15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know

Before Getting Into a Debate
AUG 01, 2019 DAVID FERRER

Common Logical Fallacies

 Ad Hominem
 Strawman Argument
 Appeal to Ignorance
 False Dilemma
 Slippery Slope Fallacy
 Circular Argument
 Hasty Generalization
 Red Herring Fallacy
 Tu Quoque
 Causal Fallacy
 Fallacy of Sunk Costs
 Appeal to Authority
 Equivocation
 Appeal to Pity
 Bandwagon Fallacy

Logical fallacies are like landmines; easy to overlook until you find them the hard
way. One of the most important components of learning in college is academic
discourse, which requires argumentation and debate. Argumentation and debate
inevitably lend themselves to flawed reasoning and rhetorical errors. Many of these
errors are considered logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are commonplace in the
classroom, in formal televised debates, and perhaps most rampantly, on any number
of internet forums. But what is a logical fallacy? And just as important, how can you
avoid making logical fallacies yourself? Whether you’re in college, or preparing to go
to college; whether you’re on campus or in an online bachelor’s degree program, it
pays to know your logical fallacies. This article lays out some of the most common
logical fallacies you might encounter, and that you should be aware of in your own
discourse and debate.

What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name.
Knowing how to spot and identify fallacies is a priceless skill. It can save you time,
money, and personal dignity. There are two major categories of logical fallacies,
which in turn break down into a wide range of types of fallacies, each with their own
unique ways of trying to trick you into agreement.

A Formal Fallacy is a breakdown in how you say something. The ideas are
somehow sequenced incorrectly. Their form is wrong, rendering the argument as
noise and nonsense.

An Informal Fallacy denotes an error in what you are saying, that is, the content of
your argument. The ideas might be arranged correctly, but something you said isn’t
quite right. The content is wrong or off-kilter.
For the purposes of this article, when we say logical fallacies, we refer to informal
fallacies. Following is a list of the 15 types of logical fallacies you are most likely
to encounter in discussion and debate.

1. Strawman Argument
It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The
Strawman argument is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the
strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.
Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a
lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended
upon defending anyway.

The strawman argument is a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look
stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-
starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position
will look better for it. You can imagine how strawman arguments and ad
hominem fallacies can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their
views.

With the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t
really hold.

This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing

the opponent’s position for the sake of deceiving others. But often the strawman
argument is accidental, because the offender doesn’t realize the are oversimplifying
a nuanced position, or misrepresenting a narrow, cautious claim as if it were broad
and foolhardy.

Your Turn:
See if you can detect how both of the following statements could qualify as a
strawman argument.

Example 1: “The Senator thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving
a Prius.”
Example 2: “Quite the contrary, the Senator thinks the environment is such a wreck
that no one’s car choice or driving habits would make the slightest difference.”

2. Slippery Slope Fallacy

You may have used this fallacy on your parents as a teenager: “But, you have to let
me go to the party! If I don’t go to the party, I’ll be a loser with no friends. Next thing
you know I’ll end up alone and jobless living in your basement when I’m 30!” The
slippery slope fallacy works by moving from a seemingly benign premise or starting
point and working through a number of small steps to an improbable extreme.
This fallacy is not just a long series of causes. Some causal chains are perfectly
reasonable. There could be a complicated series of causes that are all related, and
we have good reason for expecting the first cause to generate the last outcome. The
slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are
likely when there is just not enough evidence to think so.

The slippery slope fallacy suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely
when there’s just not enough evidence to think so.
It’s hard enough to prove one thing is happening or has happened; it’s even harder
to prove a whole series of events will happen. That’s a claim about the future, and
we haven’t arrived there yet. We, generally, don’t know the future with that kind of
certainty. The slippery slope fallacy slides right over that difficulty by assuming that
chain of future events without really proving their likelihood.

Your Turn:
Which of these examples is a slippery slope fallacy and which is not?

Example 1: “Your coach’s policy is that no one can be a starter on game day if they
miss practice. So, if you miss basketball practice today, you won’t be a starter in
Friday’s game. Then you won’t be the first freshman to start on the Varsity basketball
team at our school.”

Example 2: “If America doesn’t send weapons to the Syrian rebels, they won’t be
able to defend themselves against their warring dictator. They’ll lose their civil war,
and that dictator will oppress them, and the Soviets will consequently carve out a
sphere of influence that spreads across the entire Middle East.”

3. Circular Argument (petitio principii)

When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand,
it’s not arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a circular argument or circular
reasoning. If someone says, “The Bible is true; it says so in the Bible”—that’s a
circular argument. They are assuming that the Bible only speaks truth, and so they
trust it to truthfully report that it speaks the truth, because it says that it does. It is a
claim using its own conclusion as its premise, and vice versa, in the form of “If A is
true because B is true; B is true because A is true”. Another example of circular
reasoning is, “According to my brain, my brain is reliable.” Well, yes, of course we
would think our brains are in fact reliable if our brains are the one’s telling us that our
brains are reliable.

Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii, meaning “Assuming the initial
[thing]” (commonly mistranslated as “begging the question”). This fallacy is a kind of
presumptuous argument where it only appears to be an argument. It’s really just
restating one’s assumptions in a way that looks like an argument. You can recognize
a circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the
argument.
Your Turn:
Another way to explain circular arguments is that they start where they finish, and
finish where they started. See if you can identify which of these is a circular
argument.

Example 1: “Smoking pot is against the law because it’s wrong; I know it’s wrong
because it is against the law.”
Example 2: “Because smoking pot is against the law, this leads many to believe it is
wrong.”

4. Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization is a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it.
A hasty generalization is made out of a rush to have a conclusion, leading the arguer
to commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion,
overstatement, or exaggeration.

Normally we generalize without any problem; it is a necessary, regular part of

language. We make general statements all the time: “I like going to the park,”
"Democrats disagree with Republicans,” "It’s faster to drive to work than to walk," or
"Everyone mourned the loss of Harambe, the Gorilla.”

Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there’s no
single agreed-upon measure for “sufficient” evidence.
Indeed, the above phrase “all the time” is a generalization — we aren’t literally
making these statements all the time. We take breaks to do other things like eat,
sleep, and inhale. These general statements aren’t addressing every case every
time. They are speaking generally, and, generally speaking, they are true.
Sometimes you don’t enjoy going to the park. Sometimes Democrats and
Republicans agree. Sometimes driving to work can be slower than walking if the
roads are all shut down for a Harambe procession.
Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there’s no
single agreed-upon measure for “sufficient” evidence. Is one example enough to
prove the claim that, "Apple computers are the most expensive computer brand?"
What about 12 examples? What about if 37 out of 50 apple computers were more
expensive than comparable models from other brands?

There’s no set rule for what constitutes “enough” evidence. In this case, it might be
possible to find reasonable comparison and prove that claim is true or false. But in
other cases, there’s no clear way to support the claim without resorting to guesswork.
The means of measuring evidence can change according to the kind of claim you
are making, whether it’s in philosophy, or in the sciences, or in a political debate, or in
discussing house rules for using the kitchen. A much safer claim is that "Apple
computers are more expensive than many other computer brands.”

Meanwhile, we do well to avoid treating general statements like they are anything
more than simple, standard generalizations, instead of true across the board. Even if
it is true that many Apple computers are more expensive than other computers, there
are plenty of cases in which Apple computers are more affordable than other
computers. This is implied in the above generalization, but glossed over in the first
hasty generalization.
A simple way to avoid hasty generalizations is to add qualifiers like “sometimes,”
"maybe," "often," or "it seems to be the case that . . . ". When we don’t guard against
hasty generalization, we risk stereotyping, sexism, racism, or simple incorrectness.
But with the right qualifiers, we can often make a hasty generalization into a
responsible and credible claim.

Your Turn:
Which of the following is a hasty generalization?

Example 1: “Some people vote without seriously weighing the merits of the
candidate.”
Example 2: “People nowadays only vote with their emotions instead of their brains.”

5. Red Herring Fallacy (ignoratio elenchi)

A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some
sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common
when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else
instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related
to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of
clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts.

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear how
different topics relate.
The phrase “red herring” refers to a kippered herring (salted herring-fish) which was
reddish brown in color and quite pungent. According to legend, this aroma was so
strong and delectable to dogs that it served as a good training device for testing how
well a hunting dog could track a scent without getting distracted. Dogs aren’t
generally used for hunting fish so a red herring is a distraction from what he is
supposed to be hunting.

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear how
different topics relate. A “side” topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant
way. In the big meaty disagreements of our day, there are usually a lot of layers
involved, with different subtopics weaving into them. We can guard against the red
herring fallacy by clarifying how our part of the conversation is relevant to the core
topic.

Your Turn:
Which of the following examples is a red herring fallacy?

Example 1: “My wife wants to talk about cleaning out the garage, so I asked her
what she wants to do with our patio furniture. Now she’s shopping for new patio
furniture and not asking me about the garage.”
Example 2: “My wife wants to talk about cleaning out the garage, so I asked her
what she wants to do with the patio furniture, because it’s just sitting in the garage
taking up space.”

6. POST HOC FALLACY

What is an example of a post hoc fallacy?

Fallacy occurs when an argument is made using illogical reasoning. Post hoc is
a fallacy where one reasons that since an event occurred before another, then the first
event caused the other. ... Examples of Post Hoc: 1. Our soccer team was losing until I
bought new shoes.

What is a post hoc explanation?

Post hoc reasoning is the fallacy where we believe that because one event follows
another, the first must have been a cause of the second. In some cases this is true, but
other factors may be responsible.

In this video, Paul explains the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. This is an

informal fallacy committed when a person reasons that because one event
happened after another event, the first event caused the second. He also discusses
why it is sometimes hasty to conclude that your cat scratch caused your fever.

What does post hoc propter hoc mean?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is an informal
fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused
by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.