Morgan 1

Quincy Morgan

English IV Honors

Mrs. Shannon Jarman

22 April 2010

The Impact of the Logical Fallacy in Literature

In literature, there are many instances where the author makes a careless point in the work that

almost cancels out the entire point he or she is trying to make to the readers. In this event, a logical fallacy

has occurred. In layman terms, a logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed, essentially

rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire argument, invalid. In literature, there are five main types

of logical fallacies present: those that appeal to one’s feelings, distraction from the argument,

misinformation, generalization and irrelevant connections.

Quite often, writers appeal to their audiences' feelings to attract attention to and elicit agreement

with their ideas. Logical thinking never involves feelings. For example, using the statement, “I think that

businesses should not have to limit the amount of pollutants they release into the atmosphere because

Rush Limbaugh says that there is no real evidence for industrial pollutants causing the Greenhouse

Effect,” is not a use of proper logic (Escalas). After all, Rush Limbaugh is no expert on the Greenhouse

Effect. Therefore, the writer cites authorities to show the validity of the claim, but the authority is not an

expert in the field, the authority's view is taken out of context, or other experts of that field disagree with

the authority quoted (Escalas). Although this can be effective at times, manipulating audience feelings is

not employing logic, nor it does not help a writer make his or her case any better.

When the writer uses questionable or ambiguous reasons to sustain their arguments, that is

another example of logical fallacy. In the statement, “I believe in God because no one can prove that a

god doesn't exist,” everything about the statement is pure ignorance (Woodhouse 58). The writer is

merely stating that the point has not been proven otherwise. Just because a counterclaim has not been

proven does not mean a claim is correct. A logical demonstration of a belief has to be conclusive and
 Morgan 2
convincing to be effective; any doubtful premises leads the audience to believe that the conclusion is

weak.

When writers do not have strong support for their claims, they often use distraction. Distraction is

also used if the opposition's view is strong and logical; then, writers have a tendency to attack the context

instead of the argument (Kahane 75). If a speaker says that, “Oprah Winfrey's diet advice is useless; she

has had problems with maintaining her weight for most of her life, bouncing back and forth between

being overweight and slender,” then she is attacking her opponent (Kahane 75). The writer reduces the

credibility of the opposition by attacking them personally for who they are and not for what they say

(Escalas). The validity of logical reasoning does not depend on the morality of the speaker. If a statement

is correct, then the nature of the speaker has no bearing on logic.

Some writers stereotype and generalize their ideas to make a powerful statement. For example, if

a man says that all Greek food causes illness because he had gotten food poisoning when he traveled to

Greece last year, he is using one particular experience. As soon as an exception to the derived rule is

found, the rule fails to support the argument (Escalas). To construct effective logical arguments, writers

must avoid generalizations; once an exception to a generalization is found, the argument that the

generalization supports is discredited.

Finally, there is the instance where some writers' arguments fail not because of the information

given, but because of the type of connections established between the parts of the argument. If a media

rights advocate goes and says that having a television rating system is like being in prison; both infringe

on one's rights, then there an obvious mistake in analogies (Pitt, 45). The writer reasons by analogy, using

a similar, known situation as the basis for the argument. Extended analogies tend to lose their direct

connection with the actual topic of discussion, leading to erroneous conclusions. If the logical structures

are not valid, the argument will fail, even if all of the premises are true and correct.
 Morgan 3
Works Cited

Kahane, Howard. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life. 7th

ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1971.

Pitt, Jack. Logic for Argument. New York: Random House, 1968.

Woodhouse, Mark B. A Preface to Philosophy. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1994.

Escalas, Maggie, Julie Feia, and Carrie J. Schroeder. "Logical Fallacies." LEO: Literacy

Education Online. St. Cloud State University, 20 Aug. 1998. Web. 22 Apr. 2010.