• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/12

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

12 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Fallacies

are commonplace in advertising, political discourse, and everyday conversations—and they will continue to be as long as they work to persuade.

Hasty generalization

The leap to a generalized conclusion based on only a few instances. For example, on a trip to Paris you meet several rude Parisians, leading you to conclude that French people are rude.

Post hoc

Literally meaning “after this,” it’s a causal fallacy in which a person assumes one thing caused another simply because it happened prior to the other. For instance, the high school soccer team loses an important game the day after they start wearing new uniforms. The coach blames the loss on the new uniforms.

Ad populum

Literally meaning “argument” from popularity; refers to a variety of appeals that play on the association of a person or subject with values that are held by members of a target group (think of images of the flag in ads playing on patriotism) or the suggestion that “everybody knows” that something is true (as with bandwagoning).


“Argument” from outrage


Aristotle said that if you understand what makes a man angry, you can use that anger to persuade him to accept a position without critically evaluating it. This fallacy is the backbone of talk radio and of political rhetoric on both extremes of the political spectrum. It often employs loaded language and labels. It also includes scapegoating—blaming a certain group of people or even a single person.

Ad misericordiam, or appeal to pity

If you have ever asked a teacher to give you a better grade or a second chance because things have been tough recently or because you worked SO hard, you’re guilty of this one! It refers to an attempt to use compassion or pity to replace a logical argument.

Ad baculum, or scare tactics

An appeal to fear in place of logic. If a candidate for office says “electing my opponent will open the door for new terrorist attacks,” it represents an attempt to scare people into rejecting the person, despite providing no evidence to justify the claim.

Straw man

Erecting a distorted or exaggerated representation of a position that is easily refuted. For example, Schroth says, “But, you say, if high schools drop football it will deprive colleges and the pros of their feeder system,” an argument that is, of course, a ridiculous attempt to justify high school football—and one that is thus easy to refute.

Ad hominem/genetic fallacy

Literally meaning “to the man,” ad hominem refers to attacks against a person him- or herself rather than the ideas the person presents. This is a dominant feature in political campaigns, where sound-bite 30-second advertisements attack a candidate’s character, often with mere innuendo, instead of his or her policy positions. When this extends to criticizing or rejecting a general type of something simply because it belongs to or was generated by that type, it is a genetic fallacy. For example, to say an idea comes from the “media elite” makes it sound like it should be rejected—but who are the media elite?

Red herring/smokescreen

Answering the question by changing the subject. For example, when pulled over for speeding, a person might respond to the officer’s question, “Why were you speeding?” by saying, “The school no longer offers driver’s education classes.”

Slippery slope

Half appeal to fear and half a causal fallacy, a person uses a slippery slope when they suggest one action will lead to an inevitable and undesirable outcome. To say legalizing voluntary euthanasia paves the way for forced euthanasia is a slippery slope argument.

Either/rr (or false dilemma)

This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by suggesting that there are only two possible sides or choices. It is very common in debates of policy, where issues are always complex but which politicians reduce to simplistic binaries (either/or) for rhetorical purposes.