AP Notes 123-143 Flashcards
This fallacy may also be used to form incorrect
conclusions that are odd. Syllogism fallacy is a false argument, as it implies
an incorrect conclusion.
syllogism fallacy
These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples
that are not relevant to the argument at hand.
fallacies of relevance
(Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right”
Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other
unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It
commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments
fail to convince a reader.
appeal to force
The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or
person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic
origin. “That car can’t possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!” Or,
“Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we
all know those people are flakes.”
genetic fallacy
(Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, “argument toward
the man.” Also called “Poisoning the Well”): Attacking or praising the
people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself.
This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is
logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The
statement “2+2=4” is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen,
or pastors.
personal attack
To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false
or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims,
communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics,
racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious.
This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather
than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This
is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue
otherwise.
abusive
To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an
argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one’s adversary is a
clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument
because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a
fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she
must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy
circumstantial
(Literally “Argument to the People”): Using an
appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of
the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with
the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this
type of argument is Shakespeare’s version of Mark Antony’s funeral
oration for Julius Caesar.
argumentum ad populem
“Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad
populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or
chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the
course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice.
For instance, “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than
Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best
computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be
valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best
one.
bandwagon approach
“Draping oneself in the flag.” This argument asserts
that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and
that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and
argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to
look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged
individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc.
patriotic approach
This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert
“everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.”
For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for
studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to
recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus
the reader had best recognize that necessity.
snob approach
this line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed
appeal to tradition
an appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with an individual
appeal to improper authority
an emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate
appeal to emotion
asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results
argument from adverse consequences
