Evaluating Fallacious Arguments

Below is a series of five fallacious arguments. In one paragraph each, explain why each argument is fallacious and identify the fallacy being committed. In identifying the relevant fallacy, be sure to give an explanation of what that fallacy is. Be comprehensive in your explanations, and cite at least one source to support each explanation (in APA format).

Argument 1

1. My algebra class is a nightmare.

2. Nightmares are bad dreams.

3. Therefore, my algebra class is a bad dream.

Argument 2

We can trust the Andrew’s testimony because Andrew himself said so, and Andrew is a trustworthy person. Evaluating Fallacious Arguments

Argument 3

If we loosen the office dress code, soon everyone will start showing up naked! Therefore, we shouldn’t loosen the office dress code.

Argument 4

Nobody has disproven that there exists alien life. So, until proven otherwise, it’s reasonable to conclude that alien life does exist.

Evaluating Fallacious Arguments

Argument 5

You shouldn’t vote Republican because Republicans hate the poor, and you shouldn’t vote Democrat because Democrats hate business owners.

Anyone who has ever made a mistake in reasoning has committed a fallacy. To say that an argument is fallacious is to say that it contains an error of some kind. More specifically, a fallacy is committed when our reasoning fails to satisfy all three of the following conditions (found on page 8 of your textbook):

1. The premises of our reasoning are believable, given what we already know or believe.

2. We consider all likely relevant information.

3. Our reasoning is valid, or correct, which means that the premises we employ provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion we draw. Evaluating Fallacious Arguments

Fallacies are divided into two main categories: fallacies of questionable premises and fallacies of inference.

Fallacies of Questionable Premises

Fallacies of questionable premises are as the name suggests: they involve the use of premises whose truth we should doubt.

One common fallacy of questionable premise is the appeal to authority. This fallacy is committed when one appeals to an improper authority in support of a conclusion. For example: “We ought to enact tax reform because a group of biologists thinks it’s a good idea.” This argument is fallacious because biologists do not have the relevant expertise when it comes to tax policy. Note, however, that appealing to authority is not always fallacious. If the authority being appealed to is legitimate, then the appeal to authority is not fallacious.

The fallacy of inconsistency is committed when one presents an argument that contains self-contradictory premises.

The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opposing position. This fallacy is committed when one attacks a misrepresentation as if it was the actual position, thereby attacking a “straw man” instead of the real thing. Evaluating Fallacious Arguments.

The fallacy of the false dilemma (also called the “either-or” fallacy) involves positing a limited number of options when more are available (hence the term “false dilemma”).

An argument is guilty of begging the question or circular reasoning if it assumes the very thing it tries to prove. This fallacy is committed when the conclusion is used as a premise to demonstrate its own truth. Evaluating Fallacious Arguments

Fallacies of suppressed evidence (or overlooked evidence) are committed when one fails to bring relevant evidence to bear on an argument.

Fallacies of questionable premises that are not captured under the preceding categories can be described as general instances of the fallacy of questionable premises.

Fallacies of Inference

Fallacies of inference pertain to the connection between a premise and a conclusion. They are committed when a premise fails to support the conclusion in question.

The ad hominem fallacy is committed when one attacks the person giving an argument rather than the issue that is actually at stake.

The guilt by association fallacy involves judging some claim as wrong because of its association with a disreputable group.

The two wrongs make a right fallacy (also known as the tu quoque fallacy) involves justifying an action by pointing to a similar action on part of the opposition.

The appeal to popularity fallacy is committed when some claim is justified on the basis of the number of people who hold it.

The fallacy of irrelevant reason (also called non sequitur) involves justifying some claim on the basis of evidence that is irrelevant.

The equivocation fallacy involves the use of some term or expression in two different senses throughout the same argument.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy is committed when one holds that a lack of evidence showing a claim to be false is evidence that the claim is in fact true.

The appeal to fear fallacy is committed when one appeals to fear instead of reason in support of a particular policy or proposal.

The appeal to pity fallacy involves the inappropriate use of pity of emotion to persuade someone of a given claim. Evaluating Fallacious Arguments.

The fallacy of composition involves reasoning from something that is true of a part to something that is true of the whole. Note, however, that part-whole inferences are not always fallacious. Whether this fallacy is involved depends on the context of the inference.

Similarly, the fallacy of division involves reasoning from the whole to the part. As with the fallacy of composition, whole-part inferences are not always fallacious.

Finally, the slippery slope fallacy is committed when one argues that a particular position should be avoided because it will lead to a series of actions that lead to absurdity. Note that slippery slope arguments are not always fallacious. Whether slippery slope reasoning is fallacious will depend on the context. Evaluating Fallacious Arguments

Evaluating Fallacious Arguments