Chapter 3.2: Fallacies of Relevance

Question 1

Fallacies of Relevance

Answer 1

Fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
In these fallacies the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional.
To identify a fallacy of relevance one must be able to distinguish genuine evidence form various forms of emotional appeal

Question 2

Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force)

Answer 2

Appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer presents a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.
The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may be either an individual or group of people.

Question 3

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity)

Answer 3

The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener. This pity may be directed towards the arguer or towards some third party.
(appeal to sympathy/arguments of compassion are not fallacious)

Question 4

Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the people)

Answer 4

The appeal to the people uses the desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion. Two approaches are involved: one of them direct, the other indirect.

Question 5

Direct approach Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people)

Answer 5

Direct: occurs when the arguer, addressing a large group of people excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his/her conclusion. (The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality).
- Negative emotions can also arouse mob mentality. Appeal to fear, also known as fear mongering, that occurs when a arguer trumps up a fear of something in the mind of the crowd and then uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion.

Question 6

Indirect approach Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people)

Answer 6

Indirect approach: the arguer aims his/her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of those individuals’ relationship to the crowd.

• Bandwagon argument: has this general structure: everybody believes such-and-such or does such-and-such; therefore, you should believe or do such-and-such, too.
• Appeal to vanity: often involves linking the love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of. This version of the fallacy is often used by advertisers, parents, and people in general.
• Appeal to snobbery: the crowd that the arguer appeals to is smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way-more. The listener wants to be part of this group, then her or she will do a certain thing, think in a certain way, or buy a certain product.
• Appeal to tradition: It occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for some conclusion.

Question 7

Arumentum ad Hominem (Argument against the person)

Answer 7

This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and the other than responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person.
Three forms: abusive, circumstantial, and tu quoque.
- Abusive: The second verbally abuses the first person.
- Circumstantial: the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. (predisposed arguments/bias)
- Tu Quoque (“you too”) the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. (exception testimony or testing the trustworthiness of a person).

Question 8

Accident

Answer 8

The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Typically, the general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion.

Question 9

Straw man

Answer 9

The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.

Question 10

Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the point)

Answer 10

This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support on particular conclusion, but when a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.
“Draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely”

Question 11

Red Herring

Answer 11

This fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He/she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.