The most important goal of the next two chapters is that you see the value of criticizing arguments for the purpose of making beliefs or positions better supported. It is not to accumulate a number of labels to win debates or impress people in conversations. I find that I must emphasize this over and over. Students are so conditioned to think that education involves names, dates, and facts that they consistently think they will get a good grade on an exam if they memorize or can recognize the fallacies covered in this chapter.

To overcome this, you should be made aware of two sub-goals of these chapters. (1) Bad arguments do not necessarily come ready-made with a fixed label. Multiple interpretations are always possible. You must argue for an interpretation. (2) You must know exactly where an argument is weak in order to know what kind of discussion and evidence would make it stronger. Thus, the previous three chapters were essential preparation for doing well in analyzing fallacies. Knowing the difference between criticizing an argument's premises in terms of questionable truth status and criticizing the reasoning (Chapter 1) is crucial for understanding that in fallacies of relevance we do not bother to question the truth of the premises, or that in fallacies of weak induction (Chapter 5), the focus is on the weak induction rather than the truth of the premises. Concurrently, knowing this difference is also crucial for knowing why the premises are criticized in the fallacies of questionable premise (Chapter 5). Furthermore, knowing that language use can be unfair (Chapter 2) is important background for understanding how to criticize fallacies of presumption (Chapter 5). Finally, understanding the major point in Chapter 3 -- that we must use inductive reasoning while accepting its tentativeness and uncertainty, yet be capable of making rational distinctions in comparative strengths of inductive arguments -- is crucial for doing well in criticizing arguments of weak induction (Chapter 5).

You will have an easy time on the first exam, if you know how to use what I call the "formal essence" of each fallacy as a guide. By understanding and using these summaries, which occur at the end of each fallacy presentation, you will learn why logicians and mathematicians use symbols. They are intended to summarize and save us time. Once we see the essence of a particular fallacy, we only have to think about it once, so to speak. In other words, you should be able to see the value of pattern recognition, that even though the content may be very different, there are repetitive patterns in terms of good and bad reasoning.

In preparation for the exam, the most important exercise is II in both chapters 4 & 5. You will have four fallacies to analyze on the exam. Each will be worth 20 points and will be evaluated as follows:

Statement of premises and conclusion = 10 pts.

Label and brief description = 5 pts.

Argument Analysis = 5 pts

The grading here is somewhat flexible. It is possible for you to make a case for a fallacy interpretation different from what I had in mind. But you must make a case consistent with the guideline (formal essence/recipe) given in the textbook for the intended fallacy interpretation. (Look at the answer for #1, Ex. II. Popularity or Provincialism can fit if one chooses the appropriate premise.) However, not just any interpretation will work. For instance, some students try to make Ad Hominem Abusive fit #3, using the phrase "tired leadership" as an example of name-calling. But if you follow the recipe for this fallacy, 4-8a, the conclusion and argument would have to be about George Bush. It will not work, because the argument is about supporting Bill Clinton.

I know you probably have not read Chapter 5 yet, but for future reference here are some typical confusions. Students will often confuse Ad Hominem Circumstantial with Straw Person. Both attack a person, but Ad Hominem does not cite, in the premises, any of the person's logically relevant reasons for his or her position, whereas Straw Person attempts to but distorts those reasons. So, if students are going to attempt an Ad Hominem interpretation, they better have a premise that describes motives and circumstances rather than the points at issue or I will take off a significant number of points. Similarly, students often confuse Questionable Cause and Slippery Slope. The former has a generalized causal conclusion, whereas the latter has a generalized causal premise. Moreover, there is a very big difference between Ad Hominem Circumstantial and Appeal to Popularity, even though both have premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion. Sometimes it is very clear that students have a very superficial understanding of the fallacies, such as when they describe a Suppressed Evidence fallacy (Chapter 5) as an example where the relevant issues have been "suppressed"! What they should mean, of course, is that the relevant issues are not even discussed and a fallacy of relevance applies. On the other hand, there can be many examples where the content is such that we need not quibble over the label. Sometimes it matters little whether the fallacy is an Appeal to Popularity, Authority, Provincialism, snob appeal, and so on.
 

Reminders:  

1. All the fallacies in this chapter are the same; they all have premises that talk about subjects that are not logically relevant to the conclusion.  Regardless of what label you pick, the focus in the argument analysis should be on why the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Specifically, you should develop your argument analysis by specifying in detail what should be discussed relevant to the conclusion.  For instance, if we see an advertisement for a car, the relevant focus should be on the details of the car -- price, quality, competition, and warranty -- rather than the alleged popularity of the car.  If we see a pitch to support a particular politician, the relevant issues should be the politicians qualifications, stance on the issues, past record on issues, leadership qualities, and plans for the future, not whether a particular group is supporting the politician, etc.

Note: the example of questionable cause used in the beginning of the chapter is only for purposes of structuring arguments.  It is not a fallacy of relevance. It will be covered in Chapter 5.


2. Students who do the best on the homework (Ex. II) and the first exam know how to use the "recipes" or formal essences for each fallacy.  Notice that in the text, each discussion of a fallacy shows an example, a write-up of the example in terms of the format we will be using, and then the so-called "formal essence" of the fallacy.  Students have a better name than formal essence; they call it the "recipe."  Many students copy the recipes down for all 20 fallacies (Chapters 4 & 5) on two or three sheets of paper in preparation for exam.  It is very important to practice using the format and applying it to the exercises (II) in both chapters 4 and 5.  There will be four fallacies such as these on the major exam that occurs after we finish Chapter 5.

The Ice Cube commercial

The Virginia Slims commercial

Also see a recent Provincialism Appeal to Muslims

And an excellent example of Appeal to Authority

By now the point should be very clear that much of the persuasion used against us to manipulate how we think and what we should buy is "psychological" rather than logical.  As a final example of the extreme manipulative tactics politicians will use to get us to vote for them, take a look at a political commercial from the 2000 presidential campaign between George Bush and Al Gore.  In this commercial on Bush's stance on solving the prescription drug problem for senior citizens, the Bush media people superimposed a subliminal message (RATS) over an alleged description (Bureaucrats) of Al Gore's plan.  You will need a plug-in to play this commercial and it may take awhile to download with a regular modem.  But after seeing the commercial once, you can click on the back arrow and see the film in slow motion.  You will then clearly see the word 'Rats' superimposed over the word 'Bureaucrats.'  For a criticism of the Bush drug plan and how it benefited mostly the drug companies, see the article "The K Street Prescription."

Finally, some examples of recent ads that say nothing about the product but are designed to change our psychological views about their product.

Honda Ad1

Toyota Ad

Honda Ad 2