Fallacies

What this handout is about

This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the
writing of others. The handout provides definitions, examples, and tips on avoiding these fallacies.

Arguments

Most academic writing tasks require you to make an argument—that is, to present reasons for a
particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward. You may have been told that you need to
make your arguments more logical or stronger. And you may have worried that you simply aren’t a
logical person or wondered what it means for an argument to be strong. Learning to make the best
arguments you can is an ongoing process, but it isn’t impossible: “Being logical” is something anyone
can do, with practice.

Each argument you make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements that express your
reasons or evidence) that are arranged in the right way to support your conclusion (the main claim or
interpretation you are offering). You can make your arguments stronger by:

1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the
issue at hand),

2. making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion (and not some other
conclusion, or no conclusion at all),

3. checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of the issue (that is,
that your premises and conclusion focus on what is really important to the issue), and

4. not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can’t really support them.

You also need to be sure that you present all of your ideas in an orderly fashion that readers can
follow. See our handouts on argument and organization for some tips that will improve your
arguments.

This handout describes some ways in which arguments often fail to do the things listed above; these
failings are called fallacies. If you’re having trouble developing your argument, check to see if a fallacy
is part of the problem.

It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—
if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be
careless with your evidence. To help you see how people commonly make this mistake, this handout
uses a number of controversial political examples—arguments about subjects like abortion, gun
control, the death penalty, gay marriage, euthanasia, and pornography. The purpose of this handout,
though, is not to argue for any particular position on any of these issues; rather, it is to illustrate weak
reasoning, which can happen in pretty much any kind of argument. Please be aware that the claims in
these examples are just made-up illustrations—they haven’t been researched, and you shouldn’t use
them as evidence in your own writing.

What are fallacies?

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others’
writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is
important to realize two things about fallacies: first, fallacious arguments are very, very common and
can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of
fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard
to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak,
somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some
strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach you how to label
arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at your own arguments and
move them away from the “weak” and toward the “strong” end of the continuum.

So what do fallacies look like?

For each fallacy listed, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip on how to avoid
committing the fallacy in your own arguments.

Hasty generalization

Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is
inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes about people (“librarians are shy
and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying
hasty generalization.

Example: “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too. All
philosophy classes must be hard!” Two people’s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to
base a conclusion.

Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions or experiences
of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need
more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the example, the more modest
conclusion “Some philosophy classes are hard for some students” would not be a hasty
generalization.)

Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion
that the arguer actually draws.

Example: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the
punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can
kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.” The argument
actually supports several conclusions—”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in
particular—but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what
conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask
yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you’ve
actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is
being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you’re claiming something big.
Post hoc (also called false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as
“after this, therefore because of this.”

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really
does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later
appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two
events that seem related in time aren’t really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the
same thing as causation.

Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is
responsible for the rise in crime.” The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising
crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused the other.

Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process
by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. And that’s what you
should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have something
more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later.

Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence,
will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if
we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he
or she assumes we can’t stop partway down the hill.

Example: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect life, we are likely
to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a
battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To
prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now.” Since
animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems
particularly clear that this chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even if we believe that
experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant
of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—we may not slide all the way
down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the
arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of events really
can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here’s an example that doesn’t seem fallacious: “If I
fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate. If I don’t graduate, I probably won’t be able to get a good
job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year.”

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and if B, then C,”
and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If
the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a
weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill
someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on
purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and hammers do share certain features, these
features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at
stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to
kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be hard
to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the
world: “My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when
I’m stuck inside) and they’re both kind of murky.” So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy
between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare fetuses
with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an adult
human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are good or not depends on
the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans
rights? If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of
human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and the
analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive on one’s own, adult
humans and fetuses don’t share it, and the analogy is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see whether the two
things you’re comparing both share those properties.

Appeal to authority

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities
and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to
agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority
who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy
Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” While Guy Handsome may be an authority on
matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his
political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person
writing the paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the
authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr.
Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the
authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a
person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or
reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.
Ad populum

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several versions of the ad
populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be
liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her
argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to
convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the opinion of most
Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn’t determine
what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of
segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to
get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your readers believe your conclusion because
everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe it, and
so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one.

Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the
person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on
arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe
So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad
person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his
or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But
Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?” Dworkin’s appearance and character,
which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her
argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or
she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Here’s an example:
imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of
good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your
argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!” The fact that your
parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in
their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents’ reasoning, rather than on their personal character.
(The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone’s character—if
your conclusion is “President Jones is an untrustworthy person,” premises about her untrustworthy
acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

Appeal to pity

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by
making them feel sorry for someone.
Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat
has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!” The
conclusion here is “You should give me an A.” But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning
and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who
have a hard week deserve A’s) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might
feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion—but the information isn’t
logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here’s another example: “It’s wrong to tax
corporations—think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run
their businesses!”

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them
feel sorry for someone.

Appeal to ignorance

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence
on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been
able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing argument that commits the same
fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been
able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.” In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as
support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this
is not fallacious: if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something
for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then
the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion
from that lack of evidence.

Straw man

Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to
the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak
version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able
to knock down a straw man (like a scarecrow) isn’t very impressive, defeating a watered-down
version of your opponent’s argument isn’t very impressive either.

Example: “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at it! But such harsh
measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans should be left in
peace.” The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated. In fact, most feminists do not
propose an outright “ban” on porn or any punishment for those who merely view it or approve of it;
often, they propose some restrictions on particular things like child porn, or propose to allow people
who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers—not viewers—for damages. So the arguer
hasn’t really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.
Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and
sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent’s argument,
then you’ve really accomplished something.

Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that
distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original
issue.

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more
smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.” Let’s try our premise-
conclusion outlining to see what’s wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that
something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice
sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of
teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not
given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see
being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

False dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two
choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one
option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many
different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick
the one the arguer recommends.

Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we
continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the
building down.” The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or
find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in
bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.

Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two options,
is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are other
alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no
formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there
are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

Begging the question

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of
the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to
simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise
that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or
“circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the
argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism
of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not
the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human
being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-conclusion form:

Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice:
“decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,” and “help another
human being escape suffering through death” means something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.”
So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does.
The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us
asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs” (that is,
evades) the real question.

Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to
make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia is
morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active euthanasia is murder.” And that is a
debatable premise—again, the argument “begs” or evades the question of whether active euthanasia
is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on the
uncontroversial premise, “Murder is morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.

Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a
short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from one
premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill
those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you’ve just glossed over them, you might be
begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing
as the conclusion (but in different words). If so, you’re probably begging the question. The moral of
the story: you can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you’re trying to
prove.

Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase
that is important to the argument.

Example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.”
The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both something that is correct or good
(as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and something to which someone has a claim (as in
“everyone has a right to life”). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on
words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or
misunderstanding. Either way, it’s important that you use the main terms of your argument
consistently.

Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they
could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren’t slipping and sliding between
those meanings.

So how do I find fallacies in my own writing?

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:

 Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the argument
would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special
attention to strengthening those parts.

 List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and
evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a
particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you’re using.

 Learn which types of fallacies you’re especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in
your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on
weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there’s a
particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.

 Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping
words like “all,” “no,” “none,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “no one,” and “everyone” are
sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use
words like “some,” “many,” “few,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth.

 Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are
accurate and fair.

Can I get some practice with this?

Yes, you can. Follow this link to see a sample argument that’s full of fallacies (and then you can follow
another link to get an explanation of each one). Then there’s a more well-constructed argument on
the same topic.

Fallacies of Relevance

Informal Fallacies

Assessing the legitimacy of arguments embedded in ordinary language is rather like diagnosing whether
a living human being has any broken bones. Only the internal structure matters, but it is difficult to see
through the layers of flesh that cover it. Soon we'll begin to develop methods, like the tools of radiology,
that enable us to see the skeletal form of an argument beneath the language that expresses it. But
compound fractures are usually evident to the most casual observer, and some logical defects are
equally apparent.

The informal fallacies considered here are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect. The
fallacies of relevance, for example, clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their
conclusions. Although they are often used in attempts to persuade people by non-logical means, only
the unwary, the predisposed, and the gullible are apt to be fooled by their illegitimate appeals. Many of
them were identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin names for them have passed
into common use. It's worthwhile to consider the structure, offer an example, and point out the
invalidity of each of them in turn.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate
consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely
developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might propose:

 If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.

 I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

 Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could neverthelss be false.
Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to
get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to
be true.

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate
consequences that will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.

 I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.

 If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.

 If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.

 Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are
all true, so the argument is fallacious.

Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)

In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse
strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion:

 As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for
financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised
in the harmless sheep's clothing of concern for children.

 Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in
many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do
with the truth of the conclusion.

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between
the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to
authority, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to
guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for example:

 Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects.

 Therefore, spiders are insects.

As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some individual
(however talented or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have some special
knowledge or skill, expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive
evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.

Ad Hominem Argument

The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument, in which we are encouraged
to reject a proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some
way. This can happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be
false because of who believes it to be true:

 Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.

 But we all know that Harold . . .

o . . . dresses funny and smells bad. or

o . . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or

o . . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 or
 o . . . doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.

 Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for
no better reason than that someone believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can
be true (and the intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or
holds inconsistent beliefs or shares a common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can
prove otherwise. Thus, for example:

 No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

 Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we
don't know could nevertheless be so.

Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an
argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.

 All children should have ample attention from their parents.

 Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.

 Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure
the truth of a conclusion focussed on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this
procedure may succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.

egalese – Everything you Need to Know

January 14, 2017 by Chris Hargreaves

Share

Tweet

Share

Email

158SHARES
If you’re going to be a lawyer then at some point you’re going to have to come to grips with legalese.

Hopefully that’s not because you intend to actually use it in your own practice. Unfortunately, the odds
that your colleagues will always communicate sensibly with you are extremely slim.

Similarly Judges, older lawyers and those who simply think that legalese is cool will all start throwing
around stupid phrases like “post hoc ergo propter hoc“. Instead of just nodding and hoping nobody asks
you to explain, it might be useful to know what some of these phrases actually mean.
As you read older contracts and documents, letters and engage in conversation with people – you’re
going to come across legalese in many forms.

So with that in mind, let’s explore the topic in excruciating detail so that you can make your way through
the day without getting bamboozled.

There is no criteria on the law school exam called “would the client read this or throw it in the bin”

Legalese Definitions – Good, Bad and Ugly

First, let’s throw a terrible definition in the bin. Merriam-Webster has decided to go with this:

the specialized language of the legal profession

This is a dumb definition of legalese for a few reasons.

1. much of what makes up “legalese” isn’t related solely to the legal profession

2. it makes it sound like it’s a good thing by using the word “specialized”

3. it fails to indicate that legalese often can’t be understood by anyone born after 1895

What we really need is a definition of legalese that says, or at least hints, that legalese is the domain of
lawyers who don’t know how to communicate properly.

This one is from Dictionary.com (yeah – I know it’s not the world’s greatest…)

language containing an excessive amount of legal terminology or of legal jargon.

OK now we’re getting a bit closer – at least the negativity is obvious in this definition. My only problem
here is the statement, again, that it’s “legal terminology” or “legal jargon”. As you’ll see, we can break
into legalese very easily without even using legal terms at all.

This one I wanted to include from thefreedictionary.com because it cracks me up:

The specialized or technical language of the legal profession, especially when considered to
be complex or abstruse.

Why is this so funny? Because it uses the word abstruse! The irony clearly didn’t strike the editors of
the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

My favourite definition of legalese is probably the one from the Cambridge Dictionary:

language used by lawyers and in legal documents that is difficult for ordinary people to understand

In the absence of anything better, let’s run with that!

Where did Legalese Come From?

I guess this is a good place to start.

Unless Wikipedia has lied to me, the basic development of legalese happened like this:

 countries have laws

  those laws might be rendered in different languages than the people speak (eg Latin)

 as a result, only learned lawyers could actually understand the laws

 because they are so learned and comfortable with it, they use that formal language as part of
their normal communication

 nobody else understands them.

That’s basically it. In English history terms you can track through how the Roman influence caused laws
to be written in Latin. This meant the lawyers had to learn the language. However, “old English” was the
language used for actual legal argument, despite the laws being written in Latin for some time.

After that, the Norman invasions began and so the legal language shifted over to Anglo-Norman and
then to French, which is why many words in legal English we use now are actually derived from the
French language.

So the guts of it is this: current “legal English” is a mash of old English, Latin and French.

You can see why people can’t understand us if we throw that kind of stuff at them too much, right?

Where do we Find Legalese?

The reason I ditched most of the definitions above is simple: they didn’t cover the field well enough.

We can find legalese everywhere, but most often we’re going to see it crop up:

 in Judge’s decisions

 in formal letters, particularly advices

 in older legal documents

 in some jurisdictions where the formal Court documents are still in “ye olde English”

 from non-lawyers who are trying to “sound like a lawyer”

Judge’s Decisions

This is a bit of a mixed bag, because some Judges have started writing in a far more approachable tone
than others.

However, think about what Judges have to do: they make conclusions about evidence, consider the law,
deal with submissions and then make a decision.

In light of how much legalese exists in what they are digesting and sifting through, it’s not too surprising
that a bit of legalese seeps through into their decisions.

Beyond that, many Judges are from prior generations where legalese was simply the normal way that
lawyers communicated – we’ll see if that changes in the future.

Formal Letters
As I explain in more detail below, what we see a lot is that lawyers who can speak perfectly normally
then go straight into legalese when they start writing a formal letter.

Distinguish this from an email or a text message which come across in straightforward language. When
we go into “formal writing mode” all of a sudden we feel a compelling need to write in ways that we
would never do elsewhere.

Strange, isn’t it?

Older Documents

That’s just how it was done, back in the day. If you’ve read my section on the development of legalese
above, then you can understand why.

Formal Court Documents

I recently had occasion to read some documents from an Irish Court, and it became very obvious that
the Irish system was still caught up in very old styles and language.

Court documents are often the last to be updated to avoid legalese, even when lawyers (who are not
exactly fast moving as a profession) have gone beyond that style of writing.

I honestly think this is less a deliberate choice, and more just because the Courts are so overworked and
underpaid that this particular job is not on anybody’s radar.

Trying to Sound Like a Lawyer

I always find this one a bit funny.

Lawyers spend hours and hours trying to avoid sounding too “lawyery”.

Non-lawyers, when they want to write a “hard hitting” letter try to make it all convoluted and technical
so that they sound “like a lawyer”.

Unfortunately the result is normally a disgusting mess of big words, long sentences and phrases that
people don’t understand.

Not usually as hard hitting as the writer would hope.

Why do Lawyers Write in Legalese?

Given how common it is, you would think that lawyers have a class in law school on “how to write in
legalese” – but that’s actually not where it comes from.

Here’s what happens: lawyers go to law school.

In law school, you do a lot of reading. Most of that reading consists of:

 text books

 laws (statutes)

 cases and decisions

Many of those things are old – in particular the cases and decisions.

As a result, the young lawyer’s brain over time decides to itself “ah huh – THIS must be how I should
write if I’m a lawyer – because all these other people are writing like that”.

They (we) then begin writing in the style that matches what we’ve been reading.

Once we start writing that way, it doesn’t really matter – because nobody cares about that kind of thing
in law school. We are not graded on whether we have written in a way resembling something a human
would write – we are marked on whether we have technically answered the questions.

There is no criteria on the law school exam called “would the client read this or throw it in the bin”. As a
result, we figure that we’re doing just fine, keep writing the same way, and voila – we have just
developed the habit of writing in legalese.

Why is Legalese Bad?

This is a fair question – I mean, why should we care if we’re writing in legalese? After all – we’re lawyers!

Firstly, legalese is lazy writing. As I mentioned earlier, legalese is what our brains have been taught to do
by default, rather than something we have chosen to actually use. It is, in fact, easier to just punch
something out the door in pure legalese then it is to write a sensibly constructed piece of writing.

Second, using legalese makes you look pompous. Of course, you might actually be pompous, but that
doesn’t mean you should be proud of it. If the readers of your writing (especially your own clients) think
you’re pompous then they are going to start making assumptions about you, your intentions, and your
character. Don’t underestimate how much people will read into what kind of person you are just be the
way you write.

Third, legalese is hard to read. As you can see in my legalese examples here, things written in legalese
are much harder to read. The result is that your hard work might not achieve its intended purpose if
your recipient can’t easily follow your reasoning. If I am trying to read your letter and I keep having to
google words like “otiose” or “prima facie” that you decided to leave in, then I’m going to get distracted,
frustrated, and confused. I’m also going to feel like I’m stupid because I can’t understand your letter,
and that’s unlikely to do you any favours if I’m your client – because feeling stupid will make me angry,
and there’s a good chance I will just phone you in a huff to ask what the answer is.

Some Legalese Examples

The thing with legal writing, in particular for young lawyers, is the strong desire of the lawyer to
communicate their knowledge and expertise to the other party. In a sense this comes from a desire to
build trust – after all, if only they knew how damn smart we were, they’d have to trust us with their legal
work, right?

As a result it is natural for us to want to bombard our clients with a view to impressing them. Their
inferiority is sometimes not apparent as it should be, and so a demonstration of our superior intellect
and writing prowess is called for.

Of course, legalese is not restricted to the pen – the advocate with oral submissions can take on the
characteristics of even the most profound written wordsmith.
Through these mechanisms we have, through history, secured ourselves the position of a respected and
learned profession.

Either that – or we’ve secured ourselves a position as pompous blowhards.

Legalese Example 1 – Turning A Normal Letter Into Legalese

It’s all relative, of course, but if you apply these same principles you can easily double or triple the
length of your correspondence. Every extra word you add helps to develop your legalese, so let’s
embrace the process by using as many commas, modifiers and split infinitives as possible.

We’re going to take a delightful little sample of legal writing and turn it into an awesome powerhouse of
legalese:

Start With This

Dear Bob,

We act for Jane.

We have a copy of your letter dated 4 May 2014 and will respond shortly.

Yours faithfully,

Plain English Lawyers

With a Little Work, Becomes This

Attn: Robert Roberston esq, c/- Roberts and Roberts Associates,

This firm and, in particular, the writer (who has carriage of this matter), have recently received
instructions to act on behalf of Ms Jane Janeson in relation to the matters set out in the subject line
above.

During our initial conference with her, Ms Janeson has provided to us a copy of your correspondence
issued on 4 May 2014 and received by her on 6 May 2014, which we are presently reviewing.

Following the completion of our review and consideration, and the taking of further instructions from Ms
Janeson, we will revert to you by way of further correspondence.

We remain, dear sir, your faithful servants,

Eagle, Concord, Badger, Unicorn and Smith

Legalese Example 2 – Latin

Nothing screams “I’m writing in legalese” quite like the odd Latin phrase thrown in for good measure.

Of course, we have to be a little careful in our judgment here, because there are some technically latin
words like “affidavit” and “caveat emptor” which have really become words that have an English
meaning. As these words become more prevalent in the legal system they are probably less “legalese”
and more just “legal English”.
Here are some core latin legalese phrases that seem to creep in when lawyers decide to write things (in
no particular order):

 prima facie – I’m sure you’ve heard of this one, and it’s probably one of the first pieces of Latin
that lawyers become exposed to. It means “on the face of it” but is usually used in connection
with whether someone, absent a defence, can make out a case against the other party.

 nunc pro tunc – this one usually comes up in terms of fixing things as if they had never been
broken. It means “now for then” and crops up if you need a Court to fix an earlier order or
decision in way that makes it apply from the original date, rather than just the date it was fixed.

 void ab initio – I’ve had some pretty hilarious (and wrong) uses of this one levelled at me over
the years. Basically it means “void from the beginning” (void being one of those “not really latin
but still latin” words). It’s a legal fiction where something is declared to be completely
obliterated from history as if it had never been done, and everything that happened as a
consequence of it has to be undone. It’s usually more straightforward than it sounds.

 mutatis mutandis – Every time I hear this one I get the some “hakuna matada” in my head from
the Lion King… It means “with the necessary changes” and usually comes up in contracts. For
example, you’ve written a gigantic clause and now want to repeat the entire thing but for a
different party, you would say “Clause 6.4 applies, mutatis mutandis, to Party Y.

 consensus ad idem – I blame contract law lecturers for this, because they insist on using it when
teaching how contracts are formed. It means “meeting of minds” and is generally accepted as
being a requirement for a contract to be formed – that the parties had agreed to the essential
terms and were both of the same mind about what the agreement was.

 bona fide – it means in good faith (surely you new that?). Unfortunately people still use it
despite the fact that “good faith” is pretty easy to say instead as a direct replacement.

 nemo dat quod non habet – the property lawyers claimed this one some time ago (although the
principle is becoming eroded). It means you can’t sell what you don’t own, and used to be a
basic principle of property law.

Those should keep you going for now. This isn’t designed to be an exhaustive list but an introduction to
a few examples of legalese when Latin is involved.

Legalese Example #3 – Crazy Clauses

For this example of legalese I’m going to show you how a straightforward clause can become mangled.

Normally it’s because of bad planning, and “bandaid drafting”. The clause wasn’t well thought out to
begin with, and then as it got revised nobody bothered fixing it properly.

So the progression might go like this:

1. Party A may sue Party B for damages if Party B breaches this contract; becomes…

2. Provided that Party A has complied with the terms of this contract, Party A may sue Party B for
damages if Party B breaches this contract; becomes….
 3. Provided that Party A has complied with the terms of this contract, Party A may sue Party B for
damages if Party B breaches this contract without limiting the rights that Party A might
otherwise have at law; becomes…

4. Provided that Party A has complied with the terms of this contract, Party A may sue Party B for
damages if Party B breaches this contract without limiting the rights that Party A might
otherwise have at law, but only if Party A notifies Party B of its election to to do so pursuant to
clause 7; becomes…

5. If Party B fails to remedy a breach of this contract within 7 days of receiving written notice from
Party A, and provided that Party A has complied with the terms of this contract, Party A may
sue Party B for damages if Party B breaches this contract without limiting the rights that Party A
might otherwise have at law, but only if Party A notifies Party B of its election to to do so
pursuant to clause 7

As you can see – the elements of the “finished” clause are all sensible because the original clause was
deficient. However, by simply tacking on concepts left and right, the drafting becomes mangled and the
clause becomes a beautiful example of legalese for the history books.

How can you Avoid Writing in Legalese?

Excellent legal writing takes work. You have to deliberately and consciously devote yourself
to improving your legal drafting skills.

Other than identifying that it’s a bad thing, there are some simple tips you can use to avoid accidentally
slipping into legalese:

 write shorter sentences rather than longer ones – look for inline semicolons, the word “and”,
and sentences with more than one concept in them

 write shorter paragraphs rather than longer ones

 avoid Latin, always

 if you wouldn’t say the word out aloud, don’t use it – words like aforementioned, otiose,
promulgate, verisimilitude, disambiguate and many others are great for a game of hangman, but
poor for legal writers

 don’t write in a hurry – this is where we revert to our base instinct to write gibberish

 always re-read your work – not just for typos, but for the overall impact of the letter, including a
“legalese check”

I want to stress here that the goal is not to become patronising. The goal is to write clearly, correctly
and succinctly. So in the absence of specific information about your client that changes the rules, feel
free to use grown up words that an adult with a standard secondary education would understand. For
example, on this website I use fairly sophisticated language. That’s because I’m writing for lawyers.

I do not, however, throw in a mutatis mutandis here and there just to show you how clever I am.

Where to from Here?

First – perhaps you’d like to let me know the best/worst example of legalese you’ve ever seen in the
comments?

After that, you might like to get into my free legal drafting course and eradicate the legalese from your
system.

Happy Lawyering!

How to write brief case

Standard Case Brief: Its Structure

 Title

 Reporter Publisher

 Court & Year

 Procedural posture (how it got to the court of appeal)

 Statement of facts (narrative story)

 Issues of appeal (issues that were decided on appeal)

 Arguments (arguments on each side)

 Policy implications (different ways that the judged could have gone)

 Black letter law (rule of law)

 Rationale (appellate that judges used to make a decision)

 Dissents (any particular dissenting or concurring opinions)

How to Write a Case Brief: Step By Step Guide

Standard advice says you should open such paper with the case citation: put the name of both parties,
which is usually something like “Jones versus Smith”. The opening lines include publisher, source. Write
a court that made the decision and the year when final opinion was published.

 Statement Facts

The first part is going to be setting out each fact. You must distinguish what facts really matter for the
court decision. Here we disregard information that doesn’t have any bearing of a court decision. Reading
the facts that case is dealing with helps to eliminate elements that are not relevant to the court’s
decision. Identify facts established at trial.
  Procedural History

In order to develop this section, answer the key questions:

 What court issued this opinion?

 How did the case get there?

Find out, whether the case comes up from the trial court on appeal or it comes from another appellate
court. The procedural history doesn’t matter unless the case turns on something that happened in
procedural history.

 Issue

It is the key question the court has to decide in a field of law. Note that it is a legal question. You must
spot the issue and articulate the jest in a question. Now, fortunately for the students and people reading
these cases, the courts usually are very helpful as all cases start with the words identifying the issue. For
example, “the issue we face today is whether...” Frequently, the court will state that legal issue. It is a
problem presented to the trial, and the court is going to be struggling with. The answer is to
determinate who wins the case. In some briefs, we might put the holding. It’s a concise part, consists of
1-2 words to answer fundamental question.

 Rule

It is a set of law that judges use to decide a particular case; it may include more than one rule depending
on how complicated is the issue or how many problems it involves. In most situations, judges must
consider a couple of different rules: it depends on the facts; the judges will discuss these rules; including
all the important points in the front of your paper is crucial.

 Application

Sometimes people call it analysis or reasoning. In this section, you should explain the choice of judges.
Keep in mind the facts and put them together with the law they have used. The court will state what
each party contends. Read the parts attentively; it helps to identify how the court applies the law to the
issue.

 Conclusion

It is a short statement saying the court affirmed or reversed the case and held for the appellant,
appellee or defendant. However, the parties are designated. It’s time to say who won and who lost.

Order Your Paper

Brief in 11 Steps

1. Read the case carefully. Do it twice.

2. Identify facts.

3. Choose the best brief format. Find a proper form.

4. Create an outline. It’s your plan to stick for not being lost in writing.
 5. Elaborate every part of your paper. Describe rational, explain disposition in your own words.

6. Find another opinion to include in your casebook.

7. Remember that your paper must respond to a particular style format!

8. Check the grammar.

9. Re-read the paper in 1-2 days. Look with a fresh eye.

10. Find out how the case relates to other similar cases.

11. Give the answer whether you agree or disagree with the court? And how might it have been
decided?

By using the case brief, we have better understanding of law principles. Standard thinking says the more
cases you read, the more you will be able to think like a lawyer. And it's certainly true! You will read lots
and lots of cases, and the practice makes things simple. It's a good idea to get what goes into specific
case, why a judge decided the particular way. You may learn how to use cases in your practice as both a
sword and shield when you're litigating a particular idea. It can be even a different way for you to study.

There are no doubts that you’ll create the top-notch paper following our pieces of advice. Don't have
much time for working on your new assignment? We know you’ve already prudent in a case brief
making and other written tasks. Let our professional team do the entire job for you while you enjoy your
student’s life! Contact us easily by email address or fill in the order form.