Chapter Summary
Certain types of defective arguments that occur frequently are known as fallacies. Fallacies are often psychologically persuasive but logically flawed. We can divide fallacies into two broad categories:
- those that have irrelevant premises, and
- those that have unacceptable premises.
Fallacies with irrelevant premises include the
genetic fallacy (arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin),
composition (arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole),
division (arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts, or that what is true of a group is true of individuals in the group),
appeal to the person (rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself),
equivocation (the use of a word in two different senses in an argument),
appeal to the masses (arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it),
appeal to ignorance (arguing that a lack of evidence proves something),
appeal to tradition (arguing that a claim must be true or good just because it's part of a tradition),
appeal to emotion (the use of emotions as premises in an argument),
red herring (the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue during an argument), and
straw man (the distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone's position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted).
Fallacies with unacceptable premises include
begging the question (the attempt to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise),
slippery slope (arguing, without good reasons, that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to a further, undesirable step or steps),
hasty generalization (the drawing of a conclusion about a group based on an inadequate sample of the group), and
faulty analogy (an argument in which the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways).
