10/15/13
A solid argument is based on three key appeals:
¨  Ethos (appeals to the sense of right and wrong)
If you must argue, argue correctly.
¨ 
Pathos (emotional appeals)
¨ 
Logos (appeals based on logic)
Definition:
fal⋅la⋅cy [fal-uh-see]–noun
¨ 
¨ 
Many arguments fail to persuade because they
lack sound reasoning.
1. a deceptive, misleading, or false
notion, belief, etc.:
EX. That the world is flat was at one time a
popular fallacy.
Rhetorical fallacies are to blame!
2. a misleading or unsound argument.
3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature;
4. In logic, any of various types of
erroneous reasoning that render arguments
logically unsound.
1
10/15/13
…come in three flavors:
¡ 
Ethical Fallacies: unreasonably advance the writer’s
own authority or character
¡ 
Emotional Fallacies: unfairly manipulate the
audience’s emotions
¡ 
Logical Fallacies: depend on faulty logic
¨ 
¨ 
¨ 
¨ 
¨ 
¨ 
Know them.
Recognize them.
Do not use them!
The best part of all comes when one can point
out a fallacy during the course of argument to
the speaker. The argument usually stops very
quickly thereafter.
¨ 
One problem that many people have when
they argue is that they slip fallacies into their
arguments without knowing it.
Fallacies weaken arguments!
They sound great, and may seem to make sense
on the surface, but do not serve to actually
persuade the opposition.
Ethical Fallacies
2
10/15/13
¨ 
¨ 
¨ 
False authority: asks audiences to agree with the speaker’s
assertion based on his/her character or the authority of
another person or institution that isn’t qualified to offer that
assertion.
¡  EX. My third grade teacher said so, so it must be true.
Guilt by association: calls someone’s character into
question by examining the character of that person’s
associates.
¡  EX. Sara’s friend Amy robbed a bank; Sara is a
delinquent.
¨ 
¡ 
¨ 
¡ 
EX. I’m sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that’s
that.
¨ 
Emotional Fallacies
¨ 
¨ 
EX. Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced
will keep his campaign promises?
Strawman – these arguments set up and dismantle
easily refutable argument in order to misrepresent and
opponents argument in order to defeat him or her
¡ 
Dogmatisim: shuts down discussion by asserting that that
the speaker’s beliefs are the only acceptable ones:
¡ 
Ad hominem (character attack)– arguments that attack
a person’s character rather than their reasoning
Speaker A: We need to regulate access to handguns.
Speaker B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the
rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the
Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in in the
Constitution, and a proponent of freedom.
Sentimental appeals: use emotion to distract the audience from
the facts.
¡  EX. The thousands of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil
spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source.
Scare tactics: these try to frighten people into agreeing with the
arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire
consequences.
¡  EX. If you don’t support the party’s tax plan, you and your
family will be reduced to poverty.
Bandwagon appeals: encourage an audience to agree with the
speaker because everyone else is doing it.
¡  EX. Eight out of 10 people agree that Verizon offers better cell
phone service than AT&T. Therefore you should switch to
Verizon.
3
10/15/13
¨ 
¨ 
¨ 
Slippery Slope: these arguments suggest that one thing will lead
to another, oftentimes with disastrous consequences.
¡  EX. If you get a B in my class, you’ll never get into college, and
therefore will never have a meaningful career.
Logical Fallacies
Either/Or choices: reduces complicated issues to two possible
courses of action
¡  EX. The patent office can either approve my new engine design
or say goodbye forever to a low emissions car.
False need: these arguments create false need
¡ 
EX. You absolutely have to have an iPad if you want people to
think you are cool.
¨ 
¨ 
Hasty generalization: draws conclusions from minimal
evidence
¡ 
¨ 
Post hoc (false causality): these arguments confuse
chronology with causation, one event can occur without
being caused by it.
¡ 
¨ 
EX. I wouldn’t eat at that restaurant – the only time I ate there my
entrée was undercooked.
Begging the question: occurs when the speaker simply
restates the claim in a different way; such an argument
is circular.
¡  EX. His lies are evident from the untruthful nature of
his statements.
EX. A year after the release of the violent shoot-’em-up game
Annihilator, incidents of violence tripled – surely not a
coincidence.
Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow): is a statement that does
not logically follow or relate to what comes before it.
¡  EX. "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night
sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other
planets is fast becoming certainty!"
¨ 
Faulty analogy: an inaccurate, inappropriate, or
misleading comparison between two things.
¡  EX. Letting prisoners out on early release is like
absolving them of their crimes.
4