CHAPTER 6: FALLACIES THAT Genetic Fallacy

VIOLATE THE RELEVANCE

- Evaluating a thing in terms of its
CRITERION
earlier context and then carrying over
Fallacies that violate the Relevance that evaluation to the thing in the
Criterion present, while ignoring relevant
- These are fallacies that make appeals changes that may have altered its
to factors that are irrelevant to the character in the interim.
truth or merit of their conclusions - One who commits this fallacy typically
transfers the positive or negative esteem
Premise or appeal, when relevant or that he or she has for the thing in its
irrelevant: original context or earlier from to the
thing in its present form.
Relevant Premise / Irrelevant Premise /
- Sometimes committed by religious
Appeal Appeal
As to acceptance to the conclusion leaders and others who forbid certain
Provides some Provides no practices on the basis of their supposed
reason to believe connection and has origins.
and has bearing on no bearing on the - Exhibits a pattern of reasoning that fails
the merit of the merit of the to meet the relevance criterion of a
conclusion conclusion good argument – that the premises must
have a bearing on the truth or value of
2 Categories of Fallacies that Violate the the claim in question.
Relevance Criterion: - Example: “I wouldn’t vote for Don
Reichard for anything. You see, I grew
1. Fallacies of irrelevant premise
up with him. We went to grade school
2. Fallacies of irrelevant appeal
together. He was just one big ‘goof-off.’
Fallacies of Irrelevant Premise You couldn’t depend on him for
anything. I shudder to think of his being
-A fallacy in which the arguers set forth governor of any state in which I live.”
reasons to try to lead us to a point of
view, but then draw a conclusion other Rationalization
than the one that the reasons actually
- Using plausible-sounding but usually
support.
fake reasons to justify a particular
 Example: Evaluating a thing in terms position that is held on other, less
of its earlier context, ignoring changes respectable grounds
that may have altered its character. - The stated premises have little or no
Types of Fallacies of Irrelevant Premise: relationship to the conclusion since they
are not the real reasons for the
1. Genetic Fallacy conclusion drawn.
2. Rationalization - A kind of dishonest substitute for good
3. Drawing the Wrong Conclusion reasoning.
4. Using the Wrong Reasons
- Uses premises that make the arguer’s
questionable position or action appear
to be rationally respectable.
- Example: “I didn’t do well on the Law
School Admissions Test. You see, I just
don’t do very well on tests. Tests just
don’t show my real ability. Besides, the
day before I took the LSAT, I had some
really bad news from home. I’ll do
better next time”
 The person is trying to give
Using the Wrong Reasons
plausible-sounding reasons for
his weak performance on the
LSAT, but the reasons sound
hollow.
Drawing the Wrong Conclusion
- Drawing a conclusion other than the
one supported by the evidence
presented in the argument.
- Also known as the fallacy of missing
the point
- The argument’s conclusion misses the
main thrust of the evidence provided
- In some cases, the wrong conclusion
might be drawn because of
carelessness in the formation of the
argument, but in most cases it is drawn
because of the subtle, perhaps even
unconscious, prejudices of the arguer.
- Example: “Reporters keep the public
informed, and we all know that a well-
informed public is necessary to bring
about any semblance of justice.
Besides, reporters keep public officials
and others ‘honest’ by digging out the
facts behind their claims and exposing
them when they don’t tell the truth or
when they engage in questionable
practices. Therefore, I think that the
courts are grossly unfair to newspaper
reporters when they force them to go
to prison just because they won’t
reveal the sources of their
information.”
 The weight of evidence in this
argument supports the view that
newspaper reporters perform a
very useful and important service
for their readers; however, it does
not support the claim that the
courts have been unfair to
reporters.
- Attempting to support a claim with
reasons other than the reasons
appropriate to the claim
- Reverse of the fallacy of drawing the
wrong conclusion
- This fallacy is committed when the
arguer attempts to defend a particular
conclusion and uses evidence that does
not support the same.
- Commonly committed in a political
debate, particularly when one is
arguing against a program or policy.
- Example: “Certain population groups
should not be targeted by tobacco
advertising. Tobacco has been shown
to cause cancer, it is an expensive
habit, and it is offensive to family
members, associates, and others who
have to put up with the smoker’s
smoke.”
 The arguer started with the
conclusion and was clearly
attempting to support that
conclusion—with the wrong
reasons. The reasons given may
all be true and good reasons not
to smoke; however, they have
very little or nothing to do with
the issue here.

Fallacies of Irrelevant Appeal
- A number of fallacious arguments
attempt to support a claim by making
questionable appeals to the authority of
other people or to emotional factors,
none of which are relevant or provide
support for the truth or merit of a claim
at issue.
Types of Fallacies of Irrelevant Appeal:
1. Appeal to Irrelevant Authority
2. Appeal to Common Opinion
3. Appeal to Force or Threat
4. Appeal to Tradition
5. Appeal to Self-Interest
6. Manipulation of Emotions
Appeal to Irrelevant Authority
- Attempts to support a claim by
appealing to the judgment of:
1. One who is not an authority in the
field,
2. An unidentified authority, or
3. An authority who is likely to be
biased.
- Occurs most frequently in the form of a
transfer of an authority’s competence in
one field to another in which the
authority is not competent.
- If an arguer appeals to an unqualified,
unidentified, or biased authority to
support a particular thesis, then he or
she has appealed to a factor that
provides no support for the conclusion
- Example: “I think that we should
adopt this new curricular proposal.
After all, it has been unanimously
endorsed by the college’s student
government. The people who are
entrusted with running the student body
should know what they’re talking about
when it comes to deciding the best
curriculum of the school.”
 While members of the student
government may be relevant
authorities on student welfare,
they are not relevant authorities
on curricular matters.
Appeal to Common Opinion
- Urges the acceptance of a position
simply on the grounds that a large
number of people accept it or urging the
rejection of a position on the grounds
that very few people accept it.
- Also known as the bandwagon fallacy
and consensus gentium.
- Suggests that an idea or action must be
true or good because everyone is
accepting it or jumping on it
- An argument that supports a conclusion
by using the number of people that
accept or reject it
- Example: “Marijuana can’t be all
wrong. According to a recent Gallup
survey published in yesterday’s Wall
Street Journal, more than 60 percent of
the adult American population sees
nothing wrong with it.”
 The benefits or dangers of
smoking marijuana cannot be
ascertained by taking a poll.
Appeal to Force or Threat
- Attempts to persuade others of a
position by threatening them with an
undesirable state of affairs instead of
presenting evidence for one’s view.
- Happens when an arguer tries to force
another to accept a particular belief or a
course of action by threatening him
with some undesirable action.
- Example: “A local businesswoman
reminds the editor of a local newspaper
 that she spends a lot of advertising
dollars in the paper and would prefer
that the story concerning her recent
arrest for drunk driving not appear in
it.”
 This is an appeal to threat. The
businesswoman gives no reasons
why the story should not appear in
the paper other than the implied
threat that the newspaper will
experience a loss of revenue if it
does.
Appeal to Tradition
- Attempts to persuade others of a point
of view by appealing to their feelings of
reverence or respect for a tradition
instead of to evidence, especially when
a more important principle or issue is at
stake.
- Refers to the emotional attachments to
the past as basis for the conclusion.
- The comfortable or warm feelings that
we may have for a particular traditional
way of doing things may be one reason
we revere it, but such feelings are not a
reason for regarding the tradition as the
best way of doing things, especially
when a more important principle may
be at stake.
- Example: “Virginia Military Institute
should never have allowed women to
enroll. Ever since Stonewall Jackson,
VMI has been an all-male school. My
dad graduated there and he would turn
over in his grave if he knew that women
are now allowed to go to VMI.”
Appeal to Self-Interest
- Urges an opponent to accept or reject a
particular position by appealing solely
to his or her personal circumstance or
self-interest, when a more important
issue is at stake.
- The effect that a proposed public policy
might have on one’s personal life
should have no bearing on whether it is
a good idea.
- Example: “Rebecca, I would have
through that you would be actively
supporting an affirmative action
program here at the college. Because
you’re a woman, you of all people
should see the merit of using every
means available to hire women to work
in areas that have traditionally been
dominated by men”.
Manipulation of Emotions
- Attempts to persuade others to accept a
position by exploiting their emotions
instead of presenting evidence for the
position.
- Sometimes called playing to the
gallery.
- 5 Types:
1. Appeal to pity – Attempts to
persuade others of a position by
appealing to their sympathy instead
of to relevant evidence when a more
important principle or issue is at
stake.
2. Use of flattery – engages in
excessive praise of others in order
to persuade them of one’s view
instead of presenting evidence for
the position in question.
3. Assigning guilt by association –
used to manipulate an opponent into
accepting one’s view by pointing
out that the opposing view is held
by those with negative esteem or by
people or groups that the opponent
does not like or usually disagrees
with.
 4. Appeal to group loyalty – Not only
do we sometimes have to abandon
our loyalty to one group for our
loyalty to a more important group,
but sometimes we must abandon our
loyalty to any particular group in
favor of a more important
consideration involving all groups.
5. Appeal to shame – Manipulators
try to force support for their
position by trying to make us feel
shame when we have no reason to
because we have done nothing
wrong or inappropriate.
- Example: “Brad, I really think that
you ought to take Nicole to the
spring dance next Friday. She hasn’t
had a date all year. In fact, she has
never been invited to go to any
dance. Have you ever thought what
it might be like to sit alone in your
room every time there is a campus
dance, while all your friends are
doing what you’d like to be doing”