Chapter 5

Logical Fallacies
(Part 2: Fallacies of Relevance)








Mistakes in reasoning in which the premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide
sufficient evidence for the conclusion.

NINE (9) fallacies of insufficient evidence:

• Inappropriate Appeal to Authority • Hasty Generalization

• Appeal to Ignorance • Slippery Slope
• False Alternative • Weak Analogy
• Loaded Questions • Inconsistency
• Questionable Cause
 PART 2
FALLACY of RELEVANCE

1. Inappropriate appeal to authority

• Committed when an arguer cites a witness or • The source is not a genuine authority on the subject at
authority who, there is good reason to believe, is
unreliable.
• But when, in general, is it reasonable to believe that
a witness or an authority is unreliable?
• Reasons for questioning the reliability of a source:
§ Not a genuine authority on the subject at issue.
§ Biased or has some other reason to lie or mislead.
§ Accuracy of the source’s observations is
questionable.
§ Source cited (e.g., a media source, a reference
work, or an Internet source) is known to be
generally unreliable.
§ Source’s claim conflicts with expert opinion.
issue.
§ An authority is a person who possesses special
knowledge, competence, or expertise in a particular
field.
§ A person who is not a genuine authority on the subject
at issue.
For example:
My barber told me that Einstein’s general theory of
relativity is a lot of hogwash. I guess Einstein wasn’t
as smart as everybody thinks he was.
Ø Because the arguer’s barber presumably is not an
authority on Einstein’s general theory of relativity,
this argument commits the fallacy of inappropriate
appeal to authority.
Ø Common in advertising.
 • The source is biased or has some other reason to lie • A source may also be unreliable if we have reason to
or mislead. doubt the accuracy of his or her observations or
• The person making the claim is biased or has some experiences.
other obvious motive to lie or mislead.
For example:
For example: Ø Jerry [who was listening to heavy metal music on his
Ali Baba has been paid $100,000 by the Sensational iPod] claims he heard the victim whisper his name
Magazine tabloid for his story that he is Jack Ma’s from more than 100 feet away. Jerry has always struck
illegitimate son. Given Ali Baba’s reputation for me as a straight shooter. So, I have to believe that
honesty, I think we should believe him, even though Jerry really did hear the victim whisper his name.
he has produced no corroborating evidence and DNA Ø After taking LSD (hallucinogenic drug) and drinking
tests fail to support his claim. seven beers, Jill claims she had a conversation with
Elvis’s ghost in the alley behind McDonald’s Bar.
Ø The testifier has an obvious motive to lie I’ve never known Jill to lie. So, I think we should
(financial gain). believe her.
Ø Given these motivations, together with other
information contained in the examples, these These examples there are obvious reasons for doubting the
appeals to authority are fallacious. reliability of the witnesses’ observations or experiences.

 • Is the Source Known to Be Generally Unreliable? • Does the Source’s Claim Conflict with Expert
Opinion?
For example, (from Weekly World News):
• Scientists’ Research Reveals . . . It Takes 3 For example:
Million Years for a Human Soul to Reach Heaven Ø Dr. Duane Gish, a biochemist with a Ph.D. from
. . . And No One from Earth Has Arrived There Berkeley and former senior vice president of the
Yet! Institute for Creation Research, has argued that
there is no credible evidence supporting the
Generally speaking, it is reasonable to accept claims theory of evolution.
made in reputable newspapers, magazines, Ø In view of Dr. Gish’s expertise on this subject, we
encyclopedias, radio and television news programs, and should conclude that evolution is a myth.
Internet Web sites.
Because an overwhelming majority of scientists
But we must be cautious about accepting claims found disagree with this view, it would be fallacious to accept
in sources that we have reason to believe are generally this conclusion simply on the authority of Dr. Gish.
unreliable.

 2. Appeal to Ignorance

• Occurs when an arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false or, that a claim must
be false because no one has proven it true.

For example:
Ø There must be intelligent life on other planets.
No one has proven that there isn’t.
Ø There isn’t any intelligent life on other planets.
No one has proven that there is.
Ø No one has proved that humans are responsible for global warming.
So, we must conclude that humans are not responsible for global warming.
Ø No one has proved that humans are not responsible for global warming.
So, we must conclude that humans are responsible for global warming.

Each of these examples suffers from the same basic flaw: It assumes that the lack of evidence for (or against)
a claim is good reason to believe that the claim is false (or true)

 3. False Alternative



• The fallacy of false alternatives is committed when an arguer asserts that there are only two alternatives to
consider when there are actually more than two.
• Occurs when we fail to consider all the relevant possibilities.

Examples:
Ø Look, the choice is simple. Either you support the war or you are traitor to your country. You do
not support the war. Therefore, you are a traitor.
Ø You are with us, or you are against us.

 4. Loaded Question

• A loaded question is a question that contains an • It is easy to spot the trick here. Joe’s question, “Have
unfair or questionable assumption. you stopped cheating on exams?” is a loaded
• The loaded question fallacy occurs when an arguer question because any direct yes or no answer to it will
asks a question that contains an unfair or force Pete to admit something that he does not want
unwarranted presupposition. to admit. Joe’s apparently single question is really
two questions rolled into one.
Example:
Question 1: Did you cheat on exams in the past?
Joe: Have you stopped cheating on exams? Question 2: If you did cheat on exams in the past,
Pete: No! have you stopped now?
Joe: Oh, so you admit that you still cheat on exams?
Pete: No, I meant to say yes! By applying Pete’s single “yes” or “no” answers to
Joe: Oh, so you admit that you used to cheat on both questions, Joe commits the fallacy of loaded
exams? question.
Pete: No!

• Are all loaded questions fallacies?
No. Strictly speaking, a loaded question is fallacious only if it is used unfairly in an argumentative context.
§ For purposes of this text, however, it can be assumed that all loaded questions are fallacious.
§ Thus, for example, the following questions may be regarded as fallacious:
Ø When are you going to stop acting so immature?
Ø Tell me, how long have you been embezzling money from the firm?
Ø Where did you hide the body?
Ø How long had you planned this bank robbery before you carried it out?
Ø Did you write this immoral trash?

5. Questionable Cause

• When an arguer claims, without sufficient evidence, that one • The post hoc fallacy is committed when an arguer
thing is the cause of something else, he commits the fallacy assumes, without adequate evidence, that because one
of questionable cause. event, A, occurred before another event, B, A is the cause
of B. This is not always the case.
There are three (3) common varieties of the questionable cause
fallacy: X happened before Y
1. The Post Hoc Fallacy. Y happened, and was caused by something
2. The Mere Correlation Fallacy. Therefore, X caused Y
3. The Oversimplified Cause Fallacy.
Example:
How do I know that ginseng tea is a cure for the common
cold?
Last week I had a bad case of the sniffles. I drank a cup of
ginseng tea, and the next morning my sniffles were gone.

• The mere correlation fallacy, which is committed when an • The oversimplified cause fallacy is committed when we
arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that because A assume, without adequate evidence, that A is the sole
and B regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B or cause of B when, in fact, there are several causes of B
vice versa.
Examples:
Example: Violent crime has declined steadily in recent years. Obviously, tougher
On Monday I stayed up all night partying, had eggs for breakfast, and failed imprisonment policies are working.
my calculus test. On Wednesday I stayed up all night partying, had eggs for
breakfast, and failed my biology test. On Thursday I stayed up all night Smoking has been empirically proven to cause lung cancer.
partying, had eggs for breakfast, and failed my history test. Obviously, to do Therefore, if we eradicate smoking, we will eradicate lung cancer.
better on tests, I must stop eating eggs for breakfast.




6. Hasty Generalization
• A generalization is a statement that asserts that all or most things of a certain kind have a certain quality or
characteristic.
1. Most college students receive financial aid.
2. The majority of dogs are not dangerous.
3. Asians are good in Mathematics
• We commit the fallacy of hasty generalization when we draw a general conclusion from a sample that is biased
or too small.
Do most Americans still believe in God? To find out, we asked more than ten thousand scientists at colleges and
universities throughout America. Less than 40 percent said they believed in God. The conclusion is obvious: Most
Americans no longer believe in God.

















7. Slippery Slope

• We often hear arguments of this sort: “We can’t Senator Walker has argued that we should outlaw
allow A, because A will lead to B, and B will lead to terrorist threats on the Internet. This proposal is
C, and we sure as heck don’t want C!” Arguments of dangerous and must be strongly resisted. If we allow the
this sort are called slippery-slope arguments. government to outlaw terrorist threats on the Internet,
• We commit the slippery-slope fallacy when we next it will want to ban “hate speech” and other allegedly
claim, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly “harmful” speech on the Internet.
harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous Next the government will want to censor “harmful”
outcome. ideas on television, radio, and in newspapers.
• It is an argument that suggests taking a minor action Eventually, everything you see, hear, or read will be
will lead to major and sometimes ludicrous totally controlled by the government.
consequences.
Notice that each of the argument has the pattern:
Example: 1. The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless
If you break your diet and have one donut tonight, action, A, is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to
you will just want to eat 10 donuts tomorrow, and C, and so on to D.
before you know it, you will have gained back the 15 2. The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and
kilogram you lost therefore should not be permitted.
3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will
actually lead to D.






 8. Weak Analogy

• Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or Another example:
more objects, ideas or situations.
• The expression “That’s like comparing apples and Why does a family who has no children in a school
oranges.” points to a mistake called the fallacy of district have to pay school taxes? This is like paying
weak analogy (occurs when an arguer compares two cigarette taxes even though you don’t smoke.
(or more) things that aren’t really comparable in
relevant respects). To critically evaluate an argument like this, we need to
do three things:
Examples:
Teachers of false religions are like carriers of a • List all important similarities between the two cases,
deadly plague. Just as we rightly quarantine plague • List all important dissimilarities between the two
victims to prevent them from infecting others, so we cases, and
should quarantine teachers of false religions to • Decide whether, on balance, the similarities are
prevent them from spreading their spiritual poison. strong enough to support the conclusion (if the
differences are too great to support the conclusion,
Life is a box of chocolates – you never know what then it commits the fallacy of weak analogy)
you are going to get (Forest Gump)










 9. Inconsistency

• Two statements are inconsistent when they both can’t be true.
• The fallacy of inconsistency occurs when an arguer asserts inconsistent or contradictory claims.