Jose Luis Arredondo

English 1301 – 125

Instructor. McCann

31 October 2023

What Are Fallacies in Arguments

In short, the fallacies of an argument are essentially the structural flaws of an argument

which make it harder to understand and potentially harmful to others. When it comes to fallacies

of argument, they can be separated into three different types of appeals, that being emotional,

ethical, and logical. When it comes to emotional arguments, they are basically arguments in

which authors will try to persuade the audience through emotional appeals. The fallacies of

emotional arguments can be best seen through politic in which many politicians often try to take

advantage of the audiences’ emotions in order to meet their political goals. One of these fallacies

is scare tactics which politicians use in order to take advantage of the audience’s fear. Scare

tactics are often interpreted as a fallacy mainly because it doesn’t guarantee for the audience to

act on the argument in an intended way given that many will act on fear irrationally rather than

rationally. In addition, another fallacy of emotional arguments that politicians like to use is either

or choices. Politicians usually employ either or choices in order simplify a complicated issue into

something that it isn’t which in turn leave the audience with two choices. Either or choices are

considered a fallacy mainly because it is harmful to the audience’s decision making given that it

purposely leaves a lot of information out of the argument. Furthermore, another emotional

fallacy that politicians often use are overly sentimental appeals. Politicians will often use overly

sentimental appeals as they help to distract the audience from the facts of the argument by being
way too personal. In turn, overly sentimental appeals are considered a fallacy mainly because it

impairs the decision making of the audience through guilt tripping.

Besides the fallacies of emotional arguments, there are also the fallacies of ethical

arguments which are used to take advantage of the audience’s respect or trust for the writer.

When it comes to its specific fallacies, one often used is dogmatism. In dogmatism the author

often takes advantage, or the readers trust for the author’s credibility mainly by asserting that

their argument is the only correct one. Dogmatism is known as a fallacy mainly because it is

harmful to an audience’s ability to make decisions on their own. In addition, another fallacy of

ethical arguments are ad hominin arguments. Authors usually use ad hominin arguments in order

to destroy an opponent’s argument. Ad hominin arguments are known as fallacies mainly

because they do not give other people the chance to express their own arguments. Moreover,

another fallacy used in ethical arguments is stacking the deck. Stacking the deck occurs when the

author chooses to only show one side of the argument. This in turn makes it a fallacy as it fails to

address other arguments which are important in the audience’s decision making.

Lastly, we also have the fallacies of a logical argument. Fallacies of a logical argument

usually fail to appeal to the logical elements of an argument as they usually provide evidence that

is incorrect, insufficient, and otherwise logically invalid. One fallacy of a logical argument is

hasty generalization. Hasty generalization occurs when the author chooses to make an inference

based on insufficient evidence. In turn, this makes it a fallacy as it provides false or misleading

evidence towards the argument. Moreover, another fallacy of a logical argument is faulty

casualty. Faulty casualty occurs when the author chooses to associate the cause of an event with

one specific thing. As a result, it is a fallacy as since it fails to account for other things which

may have cause the event. In addition, another fallacy of a logical argument is non sequitur. A
non sequitur occurs when the author fails to connect two ideas in an argument logically. In turn,

this makes it a fallacy of logical arguments as it provides evidence that is logically invalid.