SENATE SPRING RETREAT

Logical Fallacies as Applied to Rhetoric and Debate

LOGICAL FALLACY
A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. Informal fallacies result from information that is irrelevant, twisted, manipulated, an/or from ignorance.

FALLACY OF DIVISION
Brief description: This results from erroneously transferring attributes from the whole to the parts (i.e., wrongly assuming that what's true of whole is true of parts.) Ex: The completed jigsaw puzzle is circular in shape. Therefore, each piece of the puzzle is circular.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION
Brief description: This is the opposite of the fallacy of division. It results from erroneously transferring attributes from the parts to the whole (i.e., wrongly assuming that what's true of parts is true of whole.) Ex: Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible

CIRCULAR REASONING (BEGGING THE QUESTION)

Brief description: This takes several forms, including purely "circular reasoning", and assuming in premise(s) what's to be shown in conclusion. Ex: I know God exists because the Bible says he does, and the Bible is true because it's God's word.

FALSE DICHOTOMY (EITHER-OR)

Brief description: This is committed when a disjunctive (either...or) assertion hides other alternatives. Ex: The choice is yours: the spotted owl, or economic prosperity.

SLIPPERY SLOPE
Brief description: This fallacy rests upon an alleged chain reaction that is unlikely to occur. Ex: Let naughty children go unpunished just once, and before you know it, theyll be stealing from your wallet, then robbing banks, and finally doing time.

BANDWAGON APPEAL
Brief description: This fallacy attempts to justify a position simply on the basis of its having mass appeal (everybody thinks so, everybody is doing it). Ex: Everyone lies sometimes, so just tell your boss youre sick and well go to the beach.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
Brief description: This consists of arguing that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false (& vice versa). Ex: No one has ever proven that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist; therefore, it does exist. [or] No ever found Amelia Earharts body; therefore, she survived.

APPEAL TO EMOTION
Brief description: This results from appealing not to rational argument and evidence but rather to the emotional response of the audience. Ex: I know I failed all my exams in here and my attendance was bad, but please, Prof. Smith, you've just got to give me an "A" or it will break my parents heart and they may die of the strain.

AD HOMINEM
Brief description: This occurs when directing one's attack not at a conclusion, but rather at the person who asserts or defends it. Ex: Everyone knows that the mayor has a son who's a drug addict; therefore, you should just disregard her arguments about the legalization of marijuana.

STRAW MAN
Brief description: When you attack a weakened or distorted representation of your opponent's argument, you commit the straw man fallacy.

Ex: Mr. Lu has argued against prayer in public schools. Obviously, he advocates atheism. But atheism is what they have in Russia, and it works hand in hand with communism. Mr. Lu is wrong!

RED HERRING
Brief description: This results from introducing facts or issues that are not only irrelevant to a given conclusion, but that also attempt to divert attention away from the central point of the argument.

Ex: Ms. Smith claims that the average child watches too many hours of television a week. Well, I just bought a new satellite dish and my reception has never been better! There are so many great shows out there to watch, who can possibly say anything bad about today's television programming?

COMPLEX/LOADED QUESTION
Brief Description: The fallacy of complex question is committed when two or more questions are combined into a single one. A "trick" question. Ex: Have you stopped dealing drugs on the street corner, Mr. Smith?