Avoid Logical Fallacies
These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the
logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's
arguments.
Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A
happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B,
C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't
want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:
If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment
eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not
ban Hummers.
In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all
cars, which is not the same thing.
Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or
biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before
you have all the relevant facts. Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be
a boring course.
In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course
on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and
full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and
reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and
possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to
others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient
evidence to base a conclusion on.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A'
occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must
have made me sick.
In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically
follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the
illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug
that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across
campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the
water caused the person to be sick.
Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins
of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or
worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally
designed by Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the
character of the people who built the car.
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is
validated within the claim. Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be
logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes
enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the
claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually
proving it. Example:
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks
effectively.
In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and
the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the
same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language,
breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with
humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.
Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by
reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:
We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet
the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing
cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and
emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.
Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than
their opinions or arguments. Example:
Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all
dirty, lazy hippies.
In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green
Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their
merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the
group.