UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

CRITICAL THINKING
For 2nd year Student

2019
 Chapter 4
Logical Fallacies
 4.1 Fallacies of Relevance
A logical fallacy

is an argument that contains a mistake in

reasoning.
Fallacies of relevance

mistakes in reasoning that occur because the

premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion
 Fallacies of insufficient evidence

mistakes in reasoning that occur because the

premises fail to provide sufficient evidence
to support the conclusion
Concept of Relevance
A relevant statement counts either for or
against that other statement
3 types of
positively relevant
negatively relevant
logically irrelevant
Dogs are cats. Cats are felines. So dogs are
felines.
All dogs have five legs. Rover is a dog. So
Rover has five legs.
Most Wexford College students live off-
campus. Annie is a Wexford College student.
So, probably, Annie lives off-campus.
Chris is a woman. Therefore, Chris enjoys
knitting.
Relevance is context-dependent
 Negatively relevant statement
Statements that count against other
statements
E.g. Marty is a high-school senior. So, Marty
likely has a Ph.D.
Althea is two years old. So, Althea probably
goes to college.
 Logically irrelevant
it counts neither for nor against that statement
E.g. The earth revolves around the sun.
Therefore, marijuana should be legalized.
Last night I dreamed that the Yankees will win
the pennant. Therefore, the Yankees will win
the pennant.
4.1.1. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)
reject someone’s argument or claim by attacking the
person rather than the person’s argument or claim
Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine, has
argued against censorship of pornography. But
Hefner is an immature, self-indulgent millionaire who
never outgrew the adolescent fantasies of his youth.
His argument, therefore, is worthless.
1. Hugh Hefner is a bad person.
2. Therefore, Hugh Hefner’s argument must be bad.
1 / 2?
But the pattern of reasoning is clearly fallacious.
Even if it is true that Hefner is a bad person, that
doesn’t mean he is incapable of offering good
arguments on the topic of censorship.
The attack on Hefner’s character is simply
irrelevant to the point at issue, which is the strength
of Hefner’s case against the censorship of
pornography.
Even if A (fact about person), it doesn’t mean B
(strength of argument on the issue)
A is IRRELEVANT TO B
Maria’s husband has argument against wife’s role
in his family . But he is unable to have a baby,
never does housework and doesn’t have to worry
about living expenses. Therefore, his argument is
worthless.

A (unability of having baby, not doing housework,

not care about living expenses) IRRELEVANT
TO B (strength of argument against wife’s role)
Julia,a designer, has argued against the idea of
Spring collection. But she is not a professional
designer, she hasn’t ever joined a conference of
fashion. Therefore, her argument is worthless.
A (…) IRRELEVANT TO B (…)
not every personal attack is a fallacy
The fallacy of personal attack occurs only if
(1) an arguer rejects
another person’s argument or claim

(2) the arguer attacks

the person who offers the argument or claim,
rather than considering the merits of that argument
or claim.
Examples of personal attacks mistaken as
fallacies
Millions of innocent people died in Stalin’s
ruthless ideological purges.
Clearly, Stalin was one of the most brutal
dictators of the twentieth century.

No claims attack Stalin’s argument:

1. Stalin is a bad person.
2. Therefore, Stalin’s argument must be
bad.
 Becky Fibber has testified that she saw my
client rob the First National Bank. But Ms.
Fibber has twice been convicted of perjury. In
addition, you’ve heard Ms. Fibber’s own
mother testify that she is a pathological liar.
Therefore, you should not believe Ms.
Fibber’s testimony against my client.

the issue is whether Ms. Fibber is or is not a

believable witness
The attack is on the truth/reliability of the
evidence rather than on the person
4.1.2. Attacking the Motive
the error of criticizing a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather
than examining the worth of the argument or
claim itself
Professor Michaelson has argued in favor of
academic tenure. But why should we even listen
to Professor Michaelson? As a tenured
professor, of course he supports tenure.
What do you think is the irrelevance of the
arguer’s reasoning?
Barbara Simmons, president of the American
Trial Lawyers Association, has argued that
punitive damage awards resulting from tobacco
litigation should not be limited. But this is
exactly what you would expect her to say.
Trial lawyers stand to lose billions if such
punitive damage awards are limited.
Therefore, we should ignore Ms. Simmons’s
argument.
 Common pattern:
1. X is biased or has questionable
motives.
2. Therefore, X’s argument or claim should
be rejected.

people with biases or questionable motives

 bad arguments?
 not all attacks on an arguer’s motives are
fallacious
Burton Wexler, spokesperson for the American
Tobacco Growers Association, has argued
that there is no credible scientific evidence
that cigarette Smoking causes cancer.
Given Wexler’s obvious bias in the matter, his
arguments should be taken with a grain of
salt.
 4.1.3. Look Who’s Talking (Tu Quoque)
when an arguer rejects another person’s argument
or claim because that person fails to practice what
he preaches
Doctor: You should quit smoking.
Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do,
Dr. Smokestack!
Parent: Honey, I don’t want you to skip school on
senior skip day. You don’t want to jeopardize your
chances of being class valedictorian, do you?
Daughter: But Mom, you told me you skipped out
on senior skip day! Why do you always get to have
all the fun?
Presidential candidate Bill Bradley: When Al
[Gore] accuses me of negative campaigning, that
reminds me of the story about Richard Nixon, the
kind of politician who would chop down a tree,
then stand on the stump and give a speech about
conservation.

The logical pattern of these arguments is this:

1. X fails to follow his or her own advice.
2. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be
rejected.
A person’ failure to practice his/her preach
/ his/her argument rejected?
criticizing a person’s hypocritical behavior: not
fallacious

Jim: Our neighbor Joe gave me a hard time

again yesterday about washing our car during
this drought emergency.
Patty: Well, he’s right. But I wish that hypocrite
would live up to his own advice. Just last week I
saw him watering his lawn in the middle of the
afternoon.
Practice of drought emergency is still accepted
4.1.4. Two Wrongs Make a Right
 an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act
by claiming that some other act is just as bad
or worse
E.g.
I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Dr.
Boyer’s test. Half the class cheats on his
tests.
Why pick on me, officer? Nobody comes
to a complete stop at that stop sign.
Marge: Bart, quit hitting your sister.
Bart: Well, she pinched me.
an act that would otherwise be wrong can be
justified by citing the wrongful actions of
others
E.g.
Police officer: Why did you spray this man
with pepper spray?
You: Because he attacked me with a knife. I
did it in self-defense.
Father: Why did you go swimming when
the pool was closed?
Son: Because my friend Joe jumped in
and was drowning. I did it to save his life.
Jedediah Smith murdered three people in
cold blood. Therefore, Jedediah Smith should
be put to death.
Umpire: Why did you throw at the
opposing pitcher?
Pitcher: Because he threw at three of our
players. I have an obligation to protect my
teammates if you guys won’t.
Fallacy:

justifications offered are insufficient to justify

the apparently wrongful behavior
A (justifications offered) INSUFFICIENT TO B
(wrongful behavior)
 Mother: Honey, it’s wrong to steal. How
would you feel if someone stole your favorite
doll?
Child: But you told me you stole your
friend’s teddy bear when you were a little
girl. So stealing isn’t really wrong.
This argument commits the fallacy of look
who’s talking because it dismisses an argument
based on the arguer’s failure to practice what
she preaches rather than on the
validity/strength of the argument itself.
4.1.5. Scare Tactics argumentum in terrorem
an arguer threatens harm to a reader or
listener if he or she does not accept the
arguer’s conclusion and this threat is irrelevant
to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion
E.g.
Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree
that we are the rightful rulers of the San
Marcos Islands. It would be regrettable if we
had to send armed forces to demonstrate the
validity of our claim.
Conclusion?
Premise?
Gun lobbyist to politician:
This gun-control bill is wrong for America, and any
politician who supports it will discover how wrong
they were at the next election.
Implication from Premise?
Premise: relevant to conclusion?
Not all threats involve fallacies
Parent to teen:
If you come home late one more time, your
allowance will be cut.
A statement, not an argument
This is an accepted rule which can be used as a
premise
President John Kennedy to Soviet Premier Nikita
Krushchev:
If you don’t remove your nuclear missiles from Cuba,
we will have no choice but to remove them by force. If
we use force to remove the missiles, that may provoke
an all-out nuclear war. Neither of us wants a nuclear
war. Therefore, you should remove your missiles from
Cuba.
Premise: relevant to conclusion
Premise 1: If no removal, removal by force
Premise 2: If removal by force, nuclear war
Premise 3: None wants nuclear war
Conclusion: removal of missles
4.1.6. Appeal to Pity
an arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke
feelings of pity or compassion from his listeners or
readers
E.g.
Student to professor:
I know I missed half your classes and failed all my
exams, but I had a really tough semester. First my
pet boa constrictor died. Then my girlfriend told
me she wants a sex-change operation. With all I
went through this semester, I don’t think I really
deserved an F. Any chance you might cut me
some slack and change my grade to a C or a D?
Parent to high school football coach:
I admit my son Billy can’t run, pass, kick, catch,
block, or tackle, but he deserves to make the
football team. If he doesn’t make the team, he’s
going to be an emotional wreck, and he may
even drop out of school
Premises provide no relevant reasons to
accept the conclusions
Arguer’s purposes?
Arguer uses emotional appeals to hinder or
obscure rational thinking
Arguments that contain emotional not
fallacious
Mother to daughter:
Nana was asking about you the other day.
She’s so lonely and depressed since Grandpa
passed away, and her Alzheimer’s seems
to get worse every day. She’s done so much
for you over the years. Don’t you think you
should pay her a visit?
Premise: relevant to conclusion
Plausible, reasonable virtue/behavior/ethics
High school softball coach:
Girls, this state championship is the biggest
game of your lives. This is what you’ve been
working for all year. Your parents are counting
on you, your school is counting on you, and
your community is counting on you. Make
them proud! Play like the champions you are!
Premise: relevant to conclusion with arguer’s
legitimate purposes
4.1.7. Bandwagon Argument
argumentum ad populum
An argument that plays on a person’s desire to
be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than
appealing to logically relevant reasons or
evidence
e.g.
All the really cool kids at East Jefferson High
School smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you should,
too.
I can’t believe you’re going to the library on a
Friday night! You don’t want people to think
you’re a nerd, do you?
There must be something to astrology.
Millions of Americans can’t be wrong.
Basic pattern of these arguments:
1. Everybody (or a select group of
people) believes or does X.
2. Therefore, you should believe or do
X, too.
A popular belief / a true belief?
 Some popular beliefs/practices not fallacious
All the villagers I’ve talked to say that the water
is safe to drink. Therefore, the water probably is
safe to drink.
Lots of my friends recommend the Back Street
Deli, so it’s probably a good place to eat.
Premises: relevant to conclusion (for the sake
of good purpose (charity principle)
4.1.8. Straw Man petitio principii, circulus in
probando, circular reasoning
an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or
claim to make it easier to attack
e.g.
Pete has argued that the New York Yankees are
a better baseball team than the Atlanta Braves.
But the Braves aren’t a bad team. They have a
great pitching staff, and they consistently finish
at or near the top of their division. Obviously,
Pete doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
This argument misrepresents Pete’s view.

Pete’s view: A: better team / B: bad team

Attacker’s strategy Attacker’s purpose
mischaracterizing A’s distorts an opponent’s
view/claim argument or claim
making A’s view seem to make A’s view/claim
weaker or less easier to attack
plausible than it really
is

Bóp méo khái niệm

Senator Biddle has argued that we should
outlaw violent pornography.
Obviously, the senator favors complete
governmental censorship of books,
magazines, and films.
Frankly, I’m shocked that such a view should
be expressed on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
It runs counter to everything this great nation
stands for. No senator should listen seriously
to such a proposal.
How/in what way Biddle’s view is distorted?
 outlaw violent pornography
/
 favors complete governmental censorship
of books, magazines, and films
/
 runs counter to everything this great nation
stands for
Step1: misrepresenting the opponent’s
position
Step 2: attacking the misrepresentation
Step 3: reject opponent’s actual position
 Logical pattern of straw man arguments
1. X’s view is false or unjustified [but
where X’s view has been unfairly
characterized or misrepresented]
2. Therefore, X’s view should be
rejected
Attacker’s premise: False
 Invalid conclusion
 Invalid argument
4.1.9. Red Herring
an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising
an irrelevant issue and then claims that the
original issue has effectively been settled by the
irrelevant diversion
E.g.
Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being
an owner of slaves. But Jefferson was one of our
greatest presidents, and his Declaration of
Independence is one of the most eloquent pleas for
freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly,
these criticisms are unwarranted.
In what way red herring fallacy is
committed?
Actual/original issue?
being criticized for owing slaves
Irrelevant/diverted issue?
Greatest president & credit of writing
Declaration of Independence
Attacker’s premise: not relevant
Attacker’s conclusion: not valid
Attacker’s argument: not valid
Critics have accused my administration of
doing too little to save the family farm. These
critics forget that I grew up on a farm. I know
what it’s like to get up at the crack of dawn to
milk the cows. I know what it’s like to work in
the field all day in the blazing sun. Family farms
are what made this country great, and those
who criticize my farm policies simply don’t
know what they’re talking about.
In what way red herring fallacy is committed?
Real issue?
Smokescreen? Distracting issue?
Evading an issue: not Read Herring Fallacy
E.g.
Political opponent:
Congressman Crookley, now that you have
been convicted of bribery, extortion, and
grand theft auto, isn’t it high time that you
resigned from office?
Representative Crookley:
How’ bout those Yankees? A ten-game lead
at the All-Star break!
4.1.10. Equivocation
a key word is used in two or more senses in
the same argument and the apparent
success of the argument depends on the shift
in meaning.
E.g.
It is a crime to smoke grass. Kentucky
bluegrass is a grass. Therefore, it is a crime
to smoke Kentucky bluegrass.
In what way equivocation fallacy is committed?
Purposive Vagueness/Ambiguity
Words with more than one sense
Word sense Premise
1. marijuana Premise 1
GRASS
2. lawn grass Premise 2

1. All A’s are B’s. [All grass is thing to smoke as

drug]
2. C is an A. [Kentucky grass is a grass]
3. Therefore, C is a B. [Therefore, Kentucky
grass is thing to smoke as drug]
 I distinctly heard Mo say, “Hit me,” as he was
playing cards in Las Vegas. To hit someone is to
slug them. So, Mo must enjoy being slugged.
Any law can be repealed by the proper legal
authority. The law of gravity is a law. Therefore,
the law of gravity can be repealed by the proper
legal authority.
Word Sense Premise
1. Get another card Premise 1
HIT 2. punch Premise 2
1. Rules for human conduct Premise 1
LAW 2. Observed conformity to nature Premise 2
4.1.11. Begging the Question
an arguer states or assumes as a premise
the very thing he or she is trying to prove as a
conclusion
simply restate the conclusion in slightly
different words
E.g.
Bungee-jumping is dangerous because it’s
unsafe.
Capital punishment is morally wrong because
it is ethically impermissible to inflict death as
punishment for a crime.
“circular reasoning” or “arguing in a circle.”
an arguer offers a chain of reasons for a
conclusion, where the conclusion of the
argument is stated or assumed as one of the
premises
Kylie: God wrote the Bible.
Ned: How do you know?
Kylie: Because it says so in the Bible, and what
the Bible says is true.
Ned: How do you know what the Bible says is
true?
Kylie: Because God wrote the Bible.
More complex circular reasoning
E.g.
Wexford College is a better college than Aggie
Tech. Wexford is a better college because it has
better students. It has better students because it
has better faculty. It has better faculty because it
pays higher faculty salaries. It pays higher faculty
salaries because it has a larger endowment. It has
a larger endowment because it has more generous
and loyal alumni. It has more generous and loyal
alumni because it is a better college.