Logical fallacies – errors in reasoning

Like the other concepts we have discussed in class, these can work together – you may see combinations of fallacies. In
any case, it is up to you as a rhetorical critic to show, and prove, why there is logical inconsistency (and what type), when
you are discussing a rhetorical text. Fallacies are often not as obvious as the examples here – you have to dig into context,
conduct research, etc. to prove that something is indeed a fallacy and not a truthful and logical argument.
Straw man argument – Person A has position 1, Person B describes Person A’s position differently and attacks that
different position, all in order to defeat the real position 1 (by misrepresenting it).
"Senator Rubio voted in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. I can’t understand why he is in favor of giving
amnesty to people. That’s why I wouldn’t vote for him." (to deconstruct this: by voting for the reform bill, Rubio does not
promote amnesty, but because the bill includes a provision that creates a path to citizenship, the other person
misrepresents that as amnesty and reduces Rubio’s position on the bill to just this one issue, which when framed like that
is easy to attack)
Begging the question – “We should deport illegal immigrants. Why? Because they are illegal.”
Non-sequitur – “I built a successful casino. I have created a lot of jobs over the years. Therefore, I will make a good
president of the country.” (Premise 1 and 2 are true, and while the conclusion may be possible – it does not logically
follow from Premise 1 and 2)
Appeal to ignorance – the use of evidence “My car makes a bad sound, and that is evidence that it is breaking down. But
I don’t see any signs of global warming where I live, therefore it is a hoax. (if existence of evidence proves something, the
lack of evidence disproves something – and that’s a logical fallacy)
Bandwagon – “Everyone is buying an iPhone XS, therefore it must be good (even though I haven’t read anything about
it) and I must buy one too.”
False Cause/Effect – also known as Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc - “Street attacks increase during summer. Ice cream sales
also increase in summer. Therefore eating ice creams leads people to commit more street attacks.”
Appeal to Tradition - Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman; therefore, gay marriage should not
be allowed.
False analogy - Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must
employees.
Ad hominem – “How can we vote for him becoming mayor of our city when he cheated on his SAT exam?” (make note
that in addition to the ad hominem fallacy, here we have a bit of non-sequitur – the premise is true, but the conclusion that
he is unfit for mayor does not stem from that)
False dilemma – “America: love it or leave it.” “You are either with us or against us.” (realize that there are viable
options outside those being presented)
Hasty generalization – “I conducted a survey of college students at the University of Minnesota and found that a
majority dislikes celery.” (Here is why I use this – you may see statements like this in your rhetorical act, and by
themselves they do not appear to be fallacious. This survey and its results could in fact be accurate. But through
contextual analysis, if you discover that this person’s survey only included 50 students, when the U of M has ~40,000
students, it makes it possible for you to point out that it’s a hasty generalization fallacy – one based on insufficient
evidence to support the concluding claim)
Slippery slope - “If you drink too much coffee, you will develop a sleeping disorder, which will cause you to buy
sleeping pills, which will make you dependent and will need to see a therapist, which will make you question your
lifestyle, which may cause you to lose your job” (I think there was a DirecTV commercial last year that used this fallacy).