Mere assertion fallacy examples

Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy Paper

Name

Class

Date

Professor

Logical Fallacy

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. In other words it is a factual error or a failure to logically support the conclusion in an argument. An argument is a group of statements about a specific topic where a stand is taken applying premises needed to support their ultimate conclusion. A fallacy is a type of argument where the person uses bad arguments to support their conclusion but in order to be a fallacy it must be believed some of the time (Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1995). The different types of fallacies are mere assertion, circular reasoning, Ad hominem, red herring, pseudo-questions, false cause, sweeping generalizations, slippery slope, and equivocation or changing meanings.

Mere Assertion

Arguments by mere assertion simply mean a person uses a strong statement instead of any real fact to argue a point. Just because an argument is stated emphatically does not mean that statement is in fact true. In mere assertion even if there are facts to the contrary or that contradict the argument it will continue o be supported. Arguments by mere assertion are also considered rhetoric. Rhetoric is supporting the argument despite the fact there is no evidence the argument is true. It is a form of persuasion or blind faith in the mere assertion.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning is a type of fallacy where the argument goes in circles while never actually being proved. Circular reasoning also known as begging the question involves the conclusion found in the premise. Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove (2009). For example the argument is the Bible is never wrong. Whatever the Bible says is a fact therefore the Bible is never wrong. The argument uses circular reasoning by circling back to the original argument without any fact everything in the Bible is in fact true.

Ad hominem

Ad hominem is a fallacy that simply means argument using personal attacks instead of using legitimate facts to prove the argument true. Ad hominem refers to using personal facts against other people in the argument to prove the point. Since the person cannot find a legitimate counter argument they will use slander and verbal attacks to win their argument. The ad hominem fallacy may use abusive words to win the argument or may attack their family, job, ethnicity, or personal beliefs, just to name a few.

There are many different arguments involving the ad hominem from the circumstance fallacy to guilt by association (Eemeren, F & Grootendorst, 1995). In the ad hominem argument needling is also used to cause the other person to err causing the false argument to appear more legitimate. People using this type of argument have poor character and lack the intelligence to develop a sound and logical argument backed by reason. A good example of an ad hominem is in a rape trial when the defense attempts to smear the character of the victim in order to argue for the bad actions of the rapist. For example the argument could be because the rape victim often has one night stands then she could not have been raped and must have consented. The goal is to make the victim look bad so the defendant is found not guilty.

Red Herring

A red herring is a fallacy where the arguer employs a diversion in order to impress their argument onto another person. The red herring is another topic that has nothing to do with the topic being argued. The term red herring originated from a practice used in fox hunting where hunters used red herrings to distract the hound so they would not smell the fox. Similar to the use of these red fish, the red herring fallacy is designed to distract in order to provide an argument not based on any true logic (Pope, 2003). For example if a student is found cheating they may attempt to distract the teacher by crying and saying they are going through a hard time at home. The student’s story is designed to distract the teacher from discussing the act of cheating.

Pseudo-questions

Pseudo-questions refer to a fallacy where the argument makes no sense. Questions like “Can God turn a circle into a square?” or can God defeat his own power?” These questions do not make sense because God cannot defeat himself or turn a circle into a square because then a circle would no longer be a circle but a square. Pseudo-questions are logically contradictory or the logic applied to the argument jus does not make any sense. An example of a pseudo questions is my new student told me today that I was there favorite professor. This cannot be true because the student is new and does not know this professor or other professors well enough to make a sound judgment.

False Cause

A fallacy occurs when sequential events are used as evidence that the first caused the second. What this means is the event occurred, the event happened after the event occurred, and therefore the event caused the things that happened afterwards. Some slogans will contain false cause fallacies, such as sequence is not causation or correlation is not causation (Philosophy Index, 2002). For example during the softball season the team won every game until the pitcher changed their socks, therefore, the pitcher will not change their socks again until the season is over.

Sweeping Generalizations

Sweeping generalizations are a broad statement which appear to be supported by evidence but is not. Sweeping generalizations are statements made about an entire topic even though the statement itself may be false (Bluedern, 2001). A perfect example is the fallacy children should be seen but not be heard. Children that play sports are seen and heard so this argument cannot be factual. Even though the belief children should be seen and not heard is a well recognized one does not make it a logical argument especially when children are often times seen and heard every day on televisions and other forms of media.

Slippery Slope

The slippery slope argument finds if one event occurs it must automatically be followed by another. What this means is any of the normal steps that are taken between the event and what is supposed to eventuate after skipped. A good example of the slippery slope is “College is getting to expensive before you know it they will be charging a million dollars for four years of college. While college prices are on the rise they will not reach the million dollar mark for a very long time. There is no reason to believe that the main event will automatically be followed by the believed event.

Equivocation or changing meanings

The fallacy of equivocation refers to shifting the meaning of words in an argument in order to provide false logic. The fallacy of equivocation uses a word that has more than one meaning even though in the argument it should have one specific meaning. For example in the fallacy of equivocation is the statement “he is a cut above the rest.” In this case the word cut is not used in its normal meaning. The equivocation fallacy can occur on accident or on purpose but the end result is it can create confusion on the real meaning behind the argument.

References

Bluedern H. (2001). Sweeping Generalizations. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from

http://www.fallacydetective.com/news/read/sweeping-generalization/

Eemeren, F & Grootendorst, R. (1995). The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies", in

Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Hans V. Hansen & Robert C. Pinto, pp.

130-144

Logical fallacy. (2009). Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning. Retrieved February 27, 2014

from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/

Pope, K. (2003). Common Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 25 Types & Examples. Retrieved

February 27, 2014 from http://www.kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php

Philosophy Index. (2002). False Cause fallacy. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from

http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/fallacies/false-cause.php