Fallacies Analysis - Assignment Example

Fallacies Analysis Invalid appeal to ity Such fallacy is often used to convince and make a person accept one’sarguments with help of referring to the seemingly authoritative source that might be irrelevant from the opponent’s perspective. For instance, convincing the opponent that smoking in women is acceptable because Audrey Hepburn smoked implies such fallacy, for this argument will be irrelevant for those who do not consider her an authority, e.g. people related to medical science. Straw person This trick is aimed at misinterpretation of the opponent’s position and his/her arguments and thus attacking the irrelevant arguments instead of those that have been suggested by the opponent. For instance, one speaker insists that teens should be educated in terms of contraception and effects of unsafe sex, so that they engage in safe sex in case they want to have an intercourse with their partners. The straw man argument in this case might be ignoring complexity of the issue and say that this position promotes acceptance of teen sex and giving children an opportunity to have sex at the early age without any consequences. Inconsistency The fallacy of inconsistency occurs when a person supports his/her decision or solution with inconsistent words, actions and premises. False dilemma This is a fallacy that means restriction of the options’ range to only two possible ones and yet considering the additional options is necessary. In other words, a person might make erroneous conclusion without considering all the options: e.g. citizens might consider only two options of how state defense spending is organized and either be for defense expenses in the budget or to be against them (though the golden mean exists). Complex question This is a type of question that is intended to make the opponent look unavoidably bad and uncomfortable. It can be found in political campaigns aimed at the citizens’ noble feelings: e.g. do you favor voting for a party that will legalize drugs, promote gay marriages and diminish importance of religious spirituality justifying it with democratic aspirations? Begging the question In this fallacy, the premises supporting the conclusion imply that the conclusion is true. For example, one can say that the United States is the best country to live in the world, because there are no other countries better that the U.S. Suppressed evidence Drawing conclusions based on the available evidence, we often suppress both available and unavailable evidences that might make the conclusion more consistent. A common instance is insisting that America is an inherently Christian nation relying on the fact that ‘in God we trust’ is inscribed in money. However, this conclusion is inconsistent due to a suppressed evidence: this inscription was added in the middle of the 20th century because of the fear of communism. Lack of proportion Lack of proportion is over- or underestimation of actions, arguments and outcomes used to convince people. An instance of this fallacy can be seen in downplaying important arguments for the sake of less significant ones. For example, a mother can be worried about the risk her child faces at school, i.e. risk of mass school shooting; but she ignores significance of the risk the child faces going to the school by bus daily (the risk of car accidents is much higher). Appeal to unknowable statistics This is a fallacious argument based on providing doubtful statistical data that will nor probably be checked or verified, or even does not coincide with the assertion. In commercials, we can see the example, e.g. statements that 9 of 10 makeup artists recommend this BB-cream or lipstick. Ad Hominem This type of fallacy implies attacking the opponent rather than his/her arguments, which is often presented in the form of personal remarks about appearance, lifestyle, occupation, tastes and other unrelated domains of one’s life. This is a fallacy, for such appeals are irrelevant in the discussion. The example is the following: a wife asks her husband to drop speed appealing to the argument that the road is slippery and there usually many accidents in such weather. The husband, in his turn, attacks her stating that she doesn’t even have a driver’s license and thus cannot be right Guilt by association Guilt by association is a fallacy used to compromise the opponent who cannot be reproach for anything through attacking people s/he is connected with or through associating the opponent with controversial people. For example, trying to compromise the city mayor attacking his relative who was seen driving under the influence is creating guilt by association. Two wrongs make a right The fallacy to defend and justify one’s right actions with help of referring to someone other acting in the similar way is the fallacy called ‘two wrongs make a right’. People tend to use this fallacy commonly for defending their wrongdoings, while referring to two or more people doing the same makes this action a common practice. There are many examples of this fallacy in our daily life, e.g. crossing the road in an inappropriate place and justifying this action with the fact that other people do it, too. Equivocation This type of fallacy is based on manipulation of the words’ multiple meanings to make a suitable conclusion, yet the conclusion will be irrelevant, if the word meaning used for it is distorted. For example, if the citizens of the country have the right to free speech, then it would be absolutely right to speak one’s mind freely in public places. Here, the word ‘right’ is equivocated. Appeal to ignorance This appeal is used to defeat the opponent’s arguments relying on impossibility to prove his/her position. In other words, one could wrongly equalize impossibility of proving existence of something to the proof of its inexistence. For instance, one can insist that there is no God, because nobody has ever proved to him/her the opposite, i.e. s/he doesn’t know arguments against this statement. Composition This type of fallacy means wrong transference of the part’s traits to the whole, e.g. the features of one group member are projected on the entire group, though such conclusion is not necessarily true. The Division Division is opposite to composition, with one mistakenly projecting the properties of the group on one of its members. Hasty conclusion This is a wrong conclusion that is usually based on the sample that is too narrow or not representative enough, i.e. induction based on single small experience that cannot be the ground for the general judgment. Questionable cause This is a fallacy presented by attributing the event or outcome to a wrong or unclear cause, while the given cause-and-effect chain has not been subjected to deeper analysis or investigation (i.e. if analyzed, this cause might be unrelated to the outcome). Questionable analogy In this case, the erroneous conclusion is made based on the uncertain similarities between the cases; though, the differences existing between the two situations can overwhelm the similarities serving as a ground for the conclusion. Appeal to pity This is the fallacious conclusion or decision made based on the sympathetic feelings that the person tries to evoke. Such conclusion is erroneous, for it is made based on emotions rather than on reason. Appeal to the stick Appeal to the stick forces an opponent to accept the argument or a viewpoint with help of coercion and threats. In other words, threat rather than logical arguments force a person to accept a conclusion. Appeal to loyalty This is a kind of fallacious conclusion (or a bias) based on the affiliation to a proponent of the conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is accepted due to patriotic or loyal feelings towards a person or an institution, though this conclusion might be incorrect from the logical perspective. Provincialism Provincialism is a type of fallacy related to appeal to loyalty, but based on giving the preference to something that is familiar while rejecting something unfamiliar as inferior. Popularity When one accepts a conclusion based on wide acceptance or popularity of it, we deal with the appeal to the crowd. For instance, saying that a person needs an Apple device just because this brand is used by many people is an erroneous judgment. Double standard This fallacy emerges, when one treats similar cases or examples in different ways and judges them differently. Invincible ignorance This is a radical form of the opponent’s argument rejection, when one refuses to listen to the arguments justifying the reluctance with faith, self-righteousness etc. Read More