Misplacing the burden of proof

Problem Identification And Formulation

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 1/39

Page 176

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

6 Relevance (Red Herring) Fallacies

Students will learn to . . . 1. Define and recognize argumentum ad hominem fallacies 2. Define and recognize straw man fallacies 3. Define and recognize false dilemma fallacies 4. Define and recognize fallacies involved in misplacing the burden of proof. 5. Define and recognize fallacies involved in begging the question. 6. Define and recognize fallacies classified as appeals to emotion. 7. Define and recognize other fallacies involved in arriving at irrelevant conclusions.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 2/39

T ime now to talk about fallacies.A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, an argument that doesn’t really support or prove thecontention it is supposed to support or prove. Here is an example of a fallacy: You tell me it’s dangerous to text when I’m driving, but I have seen you doing it.

The speaker is dismissing someone’s claim that it’s dangerous to drive and text. However, the fact that the other person texts while he or she drives has no bearing on whether texting while driving is dangerous. This argument is a fallacy, a mistake in reasoning. It is also an example of a relevance fallacy because its premise (I have seen you doing it) is not relevant to the issue in question (whether texting while driving is dangerous).

The fallacies we discuss in this chapter are all relevance fallacies. A relevance fallacy’s premise may seem relevant and may resonate psychologically, but it isn’t relevant.

Relevance fallacies are also called red herrings. A herring is a smelly fish that, if dragged across the trail a hound is tracking, might lead the hound on a wild goose chase; the fish is merely a distracting irrelevancy.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo133
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo255
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo251
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 3/39

Page 177

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

In this chapter we will look at the most common red herrings (relevance fallacies).

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM The example just given about texting is a relevance fallacy (or red herring) known as an Argumentum Ad Hominem (pronounced the way it is spelled). This type of argument is the most common fallacy on planet Earth. The name translates as “argument to the person.” You commit this fallacy if you think you dismiss someone’s position (idea, proposal, claim, argument, etc.) by dismissing him or her. Take the example about texting and driving. Recall what was going on: the issue was whether it is dangerous to text and drive. But instead of discussing the other person’s position on the issue, the speaker (the person committing the fallacy) started talking about the other person. The speaker’s argument was directed at the other person, not at what the other person said.

Let’s modify that example slightly:

Not only have I seen you drive and text, but just last week you were saying it isn’t dangerous to do that.

This too is an argumentum ad hominem. Instead of addressing whether it is dangerous to text, the speaker (the person committing the fallacy) is still talking about the other person, apparently thinking that the fact the individual has changed positions on the issue somehow nullifies what he or she said. You might wonder how anyone could reason this way, but you hear this type of argument all the time. Accusations of doing a “flip-flop” are standard in political campaigns, despite the fact that a person’s being inconsistent or changing his or her mind has no bearing on the wisdom of his or her position either now or at any other time.

Here is different kind of example of argumentum ad hominem:

What do I think about the president’s proposal for immigration reform? It’s ridiculous. He just wants Latino votes.

The speaker is just bad-mouthing the president, which doesn’t tell us anything at all about the strengths or weaknesses of the president’s proposal. If the speaker wants to show that the president’s proposal is ridiculous, the speaker had better talk about the proposal.

Another slightly different example:

You can forget what Father Hennessey said about the dangers of abortion, because Father Hennessey is a priest and priests are required to hold such views.

The speaker in this example isn’t exactly bad-mouthing Father Hennessey, but he or she still isn’t talking about what Father Hennessey said. Instead, he or she is talking about Hennessey’s circumstances (being a priest). If someone gave you this argument, you wouldn’t have the faintest idea what Father Hennessey actually thinks the dangers of abortion are, let alone what is wrong with his thinking.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo32
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 4/39

Page 178

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

To repeat, the argumentum ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attempts to dismiss another person’s position on an issue by discussing the person, and not by discussing the issue or that person’s position on it. The person committing the fallacy might discuss the other individual’s circumstances, character, motivation, lack of consistency, or any number of other attributes, but he or she hasn’t really commented on the strengths or weaknesses of the other individual’s position.

We’ve arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage.

—RUSH LMBAUGH, on President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage (Limbaugh’s first, second, third, and fourth wives could not be reached for comment.)

The comment about the wives is a humorous argumentum ad hominem dismissal by About.com of something Rush Limbaugh said. See the Political Humor section of About.com.

Poisoning the Well Speakers and writers sometimes try to get us to dismiss what someone is going to say by talking about the person’s consistency or character or circumstances. This is known as Poisoning the Well. An example:

You can forget what Father Hennessey will say this evening about abortion, because Father Hennessey is a priest and priests are required to think that abortion is a mortal sin.

As you can see, this is like the previous example about Father Hennessey, except in this example Father Hennessey hasn’t said anything yet. The person who made the previous statement is poisoning the well, hoping we are not thinking critically and will dismiss whatever Father Hennessey says when he does speak.

Could somebody please show me one hospital built by a dolphin? Could somebody show me one highway built by a dolphin? Could someone show me one automobile invented by a dolphin?

—RUSH LIMBAUGH, responding to The New York Times claim that dolphins’ behavior and large brains suggest they are as intelligent as human beings.

Good point. Anyone know of a hospital or highway built by Rush Limbaugh or an automobile invented by him?

(The “good point” comment is an argumentum ad hominem on our part. We couldn’t resist.)

Guilt by Association Outside the logic classroom, the phrase “guilt by association” refers to the concept that a person is judged by the company he or she keeps. For example, if you hang out with unsavory people, then others may think that you too have unsavory qualities. We, however, mean something different by the phrase “guilt by association.” We use the phrase to denote a very common version of the argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy Guilt by Association occurs when a speaker or writer tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we don’t like has that belief. For example:

http://www.about.com/
http://www.about.com/
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo232
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo158
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 5/39

You think waterboarding is torture? That sounds like something these left-wing college professors would say.

The speaker wants listeners to dismiss the idea that waterboarding is torture. So he or she tries to taint that idea by associating it with “left-wing college professors,” people he or she thinks listeners don’t like or trust. The argument isn’t a straightforward argumentum ad hominem, because the speaker doesn’t imply that “left-wing college professors” came up with the idea that waterboarding is torture. He or she is just saying that they likely have that idea. The fact that the idea is associated with such people is offered as a reason for dismissing it. The belief is “guilty” by virtue of its alleged association with supposedly left-wing college professors.

Genetic Fallacy One other version of the argumentum ad hominem deserves your attention. It’s known as the Genetic Fallacy. A speaker or writer commits this fallacy when he or she argues that the origin of a contention in and of itself automatically renders it false. Here are two examples:

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo154
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 6/39

Page 179

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

That idea is absurd. It’s just something the Tea Party put out there.

Where on earth did you hear that? On talk radio?

As you can see, both examples imply that a view should be rejected simply because of its origin (genesis).

Here’s another example of the genetic fallacy:

God is just an idea people came up with way back before they had science.

The speaker is dismissing the idea of God because of its origin.

STRAW MAN The Straw Man fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misrepresenting it. Here’s an example of the straw man fallacy:

What do I think about outlawing large ammunition clips? I think the idea of disarming everyone is ridiculous and dangerous.

As you can see, the speaker has turned the proposal to outlaw large ammunition clips into something far different, a proposal to disarm everyone. He has set up a straw man (one that is easy to knock over).

The straw man fallacy is almost as common as the argumentum ad hominem. Here is another example of the straw man fallacy:

YOU: I think we should legalize medical marijuana. YOUR FRIEND: Maybe you think everyone should go around stoned, but I think that’s absurd.

Your Friend has transformed your position into one that nobody would accept. Another example:

CONSERVATIVE: It would be bad for the economy to tighten emission standards for sulfur dioxide. PROGRESSIVE: How can you say that? Having more sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is the last thing we need!

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo293
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 7/39

Conservative never said she wanted more sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere; Progressive is putting words into her mouth. He has misstated her position.

Whereas an argumentum ad hominem attempts to dismiss a claim on the basis of irrelevant considerations about the person making it, the straw man fallacy attempts to dismiss a claim by misrepresenting it.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 8/39

Page 180

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

FALSE DILEMMA (IGNORING OTHER ALTERNATIVES) The False Dilemma fallacy happens when someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible.

We either eliminate Social Security or the country will go bankrupt. Therefore we must eliminate Social Security.

This is a fallacy. The speaker doesn’t present all the options. He ignores, for example, the alternative of cutting something other than Social Security, or raising the age of eligibility, or reducing payments to people who make a lot of money from other sources.

Here is another example: This is a false dilemma. The speaker thinks oil companies should be free to drill in the Gulf, and tries to

support his position by pretending that it’s either that or be at the mercy of OPEC, an alternative he assumes we will find unacceptable. The speaker ignores other options. Saving fuel might be one. Getting oil from shale is another. Going solar is possibly a third. Maybe you can think of others.

Either we allow the oil companies to drill for oil in the Gulf or we will be at the mercy of OPEC. Therefore we shouldn’t prevent the oil companies from drilling for oil in the Gulf.

Here is another example. A man says to his spouse:

“Look, either we clean out the garage, or this junk will run us out of house and home.”

The man is pretending the only alternative to cleaning out the garage is being run out of house and home, an unacceptable alternative. He has ignored other options, such as not acquiring more junk.

Which Do You Want in Your Backyard?

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo140
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 9/39

■ This?

■ Or this!

We’ve seen flyers advocating a position on a zoning-law proposal that imply we must choose between settings like these. Vote one way, you get a lush creek in your backyard; vote the other, you get a pig farm. “We bet both are false alternatives.”

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 10/39

Page 181

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

The false dilemma fallacy is often referred to as the black/white fallacy, the either/or fallacy, the false choice fallacy, and the false alternative fallacy. Perhaps the best name would be “ignoring other options,” but unfortunately that name hasn’t caught on.

The Perfectionist Fallacy Two false dilemma arguments are so common they have their own names. One is called the Perfectionist Fallacy. The fallacy is committed when a speaker or writer ignores options between “perfection” and “nothing.” Here’s an example:

A single English course won’t make anyone a great writer, so I don’t see why we have to take one.

The speaker has presented us with a perfectionist fallacy. He has restricted our options. He is arguing that unless a single English course can make us great writers (“perfection”), we shouldn’t have to take one at all. He has ignored the possibility that a single English course might make us better writers.

Here is another example of the perfectionist fallacy:

Drilling for oil in the Gulf won’t give us independence from OPEC; therefore we shouldn’t drill.

Unlike the speaker in the previous oil drilling example, this speaker tries to establish that we should not drill in the Gulf. He or she gives us a perfectionist fallacy, because he or she ignores the less-than-perfect possibility that drilling for oil in the Gulf could make us less dependent on OPEC.

The Line-Drawing Fallacy The other version of the false dilemma fallacy is the Line-Drawing Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal-clear line can be drawn between two things, or there is no difference between them. Here is an example:

You can’t say exactly when a video game is too violent; therefore no video game is too violent.

The speaker has restricted our options to either being able to draw a clear line between violent and nonviolent videos (which is implausible to think could be done), or not making a distinction between them. He has ignored the possibility that an imprecise line can be drawn and that it might have some value in assessing level of violence.

Here is another example of the line-drawing version of the false dilemma fallacy—a person trying to argue that poverty isn’t a problem:

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo231
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo187
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 11/39

Poverty isn’t a problem in this country; after all, when is a person really poor? You can’t say exactly.

The speaker would have us believe that, since there isn’t a precise line between being really poor and not being really poor, there is no such thing as being really poor.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 12/39

Page 182

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Antonin Scalia Uses the Line- Drawing Fallacy

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 13/39

Antonin Scalia is a justice on the United States Supreme Court. Attorney Theodore B. Olson represented those who sought to have the Supreme Court rule that California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, is unconstitutional. The following is from the oral arguments made before the U. S. Supreme Court on Proposition 8.

SCALIA: When did it become constitutional [When did gays have a constitutional right to marry?]? OLSON: When we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic that individuals cannot control.

SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

OLSON: There is no specific date in time.

SCALIA: How am I supposed to know how to decide the case then?

MISPLACING THE BURDEN OF PROOF If your doctor says you are infected with West Nile virus, you will say, “Doctor, what makes you think that?” If she says, “What makes you think you aren’t?” you will get a new doctor. Her remark is absurd because it is her job to tell you why she thinks you are infected with West Nile, not your job to tell her why you think you aren’t.

As in this case, sometimes the burden of proof clearly falls more heavily on one side than another. When people try to support or prove their position by misplacing the burden of proof, they commit the fallacy called Misplacing the Burden of Proof. Here is a less far-fetched example:

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo197
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 14/39

Obviously, the president’s birth certificate is a forgery. Can you prove it isn’t?

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 15/39

Page 183

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

The burden of proof is on the speaker to give us a reason for thinking the president’s birth certificate was forged, and he or she has tried to transfer the burden to the listener. Why is the burden of proof on the speaker? Because forging a birth certificate is the exception rather than the rule. If everyone normally forged their birth certificates, then it would be common to want proof that one wasn’t forged. But in the real world, forging a birth certificate is rare, so the person who makes the accusation has the burden of proof.

Another example:

Guns should be outlawed. I’ll bet you can’t think of a single good reason they shouldn’t.

The speaker has incorrectly shifted the burden of proof to the listener. In the United States, people have a constitutional right to own a gun, so the burden of proof is on the speaker to explain why the right should be removed.

Sometimes you have to be on your toes to spot the fallacy. Here is an example we have used that has been discussed on the Internet:

JILL: We should invest more money in expanding the interstate highway system. ALICE: That would be a mistake. JILL: How could anyone object to more highways?

With her last remark, Jill has tried to put the burden of proof on Alice. This tactic can put Alice in a defensive position, if she takes the bait. Alice may think she must show why we should not spend more on highways, when in fact it is Jill who has the burden of proof. We don’t even know whether Alice is against more highways; she might think we shouldn’t be spending any money because of budget problems.

Which side has the burden of proof often depends on context, but speaking generally, if the issue is a factual one, the side making the more outlandish claim (the one having the lowest initial credibility) has the burden of proof. Also, other things being equal, the burden of proof falls on the person who wants to change something, rather than on the person who wants to leave things alone. That was the case in the last two examples. Of course, in a criminal court, the burden of proof always falls on the prosecution. The defense is not required to prove innocence, it must only try to keep the prosecution from succeeding in its attempt to prove guilt. This is what is meant by the phrase “Innocent until proved guilty.”

When someone asserts that we should believe a claim because nobody has proved it false, the fallacy is a version of misplacing the burden of proof known as Appeal to Ignorance. Here is an example:

Nobody has proved ghosts don’t exist; therefore they do.

This is a fallacy because proof requires more than an absence of disproof. Here is our recommendation: Be suspicious when somebody regards your inability to disprove his or

her position as evidence for it. Take note of where the burden of proof falls in such situations; your speaker may be trying erroneously to place that burden on you.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo19
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 16/39

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 17/39

Page 184

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

BEGGING THE QUESTION (ASSUMING WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE) In everyday language, to beg the question is just simply to raise the question. In logic, Begging the Question means something else. A speaker or writer is guilty of begging the question logically when he or she tries to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question.

Here is an example:

Obviously the president told the truth about Benghazi. He wouldn’t lie to us about it.

In essence, the reason given here for believing the president is that he wouldn’t lie. This isn’t exactly the same thing, but it is so close that it could not really be counted as evidence. If we aren’t sure the president told the truth, we can’t be sure he wouldn’t lie.

The classic example of begging the question is this:

That God exists is proved by scripture, because scripture is the word of God and thus cannot be false.

If someone wants proof that God exists, she wouldn’t find it in the assertion that scripture is the word of God.

Here is another example:

Women should not be allowed in combat, because it is prohibited by the Defense Department.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo41
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 18/39

Page 185

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

This is merely saying that something shouldn’t be allowed because it isn’t, which does not explain why it shouldn’t.

Often loaded questions (discussed as rhetorical devices in Chapter 5) beg the question. This dialogue will serve as an example:

BILL: Do Republicans hate women because they are angry white males? Yes or no. JILL: Uhhhhhh... BILL: Well?

Bill hasn’t given a legitimate argument for his belief that Republicans hate women. He has simply asked a question which assumes that very point. He is just smuggling his belief into his question—which amounts to trying to establish something simply by assuming it.

APPEAL TO EMOTION When a speaker or writer “supports” a contention by playing on our emotions rather than by producing a real argument, the result is the fallacy called an Appeal to Emotion. This can happen in various ways depending on the specific emotion involved. We will explain the most common varieties of this fallacy.

The idea behind [talk radio] is to keep the base riled.

—Republican political adviser BRENT LAUDER, explaining what talk radio is for

Argument from Outrage The Argument from Outrage attempts to convince us by making us angry rather than by giving us a relevant argument. Here is an example:

Do you think Apple doesn’t know it hires 12-year-old children to make its electronics? You think it isn’t aware it pays them slave wages and has them work in buildings without heat or air conditioning? It knows. Apple products can’t be any good.

The passage doesn’t support the contention that Apple products aren’t any good. Rather, it tries to induce that belief by making us angry.

Here is another example:

You expect me to believe BP cleaned up its mess in the Gulf? Just look at those ads it runs, trying to make it sound like everything is beautiful and even better than before. Does the company take us for fools?

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Chapter05.html
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo17
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo30
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 19/39

This argument has no probative weight. It tries to persuade us that BP hasn’t cleaned up its mess, by making us indignant, rather than by proving or supporting.

The argument from outrage occurs frequently in political contexts, where the conclusion is often just implied that we should vote against someone or something.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 20/39

Page 186

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Scare Tactics The Scare Tactics fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion.

Here is an example:

You really should get a Prudential life insurance policy. What would happen to your spouse and children if you die? Remember, you are their main source of income. Would they be forced to move?

This argument tries to scare you into buying a Prudential life insurance policy. Even if it is true that your spouse and children will be forced to move if you die, that is no reason to buy insurance from this particular company.

Threats too, if they substitute for argument, are regarded as scare tactics. Here is an example:

Jerry Brown would make a terrible governor. Do you seriously think I could be interested in being your girlfriend if you vote for him?

The speaker hasn’t said a thing to support the idea that Jerry Brown would make a terrible governor. She is just threatening the other person. Obviously, if a speaker issues a credible threat, it would not be a fallacy to protect yourself. “If you vote for Brown, I will shoot your dog” would be a compelling reason for not voting for Brown, if the speaker actually would carry out the threat. But no threat to you is related to whether Brown would make a terrible governor.

One final example of a scare tactic:

Obviously the federal government must cut spending. You agree with the rest of us on that, I assume.

The speaker hasn’t given the listener a reason for cutting government spending. He or she is simply trying to make the listener fear being made an outcast. This is sometimes called the Peer Pressure Fallacy.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo272
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo230
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 21/39

Page 187

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Scare Tactics versus Fear Mongering

Speakers and writers often make inflammatory or scary statements just to rile people up or frighten them, without pretending that the statements support a specific conclusion. When that happens, it’s just fear or hate mongering, as discussed in Chapter 5. Here, for example, is a famous fear-mongering statement from Joseph McCarthy, the U.S. senator from Wisconsin in the 1950s who furthered his own political objectives by alarming people with false accusations of treason and communism.

I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department. The statement wasn’t offered with any specific “conclusion.” So you can’t really call

it an argument or a fallacy. It’s just scary rhetoric about Communists infiltrating the government. Obviously there is a fine line between the scare tactic fallacy and fear mongering, and between the argument from outrage and hate mongering. If there is no specific conclusion stated or implied, then you can call it fear or hate mongering.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Chapter05.html
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 22/39

Appeal to Pity The Appeal to Pity fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer tries to convince us of something by arousing our pity rather than by giving a relevant argument. Here is an example:

Jane is the best qualified candidate because she is out of work and desperately needs a job.

The speaker has not given a reason for thinking that Jane is the best qualified candidate; he or she is just tugging on our heartstrings.

Other Appeals to Emotion Emotions other than fear, anger, and pity are used to manipulate an audience into believing or doing something. Instead of providing actual support for a claim, a speaker or writer may issue remarks designed to make us feel envious or jealous, proud, guilty, or anything else, in the hope that we will then accept the claim. These other “arguments” have names—playing on our pride is called Apple Polishing, trying to make us feel guilty is referred to as Guilt Tripping, arousing envy is called Appeal to Envy, and playing on someone’s jealousy is called Appeal to Jealousy. What these and the other appeals to emotion all have in common is that they actually are pieces of persuasion masquerading as arguments.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo21
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo25
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo159
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo18
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo20
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 23/39

Page 188

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

■ Guns aren’t arguments, but that hardly means you should ignore what an armed man tells you to do.

This brings up the final and very important point about appeals to emotion. Considerations that truly support a contention often arouse our emotions. So you cannot conclude, just because someone appears to be trying to scare you or make you angry, or feel some other way, that he or she has committed a fallacy. If he or she offers evidence having probative value, then it is a mistake to consider the argument a fallacy. Here is an example of a legitimate (no fallacy) argument that might arouse a listener’s pity.

You should let that dog out of your car, because it is suffering from heat and thirst and will die very soon if you don’t.

This is not the appeal to pity fallacy or any other kind of fallacy. The speaker has given us an excellent reason for letting the dog out of our car.

And here is an example of a legitimate (no fallacy) argument that might arouse a listener’s fear:

You should not drive on the 50 tonight. It is icy and dangerous and you could get killed.

This is not scare tactics or any other kind of fallacy. Dangerous conditions on a road are relevant to whether we should drive on it. Look very carefully at what speakers and writers say before concluding that a fallacy has been committed. Seeing “fallacies” where none are present is also a breakdown in critical thinking.

IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 24/39

Relevance fallacies that do not fit comfortably into the above categories may be said to commit the fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. Here is an example from a student talking to a professor:

I don’t think I missed too many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better lately.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo180
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 25/39

Page 189

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

An improvement in attendance doesn’t show you didn’t miss too many classes to pass. Here is a car salesperson:

This new Honda gets better mileage than any other car in its class. After all, Honda has completely redesigned the engine.

Hooray; good for Honda. Now let’s hear figures on mileage. A similar example is as follows:

Fracking* won’t hurt the water around here. Don’t you know that we have invested millions in safety controls?

Perhaps the speaker’s company deserves kudos for its safety controls, but we haven’t been given evidence that the controls work at all, let alone perfectly.

This is a different sort of example:

Why should I tell them they undercharged me? You think they would say something if they overcharged me?

The speaker is trying to justify not doing anything about having been undercharged. However, the fact that they (whoever they are) wouldn’t inform him of an overcharge (assuming it is even true that they wouldn’t) only supports a negative appraisal of their ethics, not a positive appraisal of his. This is an example of the fallacy Two Wrongs Make a Right.

Two other common irrelevant conclusion fallacies are Wishful Thinking and Denial. Wishful thinking happens when we forget that wanting something to be true is irrelevant to whether it is true. Denial happens when we forget that wanting something to be false is irrelevant to whether it is false. The two fallacies are flip sides of the same thing, of course.

Here is an example of wishful thinking:

I really really hope I will be the next American Idol. Therefore I’m sure I will be.

Do American Idol contestants really think this? Some at any rate seem stunned when they are eliminated.

Here is an example of denial:

I really really hope I did not miss class as many times as the professor says I did. Therefore I’m sure I didn’t miss class that many times.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo318
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo332
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/1259764613/epub/OPS/xhtml/Glossary.html#glo98
4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 26/39

Being “in denial” about the likely consequences of harmful behavior— smoking, eating poorly, drinking excessively, and so forth—does not seem uncommon.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 27/39

Page 190

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Ducking with Irrelevancies

David Muir (of ABC News): Does Carfax report the entire history of the car?

Larry Gamache (Carfax communications director): Yes, we give people the entire Carfax history. David Muir: Is that the entire history of the car?

Larry Gamache: You can’t give the entire history of anything.

■ David Muir, of ABC News

Sometimes irrelevancies are introduced into a discussion when someone attacks a counterargument to his or her position rather than offering an argument for that position. Here is an example:

People don’t like the president. Granted, polls suggest he is popular, but people are lying because they don’t want anyone to think they are racist.

To this point the speaker has not supported his belief that people don’t like the president. He or she should produce evidence that the president is unpopular. Rather than do that, he or she attempts to explain why people lie to pollsters. This is logically irrelevant, at this point in the discussion.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 28/39

Recap The fallacies in this chapter are relevance fallacies—arguments that may seem relevant to their conclusion but logically are not. We specifically examined the following: ■ Argumentum ad hominem—attempting to dismiss a source’s position by

discussing the source rather than the position ■ Straw man—attempting to dismiss a source’s position by misrepresenting

it ■ False dilemma—attempting to establish a point by pretending it is the

only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible.

■ Misplacing the burden of proof—attempting to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of an issue

■ Begging the question—attempting to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question

■ Appeal to emotion—attempting to “support” a contention by playing on our emotions rather than by producing a real argument

■ Irrelevant conclusion—relevance fallacies that do not fit into the previous categories

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 29/39

Page 191

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

EXERCISE Here are 100 examples of the fallacies discussed in this chapter.* Match each item to one or more of the following categories:

a. argumentum ad hominem b. straw man c. false dilemma d. misplacing the burden of proof e. begging the question f. appeal to emotion g. irrelevant conclusion

Notes ● Some items arguably fall into more than one category; this is true in real

life as well. But no item in this list could plausibly be said to fall into every category. Your instructor will tell you if your categorization is too much of a stretch.

● Your instructor may or may not ask you to further match instances of argumentum ad hominem to one or another of these categories:

a. Arguments that dismiss a source’s position because of the source’s alleged hypocrisy or inconsistency (inconsistency ad hominem)

b. Arguments that dismiss a source’s position because of other alleged deficiencies on the part of the source (personal attack or abusive ad hominem)

c. Arguments that dismiss a source’s position because of the source’s circumstances (circumstantial ad hominem)

d. Arguments that dismiss a source’s position before the source has presented it (poisoning the well)

e. Arguments that dismiss a claim by associating it with someone we are assumed to despise (guilt by association)

f. Arguing that the source of a contention in and of itself renders it false (genetic fallacy)

● Your instructor may also ask you to identify any examples of perfectionist or line-drawing versions of the false dilemma fallacy.

● Finally, your instructor may ask you to identify specific emotional appeals, including argument from outrage, appeal to pity, and scare tactics.

▲ 1. Save your money. Nothing will make your teeth perfectly white. 2. Jane complains because she doesn’t like the way I clean. Of course, she

wants to be able to eat off the floor.

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 30/39

3. Don’t read The New York Times. It’s filled with liberal propaganda. 4. Limbaugh! That pompous windbag. You can’t believe what he says

about climate science.

▲ 5. If you don’t support same-sex marriage, then you are a homophobe who flat out hates gays.

6. It isn’t guns that need controlling. It’s people who need controlling! Guns don’t kill people; people kill people! I get furious when I hear people miss this point!

4/3/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/38!/4/408/234/2@0:0 31/39

Page 192

PRINTED BY: jromero0950@email.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

7. SKEPTIC: Why is Genesis the only acceptable account of how the world came to be? BELIEVER: Show me an explanation that makes more sense.