Constructing and supporting an argument is a challenging task. The writer needs to ensure that every premise and piece of evidence presented fits seamlessly into the whole, smoothly leading the reader to the desired conclusion. However, logical fallacies jar and disrupt arguments. They significantly take away from the impact a research paper or an essay can have on the reader. Being aware of them is the first step toward guarding against them so that they do not creep unintentionally into your work. Recognizing them in others’ arguments also helps in steering clear of sources or inspiration that might lead you astray with faulty reasoning.
What is a Logical Fallacy?
Expounding the logical reasoning for making a certain claim or for arriving at a conclusion is the basis of argumentative writing. Any flaws in the reasoning undermine the value of the argument. And patterns of such erroneous reasoning that writers or debaters may often fall into are called logical fallacies.
These logical inconsistencies and fallacies may sometimes escape the attention of lay readers, but they do not go unnoticed in academia. Faults in argument building result in lower grades even as the work is rendered devoid of merit and is therefore considered useless.
Fallacies in argumentation can be divided into two main types:
- Formal fallacies are problems in the manner in which the argument and its supports have been structured. The reasoning is sound, but the arrangement of the points and premises in the paper is off. The paper does not flow well, and comprehension is hindered. Such an issue is relatively easier to sort out, as the rectification is one of simply rearranging content in a logical and suitable manner.
- Informal fallacies are issues in the reasoning. These are the mistakes commonly referred to as logical fallacies. Correcting these calls for the writer to reexamine their analysis, reasoning and many times, even their hypothesis or thesis.
The rest of this article shall look at some of the most common logical fallacies that students and debaters should look out for when making an argument.
Types of Logical Fallacies
- Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning: This involves offering a premise and a conclusion that depend on the veracity of one another. The premise is correct only if the conclusion is true, and the conclusion is true only if the premise is right. This is hardly a logical or valid justification as neither one is independently correct. There is no real proof that is being presented.
For instance, one may argue that a book is a bestseller because it is popular, but this doesn’t really tell the reader anything about why so many people buy it. In fact, one could say that the book is popular because it is a bestseller and there would be no difference in the statement’s meaning. Instead, if the writer intends to make an argument about why the book is a bestseller, they ought to examine various other factors such as who wrote it, what kind of publicity it got, what it is about, its style, and/or if it has won any awards.
- The Slippery Slope: This type of fallacy involves predicting a chain of events beginning from a seemingly trivial event and ending in relatively dire/exaggerated consequences. Predictions are always tricky since they often have no solid proof. While speculating may sometimes be acceptable, presenting drastic future scenarios without appropriate data is not. It takes away from the argument by diminishing its seriousness.
For example: Claiming that if a student misses a single class in college, they are likely to end their days as a lonely, unemployed person
Such arguments are wildly exaggerated, and no matter how many intermediate steps the writer describes, readers will find such an escalation very difficult to take seriously.
- Weak Analogies: These compare subjects that are not sufficiently alike to prove the point being made. Whilst analogies are usually a great way to demonstrate one’s premise, attention should be paid to select the right subjects. The value of the analogy comes from the properties being compared rather than simply from the subjects themselves.
For example: A comparison of caffeine with cocaine while arguing for regulations to be imposed on the use of the former
Both substances may be addictive, but such a comparison does not take into consideration several more pertinent factors, like the vast differences in the manner in which they are used and the effects they have on the human body. Such an analogy weakens the writer’s argument instead of boosting it.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Translating to “after this, therefore because of this,” this type of fallacy is a fault in establishing causation. An assumption is made here that correlation equals causation. An event taking place after another one does not necessarily establish that the latter is a cause for the former.
Such fallacies are often at the root of superstitious beliefs, such as a student attributing the good grade they received for a test to the pair of shoes they were wearing at the time they took it.
- Red Herrings: These involve bringing up a tangential topic to serve as “evidence.” This is more a distraction tactic than actual evidence. The topic picked is related to the core issue under discussion/debate closely enough that it may at first seem to be a relevant point. However, it does not bear up to closer scrutiny and brings nothing that supports the argument to the table. Writers must ensure that all the supporting premises they present clearly contribute to their arguments.
For example: Replying to an argument about the effects of plastic on sealife by talking, instead, about the impact of sea lice on fish
While the latter might be a valid concern, it is beside the point in the context of the present discussion.
- Straw Man Fallacy: This type of fallacy misrepresents the opposing claim or constructs a false one and attributes it to the opposition. This is done in a manner that oversimplifies or exaggerates the claim, thereby making it easier to take down or dismiss in order to set up one’s own point of view as the right one. This fallacy is called so as it takes a potentially strong opposing argument and replaces it with one that is hollow, or made of “straw.”
For example: Accusing those who push for reduced carbon emissions of being “anti-car”
Such a misrepresentation portrays the opposition as people who are impractical and hence should not be listened to.
- Ad populum or Appeal to Popularity: This is a stance justified on the sole basis that a lot of other people agree with it as well. Just because something is popularly accepted does not make it correct; thus, it is not valid evidence for anything. This fallacy is also known as the “bandwagon fallacy.”
For instance, a lot of people believe that the diet versions of well-known soft drinks are healthy enough to be consumed on a regular basis. However, when one spends just a little time examining this belief, it becomes clear that it is not correct.
- Ad verecundiam or Appeal to Authority: The view of a well-known person is used as the only evidence for the validity of one’s argument. Citing the opinion of experts is generally encouraged and works in favor of the writer. But doing so in a vacuum and offering up this opinion as the only evidence does not. And sometimes, the renowned person being quoted is not really relevant to the topic at hand. This amounts to blind acceptance rather than logically acceptable proof. It makes better sense to include the reasons for why they held the opinion.
For example: Citing a politician when speaking on scientific matters
Politicians have their own set of skills and expertise, but these cannot be used to validate arguments in the specialized field of science, unless it is proven that they do have an extensive background in the subject. Even if the latter is true and proven, their opinion should be qualified with those of a bona fide scientist who is clearly an expert in that matter and/or the reasons why they hold it.
- Ad ignorantiam or Appeal to Ignorance: This involves using the absence of proof as supporting evidence. The writer attempts to force the reader to accept a hypothesis in a situation where there is an overall lack of data that either supports or opposes it.
For example: Using the fact that the existence of extraterrestrial life has been neither proved nor disproved as solid evidence that it does not exist, or vice versa
- Ad hominem: Such a fallacy attacks the opponent personally rather than their argument. This is usually witnessed on political stages and in related literature. Ad hominem attacks are more insults than actual counter arguments or supporting evidence. They are irrelevant in logical and reasoned debate or argument.
For example: Dismissing a position that trees in a specific area should not be cut down because the person presenting it charges his tenants a high rent
One has no bearing on the other.
Sometimes, a few of the above mentioned fallacies are employed intentionally with the short term aim of winning an argument or a debate. Academic argumentative writing, however, becomes part of a long-standing record and may serve as a reference for future work. Thus, intentional (and unintentional) fallacies and inconsistencies in logic must be avoided to maintain the integrity of this record as well.
