Fallacies It’s not useful to think of ‘fallacies’ as a laundry list of forms to avoid, or as an algorithm for finding weaknesses in authors’ arguments. Instead, you can think of fallacies as a way of reflecting on the nature of chains of reasoning, for talking about the strengths and weaknesses of argumentative claims and the evidence, support, strategies, assumptions etc. associated with them. Fallacies should get you thinking about the criteria we use to evaluate arguments; to what extent an argument works according to a particular set of relevant criteria, and what kinds of arguments work in particular contexts.

Fallacies Most fallacies are not strange or idiosyncratic forms of argument. Often they draw on perfectly valid and common forms of reasoning, but they do so in a way that is lacking in some respect. For example, sophisticated arguments often contain rebuttals and counterarguments that consider opposing views. If this is done well, it adds strength to an argument. However, if an author does not accurately represent an opponent’s argument, or presents a weak, caricatured version of that argument, we can say s/he has committed the fallacy of creating “a straw man.” Obviously, fallacies are matters of degree and involve interpretation and argument – you have to make the case that evidence exists for the fallacy. Note that when considering whether an argument contains a fallacy, you must consider questions of audience, purpose and context. Reasoning that is weak or “fallacious” in one context may be persuasive and credible in another.

Slippery Slope Daily Show on Gay Marriage and Slippery Slope argumentsSlippery Slope arguments

False Dilemma? “The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away... or a minute away?”

Loaded Question A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption ( e.g., a presumption of guilt). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda (“answer yes or no!”) The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question which narrows the respondent to a single answer. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other.

Loaded Question Pretty activist outside Love Library stopping passersby with the question, “Do you want to stop world hunger?” How do I say “no”? But if framed as, “do you want to give money to our organization today?” it’s much easier to say no/walk by. Isn’t is worth $10 a month to protect your home computer from hackers?

The Daily Show on Rhetorical Questions that are clearly “loaded” (“Putting a question mark at the end of something, you can say **ing anything.”)Daily Show on Rhetorical Questions

Are these loaded questions? “Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? “So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?”

Straw Man The Daily Show, January 23, 2013 “Win, Lose or Straw”Win, Lose or Straw

False analogy

Ad Hominem