LOGICAL FALLACIES II
WEEK 7 LESSON 3
24/09/2020
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
LOGICAL FALLACIES PART II
•THE ‘WHO ARE YOU TO TALK?’ •RED HERRING
OR TU QUOQUE (YOU ALSO)
FALLACY •APPEAL TO CELEBRITY /
•BEGGING THE QUESTION AUTHORITY
(CIRCULAR REASONING)
•BANDWAGON APPEAL •APPEAL TO EMOTION
(APPEAL TO POPULARITY)
•AD HOMINEM (PERSONAL
ATTACK)
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
THE ‘WHO ARE YOU TO TALK?’, OR YOU TOO,
TU QUOQUE FALLACY
• REJECTING AN ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE PERSON
ADVANCING IT FAILS TO PRACTICE WHAT HE OR SHE
PREACHES.
DOCTOR: YOU SHOULD QUIT SMOKING. IT’S A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK.
PATIENT: LOOK WHO’S TALKING! I’LL QUIT WHEN YOU QUIT.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
CIRCULAR REASONING (BEGGING THE QUESTION)
• AN ARGUMENT IN WHICH THE WRITER, INSTEAD OF APPLYING EVIDENCE, SIMPLY
RESTATES THE POINT IN OTHER LANGUAGE.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
CIRCULAR REASONING (BEGGING THE QUESTION)
• IN PHILOSOPHY, UNLIKE IN MANY OTHER AREAS, ‘BEGGING THE QUESTION’ DOES NOT MEAN ‘RAISES A
QUESTION WHICH MUST BE ANSWERED’. IN PHILOSOPHY, WHEN SOMEONE BEGS THE QUESTION, THEY
STATE OR ASSUME AS A PREMISE THE VERY THING THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVE AS A CONCLUSION.
• RESTATING THE POINT IN OTHER LANGUAGE
Students should not be allowed to park in lots now
reserved for faculty because those lots should be for
faculty only.
Mike was the best candidate for president,
because he was totally better than any of the
others.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
BANDWAGON APPEAL (AD POPULUM)
• A CLAIM THAT AN IDEA SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE A LARGE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE FAVOR IT OR BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE.
The bandwagon fallacy refers to it’s all
about getting people to do or think
something because “everyone else is doing
it” or “everything else thinks this.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
ARGUMENT TO THE PERSON /
PERSONAL ATTACK (AD HOMINEM)
• AN ATTACK ON THE PERSON PROPOSING AN
ARGUMENT RATHER THAN ON THE ARGUMENT ITSELF.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
AD HOMINEM /PERSONAL ATTACK (ARGUMENT TO
THE PERSON)
• AN ATTACK ON THE PERSON PROPOSING AN ARGUMENT RATHER
THAN ON THE ARGUMENT ITSELF.
Senator Jones was a conscientious objector
during the Vietnam War, so his proposal to
limit military spending has no merit.
"Listen, son. Mind-altering drugs can damage
your brain. You're better off avoiding them."
"Who are you to talk? I know you dropped a lot
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake of acid back in the 60's."
RED HERRING
• AN ARGUMENT THAT FOCUSES ON AN IRRELEVANT ISSUE TO
DETRACT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ISSUE.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
RED HERRING
• AN ARGUMENT THAT FOCUSES TOWARDS AN IRRELEVANT ISSUE
TO DETRACT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ISSUE.
• I SHOULD NOT PAY A FINE FOR RECKLESS DRIVING. THERE ARE MANY
OTHER PEOPLE ON THE STREET WHO ARE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS
AND RAPISTS, AND THE POLICE SHOULD BE CHASING THEM, NOT
HARASSING A DECENT TAX-PAYING CITIZEN LIKE ME.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO CELEBRITY / AUTHORITY
(FALSE AUTHORITY)
• APPEAL TO IRRELEVANT AUTHORITY—THAT IS, AN ‘AUTHORITY’ WHO IS NOT
AN AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD OF QUESTION.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO CELEBRITY / AUTHORITY
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO CELEBRITY / AUTHORITY
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO CELEBRITY / AUTHORITY
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO EMOTION – PITY/ FEAR ETC
• APPEAL TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF A CONCLUSION OUT OF PITY FOR
THE ARGUER.
The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and
listeners from relevant reasons and evidence.
Common emotions appealed to are fear, force, hope, patriotism,
pity, and sympathy.
If I don’t get at least a B in this class my GPA
will drop below 2.0. If that happens I’ll lose my
scholarship and have to quit school, so I ought
to get a B in this course.
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO EMOTION - PITY
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO EMOTION - FEAR/FORCE
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake
APPEAL TO
EMOTION -
FEAR/FORCE
[Link] Krishnan/CTS/APR2020 intake