Chapter 5 Fallacies

Again due to time constraints, we will focus on only a sample of the fallacies in Chapter 5.   For the exercises and exam, study carefully and write down the recipes for:

Slippery Slope
Questionable Dilemma
Straw Person
Hasty Conclusion
Questionable Cause
Questionable Analogy
Suppressed Evidence

See the exercise list below.   Again, it should be easy to cut and paste from the textbook the example set and the recipe for each above.

Points to remember for each fallacy

Slippery Slope

SS is a questionable premise fallacy so we do not focus on the reasoning in the AA as being weak.   The argument form shown in the recipe is a valid deductive argument.   The problem and focus should be on the key slippery slope premise - If A happens, then B happens, which will make C happen and then D happen.   The implication is that all of these occurrences are very bad things, especially D.   Because we don't want D to happen, we conclude that we should not do A.

Note that the key SS premise is an assertion of a causal chain of events - A will cause B, B will cause C, C will cause D.   The first video for C5 notes that students will often confuse this fallacy with Questionable Cause due to the causal chain in the premise of SS.   But QC always has the causal claim in the conclusion and not in the premise.

Hence, unlike QC (see below), the problem with SS is that no evidence for the SS premise is given and that should then be the focus for the AA.   Although the argument is valid, the premise is unfair, questionable, and probably (with a little argument) false.

Example from a previous exam: (Argument by a U.S. senator in 2010)

"We should not repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for gay service men and women in our military.   If we do, it will lead to a decadent atmosphere brimming with alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art.   It will just be a matter of time before we have an explosion of homosexual assaults in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators.   It will weaken our ability to fight our enemies and destroy our military."

Notice the prediction of all the bad things that will allegedly happen if the policy on same sex orientation in the military is changed.   The argument is valid, but at the time no evidence was presented that these events will occur or that they were even probable.

Study the AA in the SS recipe.   To make a case that this is a SS fallacy, we need to not only point out that no evidence is presented for the controversial premise but also argue that the causal links predicted are unlikely.   That usually requires some critical thinking and information.   Have other countries allowed gays to serve openly in their militaries?   If yes, have bad things happened?   Yes and No.   Canada, Britain, and Israel allow gays to openly serve in their militaries, but no it has not weakened their militaries.

Students will ask, "What if this one was on the exam and I did not know this information!?"   In life if you are not well-informed, you will be taken advantage of with any fallacy of questionable premise.   We need more than logic.   Information is power.   But you should at least now see the underlying form of SS in the above argument and if this issue was important to you, you would have a focus to do some research.

Plus, notice in the exercises for both C4 and C5 some of the fallacies have accompanying notes to help you with background information.   This information could be relevant to any of the fallacies.   Some notes will help you think about relevant issues for fallacies of relevance.   Some will help you with information related to a questionable premise such as SS, and some will help you identify suppressed evidence (see below).

For the example above, this note was on the exam:

"Note: The policy, in effect since the early 1990s, essentially says that gays can serve in the military provided that they not advertise their sexual orientation.   The military will not ask and gays should not tell or advertise their sexual orientation.   If it does become known that they are gay, they will be discharged from the military.

Those who support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy claim that it has not been perfect but it has worked, and it is not the time to have a social experiment in the military as we attempt to fight two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).   It will make the military less unified and effective.   Some also argue that homosexuality is not a civil rights issue like skin color; it is a lifestyle choice that is potentially disruptive to the military.   Those who support repealing the policy claim that discrimination in the military against gays serves no useful purpose.   That many gays face death daily and are rewarded with the fear that they could be kicked out of the military if anyone finds out they are gay.   They also point out that many gays have been kicked out of the military that have had valuable skills, such as the ability to speak Arabic and Farsi.   Plus, Canada, Britain, and Israel allow gays to serve openly and this service has not weakened their militaries, and the armed forces need every qualified person."

For a humorous use of SS in advertising see the Direct TV ads.

Questionable Dilemma

Notice the highlights from the recipe.   There must be an "Either A or B" statement in a premise.   Another premise will say or imply that one of these options is bad, and then the conclusion will be that the other option is good.   Hence a valid argument and the focus again should be on questionable premise.   Then the AA must contain some discussion of a possible third alternative to show that the A or B statement is not true or at least very questionable.   Infamous Bush administration appeal in 2003: "Either we fight terrorism in Iraq or we will have to fight them in the United States."

Not the only choices, but notice one would have to be informed that the Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and that there were many different views on how best to fight terrorism, including non-military intervention and smaller militrary covert options.   Again, we need more than logic.   Information is power.

Straw Person

Another questionable premise fallacy.   In this case, IF the premises were true, the argument would appear to support the conclusion well.   From the recipe and examples in the textbook, notice the highlights.   Similar to Ad Hominem circumstantial, a person or group is attacked in the conclusion as being wrong about a position on an issue.   But unlike Ad Hominem, the premise is relevant to the conclusion - there will be an attempt to describe the person's or group's position on an issue.   However, the attempted description will be false or at least very questionable, being an exaggeration or distortion of the person's or group's true position.

Again, the burden is on us to be informed that the premise or premises is an exaggeration or distortion of the person's true position.   At least after studying the trick behind this fallacy, one would be wise to be cautious when anyone is describing a position of someone else you know the person disagrees with, as when a Democrat describes what a Republican believes or a Republican describe what a Democrat believes.

See the Dukakis example, Ex. II, #8, in Chapter 5.   A single Trident II submarine has enough nuclear weapons on it to destroy about 200 cities.   A "slingshot"?

For some recent whopper SPs, see this segment on the the Daily Show.

Hasty Conclusion

To understand this fallacy and its cousin, so to speak, Questionable Cause, we need to remember the concept of a weak inductive argument from Chapter 3.   Notice the general highlights for both fallacies: reasoning is weak, but premise is relevant to the conclusion.   As the first video for Chapter 5 shows, notice the difference with fallacies of relevance - reasoning is weak and premise(s) is NOT relevant to the conclusion.

So, fallacies of weak induction (HC and QC) provide some evidence for their conclusions but the argument in the AA will be that the evidence provided is very weak.

Example of HC:

"Legalizing gay marriage will be very bad for children.   Jasmine and Mikayla are horrible parents to their daughter Madison.   They are crystal meth addicts and often do not even take six-year old Madison to school or feed her regularly."

Notice the generalization.   One gay parental example generalizing to all gay parents.   One example is "some" evidence and so unlike a fallacy of relevance this one example is relevant to the conclusion.   The AA focus should be an application of the C3 concepts - not a representative sample, no statistical comparison with heterosexual parents, or use of induction by enumeration.

Questionable Cause

Study the recipe.   Note the highlights - a "before and after" time sequence in the premises (A happened, then B happened) and always an "A caused B" in the conclusion.

In the brief description, be sure to copy correctly: causal connection in the conclusion, not a casual connection!

In the AA, almost everything can be copied from the recipe except we must make some attempt to describe other possible causes, other possible events happening at the same time.   Students will complain about #1, Ex. II in C5.   If you were not even born yet when our military was in Vietnam, how can you be expected to know all the events happening at the same time as the college demonstrations?   No excuse.   We have had two other wars recently (Afghanistan and Iraq).   One should know the possible dangers of having our country invade another country.   Will our troops understand the culture and language?   Will the local people support us or resent us being there?   Won't a local insurgency have a huge advantage?

Did our political leaders understand the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and their history of religious disagreement and violence against each other before invading Iraq?

Questionable Analogy

Technically the book classifies this argument as fallacy of presumption - a type of questionable premise.   A questionable analogy occurs in the premise and hence we should not presume evidence has been offered for the conclusion just because a creative analogy has been used to get our attention.   Key point: creative analogies can help us understand arguments, but they are not direct evidence that the conclusion is true.   For example, "Evolution of life on Earth is just like a huge bush of developing branches of life."   This analogy is often used in science to help people understand the concept of evolution, but what should convince us that evolution is true is a vast amount of anatomical, fossil, geological, and genetic evidence showing that the past branches really occurred.

Highlights: (see the recipe in C5)

"Saying that women should be free to choose to have an abortion or not is just like saying one should be free to rob a bank"   Robbing a bank is bad, so pro-choice on abortion is wrong.   For the above evolution example, a bush is something we see; we know it exists.   So, evolution exists.

Notice the recipe requires that we argue against the analogy.   We not only point out that we should not presume any evidence has been offered yet, but argue that the analogy is questionable - that there are differences in the two things being compared.   Abortion is legal, bank robbing is not.   Although a bush grows, the branches exist all at once, visible at the same time; the branches of evolution do not exist all at once.

Some infamous analogies on Iraq.

"Establishing democracy in Iraq will work.   If the seeds of democracy can be planted and then the tree can be allowed to grow, democracy will be able to reign.   It may not be within this generation but definitely in the next two.   Think of the bamboo plant.   It spends most of its life underground and you think it's dead.   Then, it shoots up in the air, growing 15 to 20 feet tall in one year.   Patience is what Iraq needs."

"Invading Iraq to establish democracy is like trying to fix a broken plane during takeoff."

Suppressed Evidence

Students need to be careful using this fallacy.   Too often some think it applies to just about every weak argument. No. The premise is true and appears to offer a good reason for the conclusion.   Remember the simple Crest toothpaste advertisement of the 1950's.

"Buy Crest toothpaste for your children, because it has fluoride."

True premise and having fluoride containing toothpaste is a good reason to buy it since the fluoride will help prevent cavities.   So we don't argue that the premise is false or questionable and we don't argue that the reasoning is weak.   Instead we point out a simple omitted fact - other brands of toothpaste also contained fluoride.   When this suppressed fact is known we see that we really have not been given sufficient reason to buy Crest rather than another brand.

The Bush example in the SE section of Chapter 5 shows that politicians are very good at spinning the facts and using suppressed evidence.   Fact - Massachusetts did lose 26,000 jobs while Dukakis was governor.   But these were old manufacturing jobs and the state gained over 250,000 new high tech jobs during this time.

Here is an example from the 2012 presidential election.

Obama is anti-business.   In a recent speech he claimed that if you built a business in this country, "you didn't build that.   Well who did? The government?"

Here is what Obama said in a speech.


"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back.   They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. . . . Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.   If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.   There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.   Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.   Somebody invested in roads and bridges.   If you've got a business - you didn't build that.   Somebody else made that happen.   The Internet didn't get invented on its own.   Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.   The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.   There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.   I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.   That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

 

Students will often confuse Suppressed Evidence with Straw Person.   Remember that the premise in SP is false, but the premise in SE is true.   Again, see the Dukakis example, Ex. II, #8, in Chapter 5.   SP is best for that argument because it is easy to make a case that the premise is false - Dukakis did not oppose every new weapon's system since the slingshot.   He supported some very powerful military weapons.

But what about the Obama example above?   Isn't the premise false that Obama said if you built a business in this country you did not build it, the government did?   Isn't it true that he was referring to the infrastructure (roads and bridges) that businesses need to thrive?   Good point.   If this was the explanation in the AA, the SP would be better. (Notice the Daily Show treatment of this example linked above seems to focus on SP.)   But conservative media news reports at the time quoted Obama directly (and of course selectively and out of context), " If you've got a business - you didn't build that. "   See this video.   Notice the editing at the beginning to include no reference to government supported infrastructure.

Put this way, it is true Obama made that exact statement.   Showing then that the statement was selected out of context would best fit Suppressed Evidence.

Bottom line.   For the AA in SE we must be able to list a specific fact or facts of crucial omitted information that changes the perspective on the persuasiveness of the original argument.   But the listing of the fact or facts does not show that the premise is false as it would with SP.

Exercise List

Here are the Exercise II exercises for the above labels to try fallacy analysis: 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 18-25, 29-32, 35.

Quiz

 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

Slippery Slope and Questionable Cause are very similar, because both have a causal claim made in the conclusion.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

If someone uses an "A caused B, B causes C and D" premise, but also attempts to provide evidence that A will cause B and B will cause C, and so on, then the argument is not a Slippery Slope fallacy.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

A Questionable Dilemma fallacy will always have an "either/or" premise and we must attempt to show that this premise is false in the AA, arguing that there are more than just two options noted in the premise.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

For a Straw Person fallacy, we must be able to argue in the AA that a key premise is false, that a person's positon being described is an exaggeration or distortion of the person's true position.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

Suppressed Evidence is similar to Straw Person. We must be able to show in the AA that a key premise is false.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

In a Questionable Analogy fallacy, we must make some attempt in the AA to show that there are differences in the two things being compared in the analogy.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

In a Questionable Cause fallacy, in the AA we only need to make the point that there might be other possible causes. We don't need to list any.
 
 

 spacerToggle open/close quiz question

In analyzing a Suppressed Evidence fallacy, we must state or list in the AA a specific fact or facts that have been omitted, a fact or facts of which make a big difference in how strong we view the argument.
 
 

Final Thoughts

To do well on the exam, you have to "jump in" and try some fallacy analyses. Don't just identify a label thinking that will be good enough for exam preparation. The label identification is only worth a few points. (See below.) Always use the recipes as a guide. If a fallacy jumps out at you, go to the recipe for that label and try to get it to work. If nothing jumps out, then at least identify the premise and conclusion. Take the process in steps. Find the conclusion, identify the premises, then try to match with a label. Then follow the recipe to see if the label works. Use the Laulima Discussion Forum to post fallacy analysis attempts for feedback. Also use the Laulima forum to post general questions about the fallacies.

The more you practice trying to apply the recipes the better you will get.

Grading for each fallacy:

Note that one can get 15 or 16 points by just following the recipe and mostly copying. To get 17-20, B+ to A+, you have to do some creative critical thinking as directed by each AA recipe -- why are the links predicted in SS unlikely, what are other possible causes for QC, what is the person's real position for SP, and so on.


return to top