AP Notes 21-40 Flashcards
These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.
Fallacies of Relevance
This argument uses force, the thread of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a least report when evidence or rational arguments foil to convince a reader.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right”)
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.” Or, “Ha! I’m not reading that book. It
was published in Tennessee, and we know all Tennessee folk are hillbillies
and rednecks!” This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of
argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately
below.
Genetic Fallacy
: 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
Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feeling and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with propagandists, demagogues, and advertisers.
Ex: Shakespeare’s version of Marc Antony’s eulogy
Argumentum ad Populum (“Argument to the People”)
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 the consumers who purchased IBM computers prefer them over Macintosh; they 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
In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; she merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman, we might add a fourth category, “Covering Oneself in the
Cross.” This argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because
it is somehow “Christian,” and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an “un-Christian” or “godless”
manner. (It is similar to the patriotic approach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of
patriotism.) Examples include the various “Christian Voting Guides” that appear near election time,
many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden financial/political agendas, or
the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win
the trust of those he would fleece. Keep in mind Moliere’s question in Tartuffe: “Is not a face quite
different than a mask?” Is not the appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity?
Christians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it.
RECAP of Approaches
This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true
because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has
always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban
growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so
why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it
seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even
better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing
from the way they were thirty years ago?
Appeal to Tradition
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 a famous
individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a
strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or
economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite
Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and
psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is
one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal
motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, “To determine whether
fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents.” Or again, “To find out
whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander’s breeding grounds, we
interviewed the supervisors of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem.” Indeed, it is
important to get “both viewpoints” on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a
source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments.
Appeal to Improper Authority
concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to
reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for
the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy.
For example, in the 1880s, prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was
guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a “not-guilty” plea for on the grounds
that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. This
appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of
whether or not he did the crime.
Appeal to Emotion
Asserting that an argument must be false because the
implications of it being true would create negative results. For instance, “The medical tests show that
Grandma has advanced cancer. However, that can’t be true because then she would die! I refuse to
believe it!” The argument is illogical because truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much
we like or dislike the consequences of that truth. Grandma, indeed, might have cancer, in spite of how
negative that fact may be or how cruelly it may affect us.
Argument from Adverse Consequences
