same stores, I face the same problems, and I have the
same hopes, dreams, and goals. The choice should be simple: A vote for me
would be a vote for you!” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An advocate who
commits this fallacy attacks the character of an opponent rather than the substance of
his or her argument. The advocate will also oftentimes couple such an attack with an
assertion that nothing such an opponent might say could possibly be correct or
believed. This is a relatively common fallacy in politics (and usually dubbed a
“personal attack,” or a “character attack”), but even more so when political debates
become defined by vitriol. |
|
|
Term
| ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“I think [Sonia Sotomayor] is a racist. I think she decided things based on race. I
think she says that a Hispanic woman, with the experience of being a Hispanic
woman, can make decisions that a white man can’t make. I can’t imagine saying
that. That’s like saying Hispanics can’t make money decisions like them Jews.”
“When Sarah Palin criticized President Obama’s nuclear defense policy, the
president responded by saying: ‘The last time I checked, Sarah Palin is not an
expert on nuclear issues.’ Oh, how right he is. Palin isn’t a nuclear expert. In fact,
I’m not sure she’s an expert in anything, except perhaps buffoonery. When she
opens her mouth—especially on matters of grave import—I just laugh.”
“[George] Soros is the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party and the modern left.
[…] Almost every major liberal organization, think tank or media outlet has been
the beneficiary of Mr. Soros’ largesse. The Nation magazine, Mother Jones,
Media Matters, MoveOn.org, NPR and the Center for American Progress – all
together they have received tens of millions of dollars from the financier. They
serve as front groups and propaganda vehicles to promote Mr. Soros’ brand of
transnational socialism.”
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
An appeal “to the
popular.” An advocate who commits this fallacy intentionally avoids what an
opponent says by asking the audience to make an immediate emotional decision regarding the subject of argument. Ideally, one should have some rational basis on
which they are persuaded to believe one thing or another. One should, in other
words, try not to make a priori decisions, or decisions from prior knowledge (or
feeling). Instead, one should attempt to honestly evaluate the good reasons advocates
(should) use to warrant their judgments. Obviously this does not always happen. |
|
|
Term
| ARGUMENTUM AD POPULAM (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“A recent news report headline read: ‘Too Many Babies Are Delivered Too
Early: Hospitals Should Learn To Just Say No.’ There is a reason it channels the
language of anti-drug campaigns: ‘Just Say No!’ There is a reason natural
pregnancies last 40 weeks. Doctors know that inducing birth early is wrong. They
know they are simply doing it for their own convenience and for the purpose of
keeping schedules. Can we let this continue? Can we threaten the lives of
thousands of newborns for the sake of convenience? Something must be done.”
“My opponent has tried to trick you, but you know in your heart that this man is a
menace. He has thrice been imprisoned for criminal acts, and now stands
accused again. Will you let him go free to hurt your family or terrorize your
neighborhood? Of course not. You must act now. You know what you must do.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The fallacy resides in an advocate’s use of precedent as an excuse for
acting or speaking in a certain way, suggesting that because someone else did
something, he or she should be justified in doing so. While common sense has it that
two wrongs don’t make a write, this line of reasoning holds that two (or ten or twenty)
wrongs make a right. It also frequently prompts an advocate to do precisely what he
or she might otherwise criticize in others. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“High ranking executives at AIG wrote themselves 165 million dollars worth of
bonus checks after receiving a massive government bailout. In support of
reclaiming as much of that money as possible, Keith Obermann felt that we
should ‘screw these guys out of these bonuses the way they screwed us.’ I couldn’t
agree more. If one does the screwing, so too should he or she get screwed.”
“The death penalty is a mechanism of retaliatory punishment visited by the state
on those who commit heinous and irreparable acts—usually murder. John
McAdams of the Marquette University Department of Political Science says the
following: ‘If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we
have killed a bunch of murderers.’ An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
makes for a fair and just legal system.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
____________ is an “irrelevant [or] ignorant conclusion.” It is committed when
an advocate, whether consciously or unconsciously, misinterprets what his or her
opponent says and constructs an argument in terms of this misinterpretation (it is thus
a variation of a non sequitur, which literally means “it does not follow” and points to
conclusions that do not follow particular patterns of evidence). However, _____________ is reached
by an advocate who takes it upon him- or herself to prove (or disprove) an argument
about something that is not even at stake. Oftentimes the misinterpretation centers on
an equivocal word (usually a value term). From there, the advocate uses his or her
own understanding of a word such as “progress” or “moral” rather than the definition
intended by the opponent. The advocate, in the process, usually suggests that his or
her opponent is addled for having suggested an absurdity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“In response to President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address, in which he
focused on the theme of ‘Winning the Future,’ critics abbreviated the term
‘WTF’ into a more commonly known acronym. What an apt summation of the
state of our Union. People who think our politicians have any clue how to solve
this country’s problems ought to understand their plan by way of the acronym. I
hear the empty promises and I think: WTF!”
“Some people have likened our need to fix public education to the 1960s space
race against the former USSR. Why do people want to move backward? Why
would we, as a nation, want to regress, especially for a moon-shot? The last thing
we need to do is devote federal funds to a system that fuels ideals, not results.
There is no such thing as the modern day space race. Instead of taking steps
toward an achievable education system, with higher high school graduation rates
and improved inner city schools, we are taking giant leaps backward.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Occurs whenever the advocate employs terms that are equivocal or
ambiguous in a manner that achieves strategic advantage in an argument.
The ________ of equivocation occurs when an advocate shifts the meaning
of a term in the course of an argument so that it has two different and often
competing or incompatible definitions. |
|
|
Term
| FAULTY DEFINITION (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“The President of
the United States cannot declare war without the approval of Congress. President
Ford declared a war on inflation without seeking congressional approval. He should
therefore have been impeached.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This fallacy entices an opponent to divert his or
her attention to an irrelevant or purposefully contentious point or issue. Oftentimes, a
__________ is phrased in provocative language meant to evoke an emotional response
and lead one to lose his or her cool. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“In 2011, Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted to Internet affairs
after an explicit “sex picture” was publicized. Soon thereafter, he was pushed to
resign. This might have been another scene in the ever more common political
drama of saving face, but what do we really ask of our politicians? To not be
human? To be chaste? To be perfect? Weiner has already apologized profusely,
confessing that he ‘[had] not been honest with [himself], [his] family, [his]
constituents, [his] friends, [his] supporters and the media.’ Isn’t this strikingly
similar to the Tiger Woods scandal? Of course it is, and it is not a problem of
politics. No, the problem is not with the personal decisions of our public figures,
but rather a public that so willingly feeds at the trough of controversy. I could care
less about Weiner’s personal choices. Could you?” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An argument establishing a ____________ disregards nuance in order to argue the
inevitability of undesirable outcomes resultant of a particular choice. Put differently,
attempting to divert attention away from a question at issue, an advocate claims
without specific evidence that a certain decision, if made, will set in motion a series of
increasingly severe consequences. In many ways, this is a purposeful perversion of
cause-and-effect reasoning insofar as an effect is presented as the consequence of a
particular cause, rather than as the consequence of a series of future decisions that
may or may not be made in the future. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The current political uprisings around the world and specifically in the Middle
East have caused oil prices to reach their highest price in two-and-a-half years.
Civil unrest has led to many different countries shutting down operations and
ports until they feel secure to resume business. The spike in prices has raised
concern and some speculate it could slow down America’s economic recovery
indefinitely. Unless the United States government restores relative peace in the
Middle East by any means necessary – at least in the short term – Americans will
be left to choose between putting gas in their cars and buying goods at the store.
And without enough money to put gas in their cars, Americans will soon be
unable to get to the jobs they need to pay for those goods.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
________________ is literally an “appeal to ignorance,” which attempts
to establish that a proposition is true insofar as it has not been proven false. As such,
this argument fallaciously mistakes a lack of evidence for evidence of the contrary. An
advocate who advances such an argument essentially argues that if he or she cannot
be proven wrong, he or she must be right. |
|
|
Term
| ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTUM (Ex. a) |
|
Definition
“Who said any [of my claims] were unwarranted or not true? Chris has never
come out and denied anything. There is a reason why he isn’t giving interviews
and that’s because he can’t defend what’s on the blog.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A ________ is an opponent that does not exist. An advocate who advances _______ argument purposefully misrepresents the position of his or her opponent (or
creates one ex nihilo), argues against that position, and then claims his or her
disproof of that position as an argumentative triumph. This is a fairly popular tactic in
contemporary politics. However, it can appear not only as a subtle tactic, but also as
an ambiguous turn of phrase that acts as a seemingly innocuous basis of an argument.
For example, as many commentators have noted, George W. Bush used to begin
arguments with “Some say,” or “Some of my opponents say,” or “Some in
Washington,” or “Some people believe,” or…. It is a subtle move, but this “Some” is
actually a _______ (or a collection of ________). The reason is that Bush
would follow these argumentative foundations with a position he disagreed with just
so he could rebuff it. Wayne Fields, a scholar of presidential rhetoric, calls this an
increasingly prevalent phenomenon in contemporary politics whereby one “can have
arguments with nonexistent people.” It goes without saying that neither one side nor
another is the sole practitioner. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“There is a Conservative faction in this country that cares about nothing but
privatization. Many of them argue to privatize social security. Many of them also
argue to privatize the whole of the education system. I don’t know what their
motives are, but their end goals are obvious.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An advocate who commits the fallacy follows this logic to
assert: “They laugh at me, so I must be right.” In other words, an advocate will argue
that, because his or her ideas are widely criticized, the ideas must be right. It should
be obvious that controversy neither precedes nor follows correctness of necessity. As
such, a ______ is an argumentative ploy that attempts to coerce people into
being persuaded by virtue of an argument being an object of serious contention. It is
in some ways, then, an excuse to be polemical. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“Of course, I am something of a political provocateur. Long ago, I resolved that I
was going to draw on my experience in the left and fight fire with fire. I was
determined to speak to and about the left in its own morally uncompromising
voice. […] I will continue to speak (as the left likes to say) ‘truth to power.’ I will
do it, even though it means being tagged as a provocateur.” |
|
|
