Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance: Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 Mcgraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved

Chapter 5
Logical Fallacies I
Fallacies of Relevance
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

 Positive Relevance: X has positive relevance to Y, if X provides
evidence that Y is true.
 Example: All dogs have five legs and rover is a dog. So Rover has five legs.
 Negative Relevance: X has negative relevance to Y, if X provides

evidence that Y is false.
 Example: Marty is a high-school senior. So Marty likely has a Ph.D.
5-2
 Logical irrelevance: X has neither positive nor negative relevance to Y...
 Example: The earth revolves around the sun. Therefore, marijuana should be legalized.
The premise provides no reason for thinking that the conclusion is either false or true. Thus, it
is logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
This is when an arguer commits a fallacy of relevance
5-3
 Logical Fallacy (or fallacy): an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
(frequently committed and Psychologically persuasive)
 Fallacy of Relevance: mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premise
are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 Relevance: A statement is relevant to another statement if it would, if true,
provide at least some evidence that the second statement is true or false.
 Notice that relevance has nothing to do with truth. A can be relevant to B, even if A
(and/or B) is false.
 Argument that commits a fallacy of relevance is an argument whose premises
provide no evidence that the conclusion is true or false.
 Don’t confuse it with an argument that commits a fallacy of insufficient evidence. Such
an argument provides some but not enough evidence for its conclusion.
5-4
A fallacy of relevance occurs when an arguer offers
reasons that are logically irrelevant to his or her
conclusion. Fallacies of relevance often seem to be good
arguments but aren’t.
 Personal Attack
 Attacking the Motive
 Look Who’s Talking
 Two Wrongs Make a Right
 Scare Tactics
5-5
 Appeal to Pity
 This is the fallacy that dismisses an argument by attacking the
person that made the argument, rather than attacking the claims
themselves.
 Common pattern:
1. X is a bad person
2. Therefore, X’s argument must
be faulty.
5-6
 Sandy has argued for bilingual education. But who is Sandy? Is
she a trained educator? No, she's a high-school dropout who
once served time for drug possession. Her argument, therefore,
is worthless.
 Common pattern:
2. Therefore, X’s argument must
be faulty.
5-7
1. She is not a trained educator.
2. She is a high school dropout.
3. She served time for drug possession.
________________________________
4. Sandy’s argument for bilingual education is worthless.
The premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Therefore,

this argument commits the fallacy of attacking the person.
Common pattern:
1.X is a bad person
2.Therefore, X’s argument must be faulty.
5-8
 Personal attacks are not fallacious when they appear in arguments that are trying
to establish something about the character of the person.
 Millions of innocent people died in Hitler’s prisons. Clearly, Hitler was one
of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century.
1. Millions of innocent people dies in Hitler’s

prisons
2. Therefore, Hitler was one of the most brutal
dictators of the 20th century.
 Because the personal attack is

relevant to the issue no fallacy
is committed.
5-9
 …the error of criticizing a person’s motivation for offering a
particular argument or claim. (conflict of interest)
 Common pattern:
1. A is for B. A benefits from B.
2. Therefore, A’s argument or claim should be rejected.
 The fact that someone would benefit from a conclusion’s

truth, does not entail that their argument doesn’t establish
the truth of that conclusion. 5-10
Mr. Kareem has argued that we need to build a new school. But Mr. Kareem is the owner of Kareem’s Construction
Company. He will make a fortune if his company is picked to build the new school. Obviously, Mr. Kareem’s
argument is a lot of self-serving baloney (deceptive).
Common pattern:
2. Therefore, A’s argument or claim should be rejected.
 The fact that someone would benefit from a conclusion’s

truth, does not entail that their argument doesn’t establish
the truth of that conclusion. 5-11
1. Mr. Kareem has argued that we need to build a new school.
2. Mr. Kareem is the owner of Kareem’s Construction Company.
3. He will make a fortune if his company is picked to build the new
school.).
4. Obviously, Mr. Kareem’s argument is a lot of self-serving
baloney (deceptive

2. Therefore, A’s argument or claim should be
rejected.
5-12
 …when an arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim
because that person fails to “practice what they preach.”
 Common pattern:
1. X fails to follow his/her own
advice.
2. Therefore, X’s claim or
argument should be rejected.
5-13
 e.g., I don’t need to stop smoking just because my doctor tells me to; he
smokes and won’t stop either!
 Common pattern:
1. X fails to follow his/her own
advice.
2. Therefore, X’s claim or
argument should be rejected.
5-14
1. My doctor smokes and won’t stop either!
2. Therefore, I don’t need to stop smoking just because my doctor
tells me to
 Common pattern:
1. X fails to follow his/her own advice.
2. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be rejected.
5-15
 Arguments are good or bad because of their own intrinsic strengths
or weaknesses, not because of who offers them up.
 If an argument is good, it is good no matter who articulates it.
 But hypocritical behavior can (and should) be criticized.
 e.g., I should stop smoking like my doctor told me; but so should my doctor!
5-16
 Personal attack: Arguer attacks the character of another arguers.
Common pattern:
2. Therefore, X’s argument must be faulty.
 Attacking the motive: Arguer attacks the motive of another arguer.
Common pattern:
1. X is biased or has questionable motives
2. Therefore, X’s argument or claim should be rejected.
 Look who’s talking: Arguer attacks the hypocrisy of another arguer.
Common pattern:
1. X fails to follow his/her own advice.
2. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be rejected.
5-17

Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance: Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 Mcgraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance: Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 Mcgraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance: Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 Mcgraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

 Negative Relevance: X has negative relevance to Y, if X provides

 Example: Marty is a high-school senior. So Marty likely has a Ph.D.

The premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Therefore,

1. Millions of innocent people dies in Hitler’s

 Because the personal attack is

 The fact that someone would benefit from a conclusion’s

 The fact that someone would benefit from a conclusion’s

1. A is for B. A benefits from B.

You might also like