Writing As The Key To Competence – Part 4: Finding Fallacies

Last week, I explained what a deductive, inductive, and abductive argument is, as well as ways in which these different kinds of arguments can be undermined. This week, I wanted to focus on the most common fallacies that crop up in people’s arguments.

First off, fallacies are errors in reasoning, and once you become familiar with them, you’ll be able to poke holes in inferior arguments, while also making sure that your own arguments don’t fall victim to the same tactics. Let’s jump right in…

Attacking The Person, Not The Argument

This fallacy is more formally known as an argument ad hominem, and this is to undermine a claim or position by attacking the author’s character, interests, views, or circumstances when these have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Here are a couple of examples…

Student: “Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn’t have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.”

“Socrates’ arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.”

Looking To Authorities That Don’t Matter

This is the fallacy of getting support for your argument by basing it on a claim that appeals to an irrelevant authority. This authority may not be knowledgeable enough or may be unreliable, in which case the claim lacks legitimacy. Let’s look at a couple of examples…

“Nobody is a better judge than public opinion.”

“I agree with Alec Baldwin’s stance on global warming. He must know what he’s talking about, being a famous celebrity and all.”

No Evidence Against It Must Mean It’s True

This is more formally known as an argument from ignorance where the person argues that their conclusion must be true, simply because there is no evidence against it. It unfairly shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the argument because they don’t have to produce actual evidence in favour of their view. Let’s look at some examples…

“Since you haven’t been able to prove your innocence, I must assume you’re guilty.”

“Why are you always so skeptical of ESP? Can you prove it doesn’t exist?”

Using An Ambiguous Term Or Phrase

Also known as equivocation, this kind of argument commits the fallacy of ambiguity by making use of a phrase or term that’s used in one way at one stage of the argument, but another way later on in the argument. Here are some examples…

“I have the right to watch ‘The Real World.’  Therefore it’s right for me to watch the show.  So, I think I’ll watch this ‘Real World’ marathon tonight instead of studying for my exam.”

Here the term “right” is being used in two different ways. The first refers to your legal rights, while the second refers to what’s morally right.

“Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There’s enough hostility in this world.”

Here the term “argue” is being used in two ways. The first is referring to debate or putting forward an argument, while the second refers to a verbal disagreement.

Putting Forward A False “Either…Or…” Scenario

Another common error in reasoning is where someone will present an argument that rests on a dilemma, i.e. “either this or that”, but the dilemma is false because it fails to include all relevant alternatives. The author wants you to believe that the two options they’ve presented are the only ones even when this is not in fact true. Let’s look at some examples…

“Be my friend or be my enemy.”

“Death is nothing to fear. It is either annihilation or migration.”

Attacking An Argument That Doesn’t Exist

This is one of the most popular fallacies because it’s committed so often. When you attack someone’s position in such a way that you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what they’re saying, you are attacking a Straw Man. In other words, you are not attacking the person’s actual argument but your own version of it, which doesn’t do their position justice. If you want to genuinely undermine their position, you need to see if you can object to the strongest version of their argument. Here are a few examples…

“It’s appalling to me that the people who oppose the death penalty believe the lives of convicted murderers are more important than the lives of their victims. This alone shows that the opponents of capital punishment are wrong.”

“Senator Jackson is anti-woman. After all, he voted against anti-pornography legislation, so he is in favour of the sexual and violent exploitation of women.”

Going Around In A Circle

The final fallacy I’ll look at is more formally known as Begging The Question. The colloquial use of this phrase has a different meaning which is something like “this prompts us to ask the question”, but in actual fact the phrase has a technical meaning. It means that you are reasoning in a circular way, where your premises already presuppose the conclusion. This means you can’t use these premises to argue for the conclusion because the conclusion is already contained in the premises. Let’s look at some examples for clarity…

“Thoughts are not part of the physical world, since thoughts are in their nature non-physical.”

“Happiness is the highest good for a human being, since all other values are inferior to it.”

There are, of course, others, but with an understanding of fallacies in your arsenal, you’ll be able to effectively dismantle people’s arguments and you’ll be able to build strong arguments of your own. This enables you to pinpoint weaknesses in other people’s thinking so that you can reason better and successfully solve problems at work and in your personal life. So, don’t underestimate the power of being able to think clearly and rationally – it’s one of the rarest and most effective skills in your toolkit!

Next week, I’ll be looking at the importance and meaning of punctuation in writing, so stay tuned…