Fallacies

Question 1

Fallacy of declaring standpoints sancrosanct

Answer 1

One way to limit the expression of standpoints and doubts is to declare certain standpoints sacrosanct, or not open to question

Question 2

Fallacy of declaring the standpoints taboo

Answer 2

‘I don’t think you should say that Grandmother shouldn’t have remarried. One should not speak ill of the dead.’

Question 3

Fallacy of the stick/argumentum ad baculum

Answer 3

Any threat that aims to restrict the other party from freely putting forward his standpoint or criticism

Question 4

Fallacy of appeal to pity/argumentum ad misericordiam

Answer 4

An effective wayof putting pressure on the other party is to play on his emotions:“How can you have given me a failing mark for my thesis?I’ve worked on it night and day.”

Question 5

Ad hominem/abusive variant

Answer 5

A direct personal attack on the other party, which, because of its insulting nature, is called the abusive variant: It made me so drowsy to read his response in last week’s edition that I will not even take the trouble to reply to his musings. The man is weak in the head, and blessed are the innocent of spirit.

Question 6

Ad hominem/circumstantial variant

Answer 6

suspicion is cast on the other party’s motives, for example by suggesting that the party has a personal interest in the matter and is therefore biased.This is an indirect personal attack that is known as the circumstantial variant.

Question 7

Ad hominem/ ‘tu quoque’ variant

Answer 7

An attempt is made to undermine the other party’s credibility by pointing out a contradiction in that party’s words or deeds, for example a contradiction between their opinions in the past and the present, or between what they say and what they do

Question 8

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof

Answer 8

The most drastic way to escape the obligation to defend your standpoint is to shift the burden of proof onto the person criticizing the standpoint: “You first prove that it isn’t so.” This is committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Question 9

Fallacy of evading the burden of proof/presenting the standpoint as self-evident

Answer 9

The most drastic way to escape the obligation to defend your standpoint is to shift the burden of proof onto the person criticizing the standpoint: “You first prove that it isn’t so.” This is committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Question 10

Fallacy of evading the burden of proof/presenting the standpoint as self-evident -

Answer 10

A person commits this fallacy when presenting the standpoint as something that is self-evident:“It is obvious that…,“It goes without sayingt hat….”

Question 11

Fallacy of evading the burden of proof/giving a personal guarantee of the rightness of a standpoint

Answer 11

The protagonist can sometimes achieve a similar effect by giving a personal guarantee for the correctness of the standpoint: “I can assure yout hat…,”“There is no doubt in my mind that…,

Question 12

Fallacy of evading the burden of proof/immunizing the standpoint against criticism

Answer 12

Another ploy for evading the burden of proof is to formulate the standpoint in a way that amounts to making it immune to criticism because it cannot be tested or evaluated.Examples of such hermetic formulations of standpoints are“Women are by nature possessive,”

Question 13

Emphatically putting forward the opposite standpoint/fallacy of the straw man

Answer 13

One of the techniques for attributing a fictitious standpoint to the other party is to emphatically put forward the opposite standpoint.If someone says firmly,“I personally believe the defense of our democracy is of great importance,”she thereby suggests that her opponent thinks otherwise.

Question 14

Referring to views of the group to which the opponent belongs/fallacy of the strawman

Answer 14

Another way of attributing a fictitious standpoint to the opponent is to refer to a group to which the opponent belongs and to link that group with the fictitious standpoint: She says that she thinks this research is useful,but as a business person she naturally sees it as a waste of money.

Question 15

Creating a ficitious opponent/fallacy of the straw man

Answer 15

In a third technique, not only the standpoint is fictitious, but the opponent too.By using expressions such as“Nearly everyone thinks that …,” “Educators are of the opinion that …,” and “Everyone has been saying lately that …,” it is not stated who actually holds the standpoint being attacked.

Question 16

Taking utterances out of context, oversimplifying or exaggerating /fallacy of the straw man

Answer 16

The result is very discouraging because of the way he goes about things:quoting some sentences completely out of context,suggesting meanings that aren’t there,and finally,with several well-chosen exaggerations—which aren’t there either—making the prey ripe for his omniscient and omnivorous voracity. I find this a superficial way of discussing academic work.

Question 17

Fallacy of irrelevant argumentation/ignaritio elenchi

Answer 17

in the case of irrelevant argumentation,it is the protagonist who distorts his or her own standpoint. Instead of making it easier to attack, the shift is intended to make the standpoint easier to defend.Then the fallacy is committed of putting forward argumentation relevant only to a standpoint that is not the one at issue,which is better known as ignoratio elenchi

Question 18

Pathetic fallacy (non-argumentation)

Answer 18

Pathetic fallacies generally thrive in public discussions about which many people have strong feelings.In such situations,whoever most successfully manipulates the (positive or negative) feelings of the audience has the best chance of having a standpoint accepted.Examples of positive emotions that can be appealed to are feelings of security or loyalty. Examples of negative emotions that can be appealed to are fear,greed,and shame

Question 19

fallacy of parading one’s own qualities/ethical fallacy (non-argumentation)

Answer 19

Used to increase the audience’s faith in their expertise, credibility, or integrity, so that the audience will simply take their word for the standpoint’s acceptability. If a protagonist has a particularly strong ethos,he or she may not need to present any defense at all for the standpoint.

Question 20

fallacy of magnifying unexpressed premise

Answer 20

the fallacy consists of adding an unexpressed premise that goes beyond what is waranted and attributing a premise to the protagonist that goes beyond the commitments created by the protagonists defence.

Question 21

fallacy of denying an unexpressed premise

Answer 21

when speakers refuse responsability for elements that are indeed implied by their defence

Question 22

fallacy falsely denying an accepted starting point

Answer 22

To formulate something controversial in such an inconspicuous way that it is not noticed