Fair Vs. Faulty Comparisons
What is a fair comparison?
When we look at an extended comparison, we have to ask the following:
Is the comparison over simplistic?
Is the comparison misleading?
Is the comparison inaccurate?
Does the comparison have a true relation?
Examples of faulty comparisons:
We must stop educating the masses because education is a raging fire and the aspiring students are moths who will fly into the flames and suffer a certain death.
Of course you must never get married. Marriage is a prison of oppression, misery, and servitude for which you can never escape. Even if you divorce, a costly affair that will send you into bankruptcy, you will bear the savage scars of your incarceration, which will prevent you from ever restoring yourself to your original freedom.
Sitting through McMahon's 1C Critical Thinking class is like undergoing a root canal in which the suffering is so excruciating I must distract myself by secretly watching cat videos on my phone while gulping my iced frappuccino.
Examples of fair comparisons:
Being a helicopter parent is like taking the claws out of a house cat, which impedes the house cat from surviving in the real world.
Taking a 16-week semester college course is like a marathon race up a hill with a ball and chain. By week 12, the students are feeling brain-numbed and catatonic as they can barely slog to class, fearful that they may suffer imminent collapse, insanity, nervous breakdown, or all of the above.
"A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics"
"The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer
Contemporary & Classic Arguments
“Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” by Garrett Hardin
First 5 Paragraphs
Environmentalists use the metaphor of the earth as a "spaceship" in trying to persuade countries, industries and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources. Since we all share life on this planet, they argue, no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of its resources.
But does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share of its resources? The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. In their enthusiastic but unrealistic generosity, they confuse the ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat.
A true spaceship would have to be under the control of a captain, since no ship could possibly survive if its course were determined by committee. Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members.
If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?
First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation's land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land.
One. What question does Hardin pose in the beginning of his essay?
Does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share of its resources?
I’m immediately suspicious of the question because when I think about the various debates we have about helping the poor, the question I think of is not does everyone have an equal right to resources, but our we obligated to help people avoid starvation, suffering, and hardship.
That’s a far cry from having everyone on the same playing field, as it were.
But it’s a good use of deception. The specific deception in this case is The Straw Man Fallacy, which twists, distorts or exaggerates the opponents’ arguments to make one’s own argument appear to be more persuasive.
Straw Man #1 in Hardin’s Essay
Rather than question the humanitarian plea to help alleviate suffering, Hardin wants us to debate whether or not everyone is entitled to an equal share of resources. That is a far more extreme desire than reducing suffering, but the more extreme proposition suits Hardin’s argumentative purposes better.
Two. How does Hardin’s language of “misguided idealists” further contribute to his Straw Man Fallacy?
In the second paragraph, Hardin writes: “The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. In their enthusiastic but unrealistic generosity, they confuse the ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat.
Let us defer exploring the spaceship-lifeboat analogy for a second. For now, let us examine the way Hardin represents his opponents, those who want to help the disadvantaged. They are the following:
Misguided
Out of control
Enthusiastic to the point of not being realistic
Suicidal
Is it fair and accurate to portray those with charitable impulses as being necessarily suicidal and misguided?
Even if the representation is accurate for some do-gooders, it is hardly accurate of all. But by conveniently lumping all charitable people as suicidal overly enthusiastic do-gooders, Hardin commits at least three fallacies:
Straw Man Fallacy: Exaggerating and distorting his opponents
Over simplification Fallacy: Pigeon-holing his opponents in one ridiculous caricature
Ad Hominem: Attacking the character of your opponents without specifically focusing on their policies or ideas. Notice Hardin’s suicidal do-gooders are hypothetical caricatures, not real people with specific ideas.
Three. How valid is Hardin’s comparison of a lifeboat to Planet Earth?
He writes:
“Metaphorically each nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do? First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation’s land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land.”
His argument is no longer cohesive or logical. What started as a debate on helping the poor has taken a turn about overpopulation and geopolitical resources, a crisis reasonable people of all political persuasions can agree upon.
Lifeboat is a faulty comparison that doesn't hold up to details.
Is going to college like going to prison?
Your professors are prison guards, your homework is oppression and misery, your college is more concerned with business and profits than students.
That the world can’t sustain our wasteful habits and our growing population is a fact beyond dispute, but it isn’t logical to make the following syllogism:
Major Premise: The world can’t sustain our wasteful habits and growing population so that Planet Earth will eventually implode.
Minor Premise: Helping the poor accelerates Planet Earth’s implosion.
Conclusion: Not helping the poor is the best measure we can take to slow down the Earth’s implosion.
In fact, the above syllogism is false and illogical on many levels.
For one, there is no logical connection between overpopulation and charity, unless we are talking about the kind of exaggerated “suicidal” charity Hardin speaks of, which in any case is a Straw Man.
For two, the lifeboat analogy is far too simplistic for the crisis of an imploding Planet Earth, which is rife with geopolitical conflicts, over-population in some demographics and under population in others.
An absurdly simplistic analogy—Planet Earth is a lifeboat—evidences a person who is conveniently looking for an excuse so that he can make his manifesto, what I might call The Gospel of Selfishness, which in fact gained great popularity as Garrett Hardin enjoyed a cult following after the publication of his essay.
Thirdly, if the Rich 1% ignore the poor, that negligence can, contrary to Hardin’s claim, accelerate chaos and the Earth’s implosion. When there is a 1% and the rest of no water, food, or jobs, civil law becomes meaningless and chaos ensues. Even rich people know this, and the smartest of the rich want there to be a modicum of resources and stability in “hot spot” areas in order to stave off chaos.
To reiterate, the debate on population and the debate on charity has some connection, as Hardin correctly points out, but they are also separate conflicts that present far more complexities than the simplistic argument Hardin makes.
One could say—or rather I wish to say—that Hardin makes a very simplistic argument larded with Straw Man fallacies, faulty comparisons, and willed ignorance in order to assuage his conscience as he embarks on a life of narcissistic indifference to the suffering of others.
That a rich person in a lifeboat will sink if he helps the poor is a canard. For example, if Bill Gates, a billionaire, gives ten million dollars to help educate children in Africa, his “lifeboat,” to stay with Hardin’s lame analogy, doesn’t sink one inch.
Why? Because there is no lifeboat. There is a very complicated planet with complicated needs. The lifeboat analogy is absurd.
If a college professor gives a thousand dollars to Hurricane Relief, that professor does not “sink in his lifeboat.” Why? Because Hardin’s lifeboat analogy is completely disconnected from reality. It speaks to another logical fallacy.
Faulty Comparison Fallacy: Making a comparison between two things that have no relationship or logical connection.
Lifeboat Analogy Continues to Sink
Hardin asks us to imagine being comfortable on our lifeboat while a hoard of drowning people beg us to let them join us in safety.
If we are “nice,” the lifeboat will sink, and we will all die. Therefore, we must be selfish. Otherwise, we will perish.
But again, we must ask ourselves if this analogy makes any sense.
How do I sink when I give to Hurricane Relief?
How do I sink when I give to an animal rescue mission?
How does Bill Gates sink when he helps educate and vaccinate children in Africa?
How does an engineer sink when he donates toys, canned foods, and books to the Salvation Army?
How does the United States sink when it funds schools for girls in Afghanistan?
There is no sinking. This “we’re going to sink” cry is a Chicken Little move, the paranoid howl of a man desperate to cling to his Gospel of Selfishness.
Paranoia in faulty comparison
When the President calls the caravan in Mexico to an invasion of criminals, he's making a faulty comparison designed to appeal to racist paranoia.
There is selfish with a small s and with a capital S.
Hardin is Capital S
I’m a pizza glutton, so if I’m gorging on several extra large pizzas in a pizza parlor with a fellow pizza glutton I’ll be unlikely offended. But Garrett Hardin is a Pizza Glutton Uber Alles. He takes pizza gluttony to another dimension that is so colossal in its egregiousness that even I, a fellow pizza glutton, am offended.
And for our purposes, Hardin’s argument is a poorly crafted argument.
After reading the essay’s first 5 paragraphs and concluding that the writer is a third-rate hack, a flagrant xenophobe, and a selfish fraud, I have a difficult time reading on.
But as a critical thinker, I have to be fair, resist the impulse for ad hominem attack, and give the writer a chance.
And to be fair, there are some persuasive points in an essay built on a shabby, unpersuasive claim.
In other words, this essay is an excellent teaching tool because it instructs us that one can have valid evidence that doesn’t add up to backing up the essay’s major claim or thesis.
To make one’s claim or thesis persuasive, the evidence has to be logically connected to the claim. In critical thinking jargon, to make this logical connection is to make a warrant.
Some Valid Evidence in the Essay That Doesn’t Support Author’s Claim: We’re on a lifeboat, and reckless, irresponsible aid to the world’s drowning people will make us all sink, will literally make the world implode.
Tragedy of the Commons
When you own something, you take care of it, you show responsibility for it, and you do your best to keep the thing you own as new as when you got it.
The inverse is also true: When something is given to you and you have no accountability for your actions, you behave accordingly: You abuse and neglect your “freebie” and in general show contempt for all your free access.
My wife, who teaches in PV, will tell you stories of kids whose parents bought them BMWs, they never changed the car’s oil, the engine seized, and their “punishment” was to get a new Mercedes, which would also be subject to neglect.
If each neighborhood shared a car, as some people propose, the car would be treated in a brutal fashion. People would treat it with contempt.
Here is what Hardin writes about The Tragedy of the Commons:
The fundamental error of spaceship ethics and the sharing it requires is that it leads to what I call "the tragedy of the commons." Under a system of private property, the men who own property recognize their responsibility to care for it, or if they don't they will eventually suffer. A farmer, for instance, will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies. If he overloads it, erosion sets in, weeds take over, and he loses the use of the pasture.
If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it. Asking everyone to use it with discretion will hardly do, for the considerate herdsman who refrains from overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says his needs are greater. If everyone would restrain himself, all would be well; but it takes only one less than everyone to ruin a system of voluntary restraint. In a crowded world of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable if there are no controls. This is the tragedy of the commons.
Four. Does helping the disadvantaged result in The Tragedy of the Commons?
While Hardin is correct to point out that indiscriminate giving can result in the recipients of handouts behaving in a contemptuous disregard for both the thing the receive and the generous people who provide it, such charity is only a tiny sliver of all the attempts of charity and socially responsible behavior.
To limit helping the poor to The Tragedy of the Commons is an oversimplification. In fact, philanthropists study the science of giving and hire consultants on best ways to give: how to give responsibly while having a positive impact on the entire planet, which completely contradicts the “suicidal” and “misguided” givers characterized in Hardin’s essay.
Of course, it’s convenient for Hardin’s argument to characterize all givers and philanthropists as ignorant, reckless do-gooders, even though this profile collapses in the face of evidence.
Therefore, Hardin has no warrant to connect his Tragedy of the Commons to his claim that giving is dangerous.
Five. What is Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater Fallacy?
We can find several instances of charities gone wrong in which their best-laid plans backfired and created more problems than they solved.
But does incompetence in any field—charity, education, philanthropy, health, nutrition, social work compel us to abandon the project?
Remember Sturgeon’s Law: Over 90% of everything is ****. We must seek the 10% of excellence in everything, including the art of giving.
Six. The editors of our book point out that Hardin uses a reductio ad absurdum argument in paragraph 41. What is this argument and how does it apply to the paragraph?
In the Logically Fallacious website we see the definition of reductio ad absurdum as follows:
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to be reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum is neither intrinsically valid or fallacious. It depends on how it’s used.
Here are some McMahon examples of reduction ad absurdum:
Surely, diet books don’t work. If a diet book worked, we’d all read that diet book, and diet books wouldn’t have to be written anymore.
Clearly, psychotherapy is dangerous. We’ve had psychotherapy now for over 100 years, and human beings are crazier than ever.
Eating popcorn at night will make you thirsty.
Being thirsty will compel you to drink copious amounts of liquids before you go to bed.
As a result, you’ll be up all night going to the bathroom.
As a result, you will get a horrible night’s sleep.
As a result, you will be tired all day at work.
As a result, your work performance will be substandard and you will be fired.
As a result of losing your job, you won’t be able to pay your bills, and you will be homeless.
Therefore, we can conclude that eating popcorn will make you homeless.
A mother, concerned that her thirty-year-old son, who is still in college and spends much of his time in the mother’s basement wearing a robe while eating Hot Pockets at his computer and has never been on a date, has this exchange with her son.
“Honey, have you ever tried going out on a date?”
“I can’t date, Mother. I’m getting my Master’s. Dating will provide too much drama, which will compromise my academic performance.”
“But, honey, you’ve been going to college for over twelve years now.”
“Precisely. All the more reason I shouldn’t be dating. Now leave me alone. I’m doing research.”
Now let us look at the reduction ad absurdum in paragraph 41 of Hardin’s essay:
We Americans of non-Indian ancestry can look upon ourselves as the descendants of thieves who are guilty morally, if not legally, of stealing this land from its Indian owners. Should we then give back the land to the now living American descendants of those Indians? However morally or logically sound this proposal may be, I, for one, am unwilling to live by it and I know no one else who is. Besides, the logical consequence would be absurd. Suppose that, intoxicated with a sense of pure justice, we should decide to turn our land over to the Indians. Since all our other wealth has also been derived from the land, wouldn't we be morally obliged to give that back to the Indians too?
As we read the paragraph above, we must ask ourselves: Must our hunger for moral justice and social responsibility for the sins committed against Indians in the form of genocide and thievery push us to the extreme of giving up all of American land to the Indians or are there more measured ways of finding justice?
By proposing the most extreme and absurd measure for exacting justice, Hardin is conveniently saying, “Screw justice.”
It’s like a wife wants her husband to stop gambling and drinking with his buddies every night, and he says, “Are you trying to lock me up like a caged animal? Yes, we’re married, but I need my freedom.” This translates into him being irresponsible husband who recklessly drinks, gambles, and cohorts with juvenile slobs on a nightly basis.
Essay Option One:
Support, refute or complicate the argument that Garrett Hardin’s analogy in “Lifeboat Ethics” makes an effective argument against traditional liberal approaches to helping the poor.
Sample Thesis #1
Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics is a veritable treasure trove of logical fallacies, humbug claims, and morally bankrupt rationalizations, which in sum make it the most egregious essay I've taught in my 30 years of teaching.
Sample Thesis #2
Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" is a toxic smokescreen of flimsy rationalizations for the Haves to to conceal their morally bankrupt agenda of promoting flagrant xenophobia, encouraging narcissistic indifference to the needs of the disadvantaged, and for dismissing all forms of social service as "suicidal" and "misguided" enterprises worthy of scorn and contempt.
Sample Thesis #3
McMahon's excoriation of Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" is rooted in liberal bias, zealous moral rectitude, and the stereotypical do-gooder's outrage, all of which makes McMahon blind to the many virtues of Hardin's essay, which include a persuasive critique on foolish social engineering, the Tragedy of the Commons, and the do-gooder's failure to see the unintended long-term consequences of his philanthropic campaigns.
Sample Thesis #4
While McMahon accuses Hardin of relying on ad hominem and other logical fallacies, it is our professor who, in an act of supreme hypocrisy, relies on the same fallacies: ad hominem, Straw Man, and faulty comparisons, which in sum prove that our instructor is a lifelong mountebank and a charlatan.
Sample Thesis #5
While both McMahon and Hardin are guilty of relying on unconvincing rhetorical excesses and logical fallacies to support their claims, both make a lot of good points, and I daresay, in spite of the fact that many find the two characters antithetical to one another, I could find some common ground that would bring McMahon and Hardin together.
Blair Atland Critique Excerpt from The Atlantic
Hardin’s proposals aren’t outlandish or even anything close to that. The main issues with his arguments stem from inaccurate assumptions and unintended consequences of his claims. To start, Hardin’s ideals focus on the fact that the Earth’s nations are like Lifeboats, as previously explained. However, with the positivistic approach, these nations have no carrying capacity. While fossil fuels and other non-renewable recourses are currently abused by many of the nations here on Earth, thats not to say that without them we are are all doomed. The truth is actually extremely contrary to that point, abandoning finite resources will remove limits that humanity must follow allowing for unprecedented growth, all that is needed is the right scientific findings. The rate at which scientific research is carried out only continues to grow more and more rapidly and because of this, humanities scientific advancements should one day be able to solve all of the ailments plaguing society. At the forefront of these issues comes over-population and the aforementioned reliance on non-renewable recourses. However both of these issues shouldn’t be an issue. The former can be solved by building up instead of across. There is no limit as to how high humanity can build homes. Yes, skyscrapers have a maximum height limit, however as humanity’s understanding of space increases, a time will come when not only the space but also differing planets and other heavenly bodies are opened up for human terraforming. All of this drives home the point that Humans have more or less transcended evolutionary restrictions such as carrying capacity. With more developed brains comes logic and reasoning, which can almost always prevail.
Even if Hardin is correct in saying that all of Earth’s nations are lifeboats with a set carrying capacity, having a population far from that capacity still wouldn’t guarantee survival. Hardin’s scenario of the harsh lifeboat decision has an outcome in which of the one hundred swimmers on in the boat, none are saved in order to ensure the survival of those already on the lifeboat. However, if a large enough wave, or any other disastrous circumstance were to happen which involved the lifeboat, it isn’t relevant whether one hundred percent of the seats are filled or if its one percent, the boat will still meet its end.
In order to further prove points against Hardin, I will refute some criticisms of my own arguments. In my first rebuttal against Hardin and his premises, a majority of the argued points rely on positivism being taken as an undisputed fact, that is, that science will prevail over any difficulties humanity may come across; whether it be combating the rising population or the stabilization of food production. It is too big of an if statement to say that science will just fix everything that may ail society. Fully relying on this approach is not only detrimental to today’s world, but also to our future generations. Instead of working towards issues that are growing and possibly beginning to have long lasting effects, they would be pushed off until the technology is right for the solution. However if each nation’s carrying-capacity is not determined and attempts aren’t made in the present, by the time any sort of operation begins to counteract the overpopulation, it may already be too late. To go along with this, the technology that is developed may not have any relevance to solving over-population issues. Companies may be able to produce smartphones thinner than the eye can comprehend, but that doesn’t help the regulation of carrying capacity.
My rebuttal against this counter argument is as follows. Yes, the future is technically unpredictable, as is technology that may exist. However taking into consideration the rate at which not just technology but all scientific research has grown in the past few decades, it’s clear that with this trend, there’s no slowing down. For instance, Moore’s law states that every two years, the complexity of the electronic devices will double as well. This belief originated in the nineteen-sixties, and now, even over five decades, the premise still holds up. If anything, the rate at which the complexity of technology doubles will speed up as opposed to slowing down. As for the second counter argument, all technology is related in some way. A glamorous new phone or gadget may not directly effect these important issues dealing with lifeboat ethics, however in some way, they eventually will. The development of new transistors could lead towards more efficient renewable energy sources. New, more powerful batteries to power mobile gadgets could be used to store energy from these new sources. More powerful computers will giveway to more advanced research in the areas of genetically modified organisms, resulting in more food to feed the growing population. Technology, as it has for all of humanity’s existence, will continue to pave new roads for civilization to walk down.
A counter argument for my second premise is that it is much too specific to have any sort of relevance in the matter of life boat ethics. An event that would spell certain doom for humanity is practically unlikely. Sure, when using the lifeboat metaphor, the argument is solid that a wave may come along that the measly lifeboat cant handle. However, this example is just a metaphor and in reality, one of these tsunamis doesn’t exist.
While it may be unlikely for a catastrophic event to occur, its still not out of the question. In the thirteen-hundreds, the Black Plague was unlikely however it still managed to decimate roughly one third of Europe’s population. If a similar virus or disease were to begin spreading now, it would be even more deadly. Yes, medical practices and facilities have drastically improved since the thirteen hundreds, so has transpiration. The existence of planes, high speed trains and cars would make the outbreak even more disastrous; attempting to contain a highly contagious disease would be almost impossible with the rate at which persons all across the world travel. So yes, a catastrophic event is not out of the question.
Looking back on Hardin’s proposals, it's clear that his thoughts were in the right place. As studies have shown, global population is continuing to rise as dangerous rates, hence Hardin’s premises which show a natural concern for the pressing matter. However taking into consideration other, scientific studies, lifeboat ethics seems to hold less ground, although that doesn’t mean all of the premises are irrelevant. If Lifeboat Ethics were to be adapted to fit a positivistic view, then the concept would hold much more merit. It should also not be left out that positivism isn’t one hundred percent likely, there is still a chance that science can't solve the overpopulation issue, and because of this doubt, having a backup plan such as Lifeboat Ethics can’t hurt.
Writing Counter-Arguments
Writing counter-arguments explained by Harvard Writing Center
Mesa College has a good counter-argument essay structure example and explanation.
While opponents of my subject make some good points against my position, they are in the larger sense wrong when we consider that they fail to see and interpret correctly ____________, ______________, _______________, and _______________.
While Author X is guilty of several weaknesses as described by her opponents, her argument holds up to close examination in the areas of _________________, ______________, _____________, and ______________.
Even though author X shows weakness in her argument, such as __________ and ____________, she is nevertheless convincing because . . .
While author X makes many compelling points, her overall argument collapses under the weight of __________, ___________, ___________, and ______________.
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an oversimplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Comments