FALLACIES
by R. Mark Tiller
Northwest College--Houston Community College System
A fallacy is an unsound argument, based on false notions, logical errors, or deceit. Political
debate, like other forms of argument, is plagued by fallacious reasoning. Those who commit logical
fallacies in their reasoning and political rhetoric can confuse and mislead (sometimes manipulate) the
audience--which often leads to poor public policy. Therefore, a major goal for every student of
government (or other disciplines, for that matter) should be the recognition of fallacious reasoning.
an argument
PREMISE
 CONCLUSION
An argument consists of a premise (or several premises) and a conclusion. A premise is a reason,
an explanation, or a justification. If the premise is part of a logical argument, it provides supporting
data or evidence that leads the audience to the conclusion. The conclusion of the argument is that
with which the speaker wants the listener to agree. It is only as compelling as is the premise from
which it is derived. If the premise is well-constructed (usually meaning well-understood and
factual), and if it logically leads to the conclusion, then the listener will be compelled to accept the
conclusion, and the speaker will have accomplished his or her goal. An argument can be attacked on
the basis of its poor premise, or on the basis of its poor logical flow to the conclusion. In the latter
case, one can defeat an adversary’s argument even if one cannot verify the facts concerning the
premise.
One of the first of many philosophers to critique fallacies was Aristotle, who many have called
the first political scientist. He and others have described a wide variety of fallacies, or non
sequiturs. A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically (it doesn't sequence) from
the given premises. These fallacies can be grouped together in a variety of ways, due to the overlap
and similarities among them. (Depending upon how they are categorized, one could list as many as
one hundred types of fallacies.) What follows is a list of thirteen general types of fallacies, each with
three examples concerning politics.
(1) APPEAL TO FORCE: also called appeal to fear, it is an argument based on coercion
alone. That is, power--rather than reasoning--determines the outcome. The most common response
to such an argument is: "might does not make right".
Examples:
"If you don't vote for the Chair's bill, he will never let any of your bills out of his committee."
"Those terrorists better wise up and see things our way, if they don't want us to bomb them."
"The moral superiority of the Allied powers was proven by their victory over the Central Powers in
WWI."
(2) ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM: a personal attack on the opponent, rather than the ideas
the opponent advocates. Ad hominem means "to the man". When arguments are lacking, many
stoop to criticism or abuse of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself,
something akin to killing the messenger of bad news. Of course, not all attacks on individuals'
personal character are illogical--if that is the true point of the argument, to conclude that someone is
a bad person (i.e., he steals, therefore he is bad). What makes a personal attack a fallacy is when it is
a distraction from the real argument (i.e., he steals, therefore his ideas about China are wrong.).
Examples:
"I don't agree that Senator Fogbottom's tax plan will increase revenues, because he is a cowardly
wimp who always gives in to pressure from stupid welfare activists."
"What does he know about infant malnutrition? From the size of his belly, I would guess he's never
been hungry!"
"Sure, I'll listen to your proposal for a state income tax--as soon as you learn how to balance your
checkbook." (The implicit conclusion is that the tax proposal is bad; it is premised on the
proponent's personal abilities.)
(3) CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM:
an appeal to prejudices and unfair
stereotypes about the circumstances, or background, of the opponent, instead of the opponent's
argument. Most forms of racism, sexism, and other prejudices fall into this category. Rather than a
personal attack on the individual, the speaker indicts the entire group to which the individual
belongs, as a distraction from the opponent's argument.
Examples:
"Judge Rebel is an old born-and-raised Southerner, so I knew his ruling would not be fair."
"No, we shouldn't place women in combat, but I'm not surprised that you think that, since you're a
woman."
"I don't agree with his campaign proposals--he's just a rich lawyer who thinks he can buy a legislative
seat."
(4) APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: also called the fallacy of negative proof, it assumes
that because an argument cannot be disproved, it must be true. Just because one cannot provide
evidence that proves the speaker wrong does not make the speaker's argument valid. Many times a
speaker will attempt to shift the burden of proof on a skeptical audience, when it rightly belongs with
the person making the claim. If a person professes to be a Martian, it is not the listener's
responsibility to prove that the speaker isn't, since the listener was making no such claims... The
inability of the listener to disprove the claim is not evidence for the speaker's argument.
Examples:
"The Trilateral Commission, European bankers, and international communists are plotting and
planning to conquer the world. Sure you haven't heard about it--it's a secret conspiracy!"
"I support the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) program because I'm sure we can overcome
any technical difficulties with it; it's only a matter of time until it's perfected. How do you know it
won't be?"
"If the President was telling the truth, then why did he refuse to take a lie-detector test?" (The
implicit conclusion is that he lied, which one cannot disprove.)
(5) APPEAL TO PITY: an attempt to use the audience's sympathy, concern, or possibly
even guilty feelings about an unfortunate situation to overwhelm or suspend their logical reasoning.
One may or may not choose to support compassionate public policy--it is certainly not "illogical" to
do so. However, the audience should not allow the speaker to exploit their empathy for manipulative
purposes.
Examples:
"What do you mean, 'we should reform the social security system'? Don't you care about those poor,
lonely, old people, living on fixed incomes?"
"Well, it's true that I took the bribe, but it's not like I'm a criminal, because I had a drinking problem
at the time."
"No, we don't need an investigation of the director for the homeless shelter program. These charges
about fraud and corruption are being made by people who have no idea how terrible it is to be cold
and hungry on the street!"
(6) APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE: The rationalization that if most people believe it, it
must be true. The fallacy is self-evident... in the past, almost everyone in Europe believed the world
was flat, but that did not make it so. Quite often the majority is correct, so such an appeal may give
credence to an argument--but does not prove it. It is perhaps democratic and fair to follow the will of
the majority, but democracy does not ensure logical reasoning.
Examples:
"The Speaker is a criminal. According to a recent poll, 91% of the public said he broke the law."
"You are so naive! Everyone knows the death penalty deters murders."
"That party's platform is nonsense. Last election, none of their candidates won more than 3% of the
vote."
(7) APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: an argument based on the unstated reasoning or
opinion of a supposed expert. Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing authorities, which may
offer good advice, but it is also essential that the argument itself be explained. That is, in this
fallacy, the speaker gives us only the authority's conclusion, without a premise we can question. The
speaker is essentially using the authority's conclusion as his premise. This would be acceptable only
if the authority's premise was also given. One might question the credentials of purported experts,
but whether the authority is really knowledgeable or wise is not the primary issue. The fallacy lies in
the failure of the speaker to actually provide the audience with an argument that can be critically
examined.
Examples:
"We don't need more police stations. The mayor said just last week that we have enough."
"I don't care what your textbook says. President Reagan said the 'iron triangle' included Congress,
special interests, and the press."
"Why? Because I'm the judge, and I said so."
(8) FALLACY OF ACCIDENT: inappropriately applying a general rule to a particular
case, not allowing for the exceptional case. What is true in the general sense, or overall, is not
necessarily true in every case, in all conditions, in every sense, etc... If, when polled, 999
randomly-selected Texas women said they did not support the Libertarian Party, one could conclude
that Libertarian support is probably very low and possibly nonexistent among Texas women. One
could also predict a likely negative response from the 1000th respondent; however, one could not be
certain that the 1000th respondent does not support the Libertarians. The 1000th woman might be
the "accident", or exception, to the rule.
Examples:
"He is a Anglo Protestant millionaire investor, so I assume he is a Republican."
"Judge Free ruled against the American Civil Liberties Union? That's impossible; I've watched him
for years, and I know he is a great civil libertarian."
"I don't believe that people in Kuwait are rich, because I hear all of the time how poverty-stricken the
Third World countries are."
(9) FALLACY OF CONVERSE ACCIDENT: overgeneralization; assuming that
one case (or a few) explains the whole, or that what is true for a part is true for the whole. It is
fallacious to create a general rule from one or a few cases because they may happen to be "accidents"
(exceptional cases), i.e. not typical of the norm. Consider the following situation: Two people are
facing a brick wall. One person is looking from across an alley; the other is an inch away from the
wall. The bricks are brown, with the exception of a few red ones used to repair the wall. The first
person does not notice the red bricks from a distance, and claims all of the bricks are brown. He has
committed the fallacy of accident. A red brick is directly in front of the second person's eyes. He
claims he is looking at a red wall, committing the fallacy of converse accident (overgeneralization).
Examples:
"My sister knows a legislator, and she told me about him. Politicians are all a bunch of crooks!"
"If each and every interest group successfully promotes its agenda (gets what it wants), the whole
country will be well-served, since interest groups represent all segments of society." (Each group
wants more than its fair share.)
"There will be no revolution; the people of this country are perfectly content with the way things are.
I know, because I play polo with some of them every Sunday on my day off from the embassy."
(10) BEGGING THE QUESTION:
in most cases circular reasoning; using the
conclusion to support a premise upon which the conclusion relies. In such arguments, there is no
real premise, since it is really just a repeat of the conclusion. In other words, it prompts the listener
to beg for the premise--the rationale for the conclusion.
Examples:
"The reason there's so many reports in the press about ethics and scandals is because the media is
focusing on this issue."
"Clearly, Iran is anti-American because they are hostile to U.S. interests and positions."
"It is the duty of the United States to promote freedom around the world because we are obligated to
support liberty."
(11) FALLACY OF FALSE CAUSE: also called the post hoc fallacy, it incorrectly
attributes a causal relationship--either because two events seem to occur at roughly the same time, or
because one event follows another. In the first case the assumption of co-variation confuses cause
and effect--both events might be effects of one or separate causes, rather than one causing the other.
In the second case, the assumption that the second event is dependent upon the first is fallacious
without proof. Even if the two are related, the conclusion may not be completely explained by the
given premise.
Examples:
"Had we not built the B-1B bomber, Soviet leader Gorbachev would not have begun the process of
economic and political reform."
"The Governor ruined our economy. Before he took office, the petroleum industry was booming.
Just look at it now."
"Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which upheld abortion rights, there has been a great increase in
reported child abuse. Therefore, the Supreme Court is responsible."
(12) FALLACY OF THE COMPLEX QUESTION: A question which cannot
be answered yes or no, because it assumes hostile premises that have not yet been proven.
Examples:
"Are you going to continue to cover up the Attorney General's investigation?" (a cover-up is
assumed)
"Why are you voting for that cultural exchange program with the Chinese? Do you want them to
come over here and brainwash our youth with their communist propaganda?"
"When it becomes clear that your tax estimates are unrealistic, will they be revised then?"
(13) IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION: offering a conclusion which is not germane
(relevant) to the original premise. It is often a convincing premise, or a widely accepted fact, but it
has nothing to do with the speaker's conclusion. Like a "red herring," or a "slippery slope" argument,
it diverts attention away from the real issue.
Examples:
"You say there is no money in the budget for a state monument to honor Texas' veterans? Yes, there
is! They honorably served their country and they deserve a monument!" (The conclusion--that there
is money in the budget--is not relevant to the question of their alleged honorable service, which is the
premise. In other words, even if they were completely deserving, that fact alone does not put money
into the budget for the monument. A better argument might suggest a redistribution of funds in the
budget, perhaps by cutting another item.)
"This concept of affirmative action is a dangerous idea. American corporations are not competitive
in Japan."
"Texas needs new sources of tax revenue, so I really don't think a lottery would attract organized
crime or encourage addictive gambling."
*Irrelevant conclusions are sometimes called "straw man" arguments. In such a case, the speaker's
premise attacks a defenseless (like a scarecrow) proposition that is not really his opponent's
argument. Example:
"We do not live in a utopian world, therefore..." (The speaker offers a false alternative.)