Fallacies: Answer Key

By Dr. Kenneth B. Hunt

 

  1. I owned a Ford once and it broke down on me. They are terrible cars and I will never buy one again.

Hasty Generalization. The only apparent support for the generalization that Fords "are terrible cars" is the speaker's single experience of owning one, and considering how many millions of Fords have been produced; one is obviously an insufficient basis for generalizing about all of them. This does not mean, of course, that Fords are not "terrible cars," only that we don't have enough information here to make a decision one-way or the other.

  1. Did you enjoy breaking your aunt's heart by being late for dinner?

A loaded question. By answering "yes" or "no" you would only affirm or deny your enjoyment, while apparently agreeing that you did break your aunt's heart and that you were late for dinner. Shame on you!

  1. Why shouldn't I make fun of my boss? Look at all the abuse I take from her!

Two wrongs make a right. The speaker is justifying making fun of someone else, on the grounds that the other person acts badly, as well. Never try to justify your wrongdoing on the basis of the wrongs committed by others.

  1. Why would you want to hear him speak? He's a flaming liberal who doesn't care about anything except saving trees in the rain forest.

Ad hominem. This is a case of attacking the individual instead of the argument the individual is making. Because the attack, in this case, comes even before the argument can be heard, this may also be considered an example of the special case of circular reasoning known as poisoning the well, in which the attack is designed to prejudice the listener before the argument is heard.

  1. I've been working at the same video store for the last 2 years and I only make $5.95 an hour! My boss is such a cheap jerk!

Or maybe you don't deserve a raise! The assumption here is, "After two years, if I'm still making so little, there's something wrong with my boss." That could be a hasty generalization: to decide, we would need to know about other employees and their wages after a similar time. Or it could be a false dilemma: "either I get a raise or my boss is a jerk." This might also be an ad hominem attack, though that would be clearer if we were being asked to dismiss the boss's reasoning: “ . . . I only make $5.95 an hour because my boss says I'm unreliable."

  1. Those James Bond movies are so predictable--if you've seen one, you've seen them all!

Hasty generalization. The phrase, "if you've seen one, you've seen them all," is typical of generalizations made on the basis of too little evidence--in this case, as little as one observation or experience.

If taken by itself, the first claim, "Those James Bond movies are so predictable," might be considered a sweeping generalization, but it might also be an accurate appraisal of a group of similar films. The group being discussed is not so large as to preclude the possibility of a meaningful generalization, as would be the case if the claim were "Those action films are so predictable."

 

 

  1. Sure, he's opposed to banning handguns--he's a bullet manufacturer!

Ad hominem. The suggestion is that we dismiss the arguments of a bullet manufacturer on the grounds that he is biased. But our acceptance or rejection must be based on the argument, not the person making it. And even if we determine that self-interest has motivated the argument, we might also find the argument persuasive apart from those intentions, and accept it.

  1. If you love your family, you'll buy this new stealth security system.

False dilemma. The claim only has two options: either you buy the security system, or you don't love your family. But, of course, there are many others: you might not love your family and still buy the system; or you might love your family but not buy the system; or you might buy some other system. This fallacy works by making you concentrate only on the two options mentioned, one of which--in this case, not loving your family--is assumed to be unacceptable.

  1. I walked under a ladder yesterday. That's why I failed my exam.

Fallacy of Post Hoc Reasoning. Like most superstitions, this example uses the form of "after x, therefore because of x." In this case, something bad (failed exam) happened after walking under a ladder, so walking under the ladder is thought to be the cause of the failed exam. It might take a few days or a few years, but eventually, of course, something bad is going to happen after you walk under a ladder, break a mirror, or walk by a black cat, so superstitions seem to work for some people. But it's just a case of post hoc reasoning.

  1. "If it's got to be clean, it's got to be Tide."

False dilemma. This advertising slogan presents you with only two options (either it is Tide or it isn't clean), when there are many other possibilities, such as getting clothes clean with another detergent, or using Tide and still not getting the clothes clean.

  1. Do you understand why you need to be punished?

Loaded question. If you answer "yes" or "no" to this question, you affirm or deny your understanding, but, because the question has two clauses, you still agree that you do need to be punished.

  1. "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

  1. Bill has borrowed Jane's expensive pen, but found he didn't return it. He tells himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A.

  1. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

  1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

  1. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

  1. Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help.

An Amphiboly occurs when the construction of a sentence allows it to have two different meanings.

  1. "Trees are green; therefore human beings enjoy spinach.

Non Sequitur When the premises of an argument are not logically connected to the conclusions, the argument contains a non sequitur.

  1. "Death is a subject of utmost gravity. Gravity is what keeps us from falling off the Earth. Thus, death is primarily what keeps us from falling off the Earth."

Equivocation Someone who uses a word in more than one sense, but gives the impression that only one meaning was meant is using an equivocation.

  1. If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium.

Contrary to fact hypothesis. Assertion of an idea based on an unjustified or unsubstantiated degree of certainty that a hypothetical consequence would have resulted. 

  1. There should be no "moment of silence" in schools: it discriminates against certain religions, causes unnecessary controversy, takes away from study time, and mixes church and state.

Slanting. Selecting or emphasizing the evidence that supports your claim and suppressing or playing down other evidence.

  1. "That man you're accusing of murder cannot be guilty; he's the sweetest man alive."

Appeal to Emotion. Personally feeling good about something does not make it right.

  1. "Isaac Newton, one of history's greatest geniuses, was convinced of the validity of astrology. But you, a stable boy, will not accept this ancient science. Who do you think you are?"

Appeal to Authority. Just because a person is respected and generally believable it doesn't make her right.

  1. "You stay the hell away from my daughter, you creep! I know exactly what sex maniacs you Swedes are. You animal! My daughter is going to marry a Turkish man, and that's the end of it!"

Appeal to Ignorance. Believing that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proven false. Presuming someone to be guilty until proven otherwise.

  1. Smoking is causing air pollution in Las Vegas. (True, but the effect of smoking is insignificant compared to the effect of auto exhaust.)

Genuine but Insignificant Cause. The object or event identified as the cause of an effect is a genuine cause, but insignificant when compared to the other causes of that event.

 

to homepage