a. Non Sequitur: Latin for "it does not follow.
" This occurs when the
conclusion of an argument doesn't logically follow from the premises.
For example, if someone says, "We should invest more in public
transportation because it will help reduce traffic congestion," and
another responds, "But if we do that, people will start riding
bicycles," the second statement does not logically follow from the
first. The connection between the two is unclear or absent.
Non sequiturs can arise in various forms, including irrelevant
conclusions or illogical connections, and they can disrupt the flow of a
discussion. Recognizing this fallacy helps maintain clarity and
relevance in arguments and conversations.
b. . Tu Quoque (You Too) Fallacy: Responding to a criticism with a
counter-criticism rather than addressing the original argument. It
essentially says, "You do it too."
For example, if Person A argues that smoking is harmful, and Person B
responds, "Well, you used to smoke too," Person B is committing a tu
quoque fallacy. Instead of engaging with the validity of Person A's
argument about the dangers of smoking, they deflect by highlighting
Person A's past behavior.
This fallacy does not refute the original argument; it simply shifts
the focus and can create a distraction from the relevant points being
made. Effective reasoning requires addressing the substance of
arguments rather than merely pointing out inconsistencies in the
opponent's actions or beliefs.
c. . Composition and Division: These fallacies involve assuming that what is
true for one part of something is true for the whole, or vice versa. For
example, assuming that because each brick in a wall is small, the whole wall is
small.
The composition and division fallacies are logical errors that occur
when incorrect assumptions are made about the relationship between parts
and wholes.
Composition Fallacy >> part = whole
The **composition fallacy** happens when one assumes that what is true for
individual parts must also be true for the whole. For example, if someone
argues, "Each member of this committee is an expert in their field, so the
committee as a whole must be expert," they are committing a composition
fallacy. Just because the individuals are experts doesn't guarantee that
their collective decisions will reflect that expertise.
### Division Fallacy whole = part
The **division fallacy** is the opposite; it occurs when one assumes that
what is true for the whole must also be true for its parts. For instance, if
someone says, "This car is the safest in its class, so every component of the
car must also be the safest," they are committing a division fallacy. The
overall safety rating of the car does not mean that every single part of the
car is the safest available.
Both fallacies illustrate the importance of understanding how attributes and
qualities may or may not apply when moving between individual parts and the
collective whole. Critical thinking requires careful consideration of how
these relationships work to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions.
d. Slippery Slope: This occurs when someone argues that a relatively small
first step will inevitably lead to a chain of events with significant negative
consequences. It assumes a causal connection without sufficient evidence.
For example, if someone argues, "If we allow students to redo their tests,
next they’ll expect to retake every assignment, and eventually, no one will
take education seriously," they are committing a slippery slope fallacy. The
argument assumes an exaggerated sequence of events without evidence to
support that such outcomes are inevitable.
While it's possible for actions to lead to unintended consequences, a slippery
slope argument lacks a clear, logical connection between the initial action and
the extreme result, making it a fallacy. It’s important to critically evaluate
claims about potential outcomes and assess whether they are based on
reasonable predictions or just fear-based speculation.
