Exercises: Fallacies (I)

1. Which of the following statements lend themselves, due to the fact that they are
not falsifiable, to evasion of the burden of proof?

a. American are racists.

b. Americans are essentially racists.
c. People are bad.
d. Cathy is bad.
e. Cathy cheats the social services.
f. Doctors cheat the social services.

2. Do the following passages contain a violation of a discussion rule? If so, which

fallacy has occurred?

a. Martin Woolacott advocates the use of force against Iraq on the pretext that “the
alternative, if it is to let Saddam prevail, is worse.” In fact Saddam Hussein and his
regime are essential for the stability and unity of Iraq. Notwithstanding his
demonization in the West, his military regime, to many Iraquis, remains synonymous
with a united Iraq. If Saddam has done anything positive for his country, it has been to
foster a sense of national pride and unity, which even the UN-led economic sanctions
and U.S.- encouraged Kurds’ rebellion in northern Iraq have failed to destroy. Should
the West decide to remove Saddam by destroying his military and political structure, it
should be ready to face the consequences: namely the possible break-up of Iraq. This
would, in all probability, mean something like Lebanon of the 1980s or Somalia of the
1990s.
b. Letter to the editor:
c. I share Catherine Bennett’s concern about Jeffrey Archer ending up as a serious
candidate for the Mayor of London, but not because of his fictional past, his
questionable financial dealings, or even the quality of his writing – none of which
disqualified other Tory politicians in the past 18 years. It is his politics that worry me.
d. The project engineer says that Thompson is more qualified than I am to work on her
project. But did you know that Thompson is engaged to her daughter?
e. Capital punishment should be introduced in this country. You do want your children to
live in a safe neighborhood, don’t you?
f. To the Editor:
I take issue with your July 23 editorial “Hamptons Serenade,” in which you
describe the rich as shallow and undeserving.
I have a close friend who is a multimillionaire with a house in the Hamptons.
We began in graduate school together in 1960. He dropped out of the PhD program
and went to work at an investment bank for $50 a week, while I got my PhD.
Now I make $ 75,000 a year, and he makes millions. Whenever I visit my
friend, I feel nothing but pride in his accomplishment, and I feel good about knowing
him.
I don’t feel that wealth is ‘disorienting’ or ‘strangely dislocating’. I feel that I
live in a great and free country – so free that a young guy like my friend who had no
connections can end up a great success.
3. The following argument was given by a trade union against setting up a union for
prostitutes in the Netherlands: “We are opposed to prostitution because it exploits
women and we cannot therefore regard it as a profession”. To which of the
following interpretations of this argument can the union be held committed?

a. The exploitation of women is wrong.

b. Something in which exploitation is involved cannot be a profession.
c. Exploitation is wrong.

4. Which variants of the argumentum ad hominem occur in the passage given below
from a column by the Dutch writer Gerrit Komrij? If necessary, follow the
strategy of maximally argumentative interpretation.

Why the outcry over apartheid is so vehement in the Netherlands, of all places,
is something that continues to amaze me. After all, no other country is itself so held
together by apartheid. With a high and mighty attitude, the Dutch condemn a system
which in their own country is an obsession. The passion for parochialism rages
through institutions; everyone tries frenetically to preserve, to consolidate and to give
preference to their own territory. However, as soon as the same thing happens in a far-
away country, then it is regarded as the height of contemptibility. The Dutch fume with
rage about the evil-smelling activities of others, while passing one foul wind after the
other in their own back yard.

5. Think of a response to the following statements in which the burden of proof is

evaded or shifted, a direct or indirect personal attack is launched, or there is a tu
quoque or an ad baculum.

a. Wife to husband: “You don’t know how to manage money.”

b. Aunt to nephew who is studying psychology: “I really do wonder whether it is true that
everything is due to sexual drives”
c. Child to parents: “I am perfectly capable of looking after myself.”
d. Antique dealer to customer: “You deliberately dropped that vase.”

6. Are discussion rules violated in the following excerpts? If so, which fallacy has
been committed?

a. Many people are hurt terribly by little things we call “social slights”. It is well-known
psychological fact that the people who become offended the easiest have the lowest
self-esteem.
b. Alice: You shouldn’t take books from my bookshelf without asking, and then lend
them to someone else.
Betty: I did not take books out of your bookshelf, let alone lend any of your books to
anyone else.
Alice: Well, the books aren’t on the bookshelf. YOU tell ME where they are.
c. It is a fact that ulcers are not the result of what we ate, but what’s eating us.
d. Asked what steps Russia would take if Ukraine and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania were invited to join NATO, Mr. Yeltsin said he hoped the West would be
‘realistic’ enough not to do it. “In NATO expansion, there is a red line for Russia
which should not be crossed. Otherwise European stability might not withstand the
new tension,” he said.
e. Letter to the editor:
May I make it clear that the quotations attributed to me in your article about Pope John
Paul’s document on the protection of the Catholic faith were off-the-cuff rematks. I
gave them to your correspondent as general briefing. I explained that I could not
comment on the document itself until I had read it. The quotations therefore do not
represent either my own considered opinion on the matter or that of the paper I edit.