Things to remember for the A P test: find them, know them, identify their use in the text Devices-

active/passive voice alliteration allusion analogy anecdotal narration antithesis asyndeton (reference to) authority balanced sentence beliefs/common practices characterization clich coherence colloquialism commonground compliments/flattery concession confession consequences counterargument credentials deductive reasoning (use of) details diction double speak examples euphemism fear figurative language historical reference hyperbole imagery imagery(5 senses) inductive reasonin irony jargon juxtaposition language (informal formal) loose sentence metaphor onomatopoeia organization oxymoron pace paradox parallel structure parody passive voice periodic sentence/ loose sentence (appeal to) popularity precedence (use of) quotes repetition sentence personification polysyndeton pronouns repetition rhetoric rhetorical questions satire scapegoat simile syntax tone tradition understatement/litote unity

Patterns of Organization: classification cause / effect compare/contrast definition argumentation description narration A ea!s to" #thos Pathos $ogos

#!ements of %ty!e: diction (!ord choices of author) punctuation simplistic advanced voice" active passive implied author v# !riter ethos in essay tone" kno! tone !ords !atch for tone shift audience" close distant structure syntax$parallel structure loose sentences syntactical permutation balance

$ogica! &a!!acies %d &ominem 'and!agon 'egging the (uestion 'iased )ample 'urden of *roof +alse ,ilemma -ambler.s +allacy -enetic +allacy -uilt 'y %ssociation &asty -eneralization /gnoring % 0ommon 0ause 1isleading 2ividness 3on sequitor (uestionable 0ause

4ed &erring 4elativist +allacy )lippery )lope )tra! 1an 5!o 6rongs 1ake % 4ight

Three 'hetorica! A ea!s: #thos, Pathos, $ogos 78f the 9modes of persuasion: provided through speech there are three species; for some are in the character of the speaker and some are in disposing the listener in some !ay and some in the argument itself by sho!ing or seeming to sho! something7 %ristotle On Rhetoric <=5>b (trans# -eorge %# ?ennedy) 6hen a speaker or !riter (referred to from no! on as a rhetor) is trying to persuade the audience the rhetor !ill make use of various persuasive strategies; #thos 7@thos7 is used to describe the audience.s perception of the narrator.s credibility or authority# 5he audience asks themselves 76hat does this person kno! about this topicA7 and 76hy should / trust this personA7 5here are t!o kinds of ethos; extrinsic (outside !hat you have to say) and intrinsic (inside !hat you have to say)# @xamples of extrinsic ethos !ould be as follo!s; /f you are a successful professional basketball player talking about basketball to other pro athletes then your ethos is strong !ith your audience even before you open your mouth or take pen to paper#

Bour audience assumes you are kno!ledgeable about your subject because of your experience# /f you are a baseball player talking about basketball instead then your extrinsic ethos is not as strong because you haven.t been played pro basketball but you.re still a professional athlete and kno! something about that kind of life# /f you are a college professor of @nglish then your extrinsic ethos is likely to be pretty !eak !ith your audience# 0hange your audience around ho!ever and the ethos of each hypothetical rhetor might change# @xamples of intrinsic ethos !ould be as follo!s; Cet.s say you.re that professional basketball player mentioned above and you start to address your audience and suddenly you stutter and mumble you get all the rules of basketball !rong (7there.s a three"point lineA7) and you mispronounce other players. names and you reveal your ignorance of the history of basketball by mentioning teams that never existed# )uddenly your overall ethos takes a nose"dive !ith your audience and you become less persuasive# %t the other extreme let.s say you.re that @nglish professor and you speak !ith confidence and reveal that you kno! a great deal not only about the intricacies of basketball but also about individual players. records and the history and origins of the sport# Bour overall ethos !hich !as !eak to begin !ith because the audience !as skeptical of !hat an @nglish professor !ould kno! about their sport suddenly gets stronger# /t gets stronger because your

intrinsic ethos goes up in the eyes of your audience# 5he use of ethos is called an 7ethical appeal#7 3ote that this is very different from our usual understanding of the !ord 7ethical#7 Pathos 7*athos7 is used to describe the rhetor.s attempt to appeal to (in the !ords of the course packet) 7an audience.s sense of identity their self"interest and their emotions#7 /f the rhetor can create a common sense of identity !ith their audience then the rhetor is using a pathetic appeal or a rhetorical appeal using pathos (7pathetic7 here means something different than our usual understanding of the !ord)# )o if that college @nglish professor above mentions having played basketball in high school and convinces the audience that she or he !as pretty good then not only does that fact strengthen the rhetor.s ethos it also makes a pathetic appeal# 7*athos7 most often refers to an attempt to engage an audience.s emotions# 5hink about the different emotions people are capable of feeling; they include love pity sorro! affection anger fear greed lust and hatred# Cet.s say a rhetor is trying to convince an audience to donate money to a hurricane relief fund# 5he rhetor can make pathetic appeals to an audience.s feelings of love pity and fear# (%nd the extent to !hich any of these emotions !ill be successfully

engaged !ill vary from audience to audience#) 7Cove7 !ill be invoked if the audience can be made to believe in their fundamental connections to other human beings# 7*ity7 !ill be felt if the plight of the homeless hurricane victim can be made very vivid to the audience# %nd 7fear7 might !ork if the audience can be made to imagine !hat they !ould feel like in that homeless victim.s place# /f the rhetor !orks all of these things together properly (and also doesn.t scre! up ethos and logos) then the audience is more likely to be persuaded#

7%s your doctor / have to tell you that if you don.t stop smoking you.re going to die#7 5his statement combines all three appeals# (8ne of the lines of argument !e.ll address in future readings and discussion is called 7cause and consequence7) Don(t forget %l!ays al!ays al!ays think about your audience# 6hen thinking about ho! best to persuade your audience ask yourself these kinds of questions; 6hat are their valuesA 6hat do they believe in alreadyA 6hat is their existing opinion of my topicA 6hat are they likely to find persuasiveA 6hat might !ork for one audience might not !ork for another#

$ogos 7Cogos7 is the use of logic to persuade your audience# 5here are various lines of reasoning that !e !ill discuss (one of them you.ve already learned in some detail; definition)# %s the !orkbook puts it 7% logical argument usually convinces its audience because of the perceived merit and reasonableness of the claims and proof offered in support of the overall thesis rather than because of the emotions it produces in the audience (pathos) or because of the status or credentials of the speaker (ethos)#7 /.m not going to say more about logos right no! because !e !ill address it in detail on 5uesday# Putting them together )eldom is any one statement an example of only one appeal#

Tone )ocabu!ary $ist Positive lighthearted confident amused complimentary amiable relaxed soothing jubilant encouraging reverent hopeful cheery elated passionate !himsical romantic calm enthusiastic elevated exuberant optimistic sympathetic proud fanciful appreciative consoling ecstatic jovial loving compassionate friendly pleasant brave joyful energetic *egative angry !rathful threatening agitated obnoxious insulting choleric disgusted bitter accusing arrogant quarrelsome surly outraged irritated condemnatory belligerent disgruntled furious indignant inflammatory aggravated brash testy +umor,-rony,%arcasm scornful bantering disdainful irreverent condescending pompous mocking ridiculing !ry sarcastic taunting cynical insolent patronizing !himsical malicious droll critical ironic facetious flippant mock"heroic teasing quizzical comical satiric amused sardonic contemptuous caustic ribald irreverent %orrow,&ear,.orry somber mournful concerned morose hopeless remorseful poignant melancholy solemn fearful pessimistic grave staid ominous sad serious despairing sober solemn resigned horror disturbed apprehensive gloomy foreboding mournful regretful Others formal objective questioning learned authoritative disbelieving sentimental pretentious apathetic conventional judgmental reflective ceremonial candid instructive factual incredulous urgent fervent histrionic callous forthright lyrical sincere restrained clinical matter"of"fact didactic shocked nostalgic earnest resigned contemplative haughty objective detached admonitory informative baffled reminiscent patriotic meditative intimate obsequious :

&A$$A/-#% O& '#$#)A*/#; 5hese fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand# A ea! to &orce (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the 71ight"1akes"4ight7 +allacy); 5his argument uses force the threat of force or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion# /t commonly appears as a last resort !hen evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader# /f the debate is about !hether or not DEDFG an opponent.s argument that he !ill smash your nose in if you don.t agree !ith his claim doesn.t change the truth of an issue# Cogically this consideration has nothing to do !ith the points under consideration# 5he fallacy is not limited to threats of violence ho!ever# 5he fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash""financial professional and so on# @xample; 7)uperintendent you should cut the school budget by H<> III# / need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents !ho cannot keep do!n costs#7 6hile intimidation may force the superintendent to conform it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget !as the most beneficial for the school or community# Cobbyists use this method !hen they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators. constituencies and threaten to thro! the politician out of office if he doesn.t vote the !ay they !ant# 5eachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class# 3ote that it is isn.t a logical fallacy ho!ever to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the classJ 0enetic &a!!acy; 5he genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea product or person must be untrust!orthy because of its racial geographic or ethnic origin# 75hat car can.t possibly be any goodJ /t !as made in KapanJ7 8r 76hy should / listen to her argumentA )he comes from 0alifornia and !e all kno! those people are flakes#7 8r 7&aJ /.m not reading that book# /t !as published in 5ennessee and !e kno! all 5ennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecksJ7 5his type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or ersona! attack appearing immediately belo!# Persona! Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem literally 7argument to!ard the man#7 %lso called 7*oisoning the 6ell7); %ttacking or praising the people !ho make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself# 5his practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself# 5he statement 7DEDFG7 is true regardless if is stated by criminals congressmen or pastors# 5here are t!o subcategories; (<) Abusive; 5o argue that proposals assertions or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate !ith atheists 0hristians 0ommunists capitalists the Kohn 'irch )ociety 0atholics anti"0atholics racists anti" racists feminists misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious# 5his persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand# 5his is similar to the genetic fa!!acy and only an anti"intellectual !ould argue other!ise# (D) /ircumstantia!; 5o argue that an opponent should accept an argument because of circumstances in his or her life# /f one.s adversary is a clergyman suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so !ould be incompatible !ith the scriptures is such a fallacy# 5o argue that because the reader is a 4epublican or ,emocrat she must vote for a specific measure is like!ise a circumstantial fallacy# 5he opponent.s special circumstances have no control over the truth of a specific contention# 5his is also similar to the genetic fa!!acy in some !ays# /f you are a college student !ho !ants to learn rational thought you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies# Argumentum ad Populum (Citerally 7%rgument to the *eople7); Lsing an appeal to popular assent often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument# /t is a favorite device !ith the propagandist the demagogue and the advertiser# %n example of this type of argument is )hakespeare.s version of 1ark %ntony.s funeral oration for Kulius 0aesar# 5here are three basic approaches;

(<) 1andwagon A roach; M@verybody is doing it#N 5his argumentum ad populum asserts that since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action the argument must be true or the course of action must be follo!ed or the decision must be the best choice# +or instance MO5P of consumers purchase /'1 computers rather than 1acintoshQ all those people canRt be !rong# /'1 must make the best computers#N *opular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one# %fter all O5P of people may once have thought planet earth !as flat but that majority.s belief didn.t mean the earth really was flat !hen they believed itJ ?eep this in mind and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy# (D) Patriotic A roach; 7,raping oneself in the flag#7 5his argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is someho! patriotic and that those !ho disagree are unpatriotic# /t overlaps !ith pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent# 5he best !ay to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like %mericanism rugged individualism motherhood patriotism godless communism etc# % true %merican !ould never use this approach# %nd a truly free man !ill exercise his %merican right to drink beer since beer belongs in this great country of ours# (=) %nob A roach; 5his type of argumentum ad populum doesnRt assert Meverybody is doing it N but rather that Mall the best people are doing it#N +or instance M%ny true intellectual !ould recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies#N 5he implication is that anyone !ho fails to recognize the truth of the authorRs assertion is not an intellectual and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity# /n all three of these examples the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is trueQ he merely makes assertions about people !ho agree or disagree !ith the argument# +or 0hristian students in religious schools like 0arson"3e!man !e might add a fourth category 7/overing Onese!f in the /ross#7 5his argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is someho! 70hristian 7 and that anyone !ho disagrees is behaving in an 7un"0hristian7 or 7godless7 manner# (/t is similar to the atriotic a roach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism#) @xamples include the various 70hristian 2oting -uides7 that appear near election time many of them published by non"0hurch related organizations !ith hidden financial/political agendas or the stereotypical crooked used"car salesman !ho keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to !in the trust of those he !ould fleece# ?eep in mind 1oliere.s question in Tartuffe; 7/s not a face quite different than a maskA7 /s not the appearance of 0hristianity quite different than actual 0hristianityA 0hristians should be!are of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it# A ea! to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio); 5his line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have al!ays believed it or done it# %lternatively it may conclude that the premise has al!ays !orked in the past and !ill thus al!ays !ork in the future; MKefferson 0ity has kept its urban gro!th boundary at six miles for the past thirty years# 5hat has been good enough for thirty years so !hy should !e change it no!A /f it ainRt broke donRt fix it#N )uch an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense but it ignores important questions# 1ight an alternative policy !ork even better than the old oneA %re there dra!backs to that long"standing policyA %re circumstances changing from the !ay they !ere thirty years agoA A ea! to -m ro er Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally 7argument from that !hich is improper7); %n appeal to an improper authority such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable# 5his fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity !ith a famous individual# /t is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individualRs expertise is !ithin a strict field of kno!ledge# 8n the other hand to cite @instein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious# 5o cite ,ar!in an authority on biology on religious matters is fallacious# 5o cite 0ardinal )pellman on legal problems is fallacious# 5he !orst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines# % subcategory is the A ea! to 1iased Authority# /n this sort of appeal the authority is one !ho actually is kno!ledgeable on the matter but one !ho may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect; for instance 75o determine !hether fraternities are beneficial to this campus !e intervie!ed all the frat presidents#7 8r again 75o find out !hether or not sludge"mining really is endangering the 5uskogee salamander.s breeding grounds !e intervie!ed the supervisors of the sludge"mines !ho declared there is

no problem#7 /ndeed it is important to get 7both vie!points7 on an argument but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal professional or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments# A ea! to #motion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally 7argument from pity7); %n emotional appeal concerning !hat should be a logical issue during a debate# 6hile pathos generally !orks to reinforce a readerRs sense of duty or outrage at some abuse if a !riter tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept !hat should be a logical conclusion the argument is a fallacy# +or example in the <OOIs prosecutors in a 2irginia court presented over!helming proof that a boy !as guilty of murdering his parents !ith an ax# 5he defense presented a 7not"guilty7 plea for on the grounds that the boy !as no! an orphan !ith no one to look after his interests if the court !as not lenient# 5his appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced and the argument is irrelevant to the question of !hether or not he did the crime#

/O2PO*#*T &A$$A/-#%; 0omponent fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap# 1egging the 3uestion (also called Petitio Principii this term is sometimes used interchangeably !ith /ircu!ar 'easoning); /f !riters assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove they engage in the fallacy of begging the question# 5he most common form of this fallacy is !hen the first claim is initially loaded !ith the very conclusion one has yet to prove# +or instance suppose a particular student group states 7Lseless courses like @nglish <I< should be dropped from the college.s curriculum#7 5he members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody !ants# Bes !e all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing# &o!ever those students never did prove that @nglish <I< !as itself a useless course""they merely 7begged the question7 and moved on to the next 7safe7 part of the argument skipping over the part that.s the real controversy the heart of the matter the most important component# 'egging the question is often hidden in the form of a com !ex 4uestion (see belo!)# /ircu!ar 'easoning is closely related to begging the 4uestion# 8ften the !riters using this fallacy !ord take one idea and phrase it in t!o statements# 5he assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion# 5he speaker or author then tries to 7prove7 his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different !ords# 4ichard 6hately !rote in Elements of ogic (Condon <OD>); M5o allo! every man unbounded freedom of speech must al!ays be on the !hole advantageous to the stateQ for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments#N 8bviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true# /t is ho!ever logically irrelevant in pro!ing the conclusion# /n the example the author is repeating the same point in different !ords and then attempting to 7prove7 the first assertion !ith the second one# % more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one; 7-od exists#7 7&o! do you kno! that -od existsA7 75he 'ible says so#7 76hy should / believe the 'ibleA7 7'ecause it.s the inspired !ord of -od#7 /f !e dra! this out as a chart it looks like this; 5he so"called 7final proof7 relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate# 'asically the argument goes in an endless circle !ith each step of the argument relying on a previous one !hich in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven# )urely -od deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this exampleJ +asty 0enera!ization ("icto #impliciter also called MKumping to 0onclusions N 70onverse %ccident7); 1istaken use of inductive reasoning !hen there are too fe! samples to prove a point# @xample; 7)usan failed 'iology <I<# &erman failed 'iology <I<# @gbert failed 'iology <I<# / therefore conclude that most students !ho take 'iology <I< !ill fail it#7 /n understanding and characterizing general situations a logician cannot normally examine every single example# &o!ever the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand# 1aybe

)usan &erman and @gbert are exceptionally poor students# 1aybe they !ere sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass# /f a logician !ants to make the case that most students !ill fail 'iology <I< she should (a) get a very large sample""at least one larger than three""or (b) if that isn.t possible she !ill need to go out of his !ay to prove to the reader that her three samples are someho! representative of the norm# /f a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization# 8ne common type of hasty generalization is the &a!!acy of Accident# 5his error occurs !hen one applies a general rule to a particular case !hen accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable# +or example in *latoRs Repu$lic *lato finds an exception to the general rule that one should return !hat one has borro!ed; M)uppose that a friend !hen in his right mind has deposited arms !ith me and asks for them !hen he is not in his right mind# 8ught / to give the !eapons back to himA 3o one !ould say that / ought or that / should be right in doing so# # # #N 6hat is true in general may not be true universally and !ithout qualification# )o remember generalizations are bad# %ll of them# @very single last one# @xcept of course for those that are not# %nother common example of this fallacy is the mis!eading statistic# )uppose an individual argues that !omen must be incompetent drivers and he points out that last 5uesday at the ,epartment of 1otor 2ehicles 5IP of the !omen !ho took the driving test failed# 5hat !ould seem to be compelling evidence from the !ay the statistic is set forth# &o!ever if only t!o !omen took the test that day the results !ould be far less clear"cut# /ncidentally the cartoon "il$ert makes much of an incompetent manager !ho cannot perceive misleading statistics# &e does a statistical study of !hen employees call in sick and cannot come to !ork during the five"day !ork !eek# &e becomes furious to learn that GIP of office 7sick"days7 occur on 1ondays (DIP) and +ridays (DIP)""just in time to create a three"day !eekend# )uspecting fraud he decides to punish his !orkers# 5he irony of course is that these t!o days compose GIP of a five day !ork !eek so the numbers are completely average# )imilar nonsense emerges !hen parents or teachers complain that 75IP of students perform at or belo! the national average on standardized tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude#7 8f course they doJ 5he very nature of an average implies thatJ &a!se /ause; 5his fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist# 5here are various Catin names for various analyses of the fallacy# 5he t!o most common include these types; (<) Non Causa Pro Causa (Citerally 73ot the cause for a cause7); % general catch"all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause# (D) Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Citerally; 7%fter this therefore because of this7); 5his type of false cause occurs !hen the !riter mistakenly assumes that because the first event preceded the second event it must mean the first event caused the later one# )ometimes it does but sometimes it doesn.t# /t is the honest !riter.s job to establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists# @xample; 7% black cat crossed my path at noon# %n hour later my mother had a heart"attack# 'ecause the first event occurred earlier it must have caused the bad luck later#7 5his is ho! superstitions begin# 5he most common examples are arguments that vie!ing a particular movie or sho! or listening to a particular type of music McausedN the listener to perform an antisocial act""to snort coke shoot classmates or take up a life of crime# 5hese may be potential suspects for the cause but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain !ay does not yet conclusively rule out other causes# *erhaps the listener had an abusive home" life or school"life suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia or made a bad choice in his companions# 8ther potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later# +or more information see corre!ation and causation# -rre!evant /onc!usion (Ignorantio Elenchi); 5his fallacy occurs !hen a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion# +or example !hen a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable# @veryone presumably !ill agree# &o!ever the question at hand concerns a particular measure# 5he question really

isn.t 7/s it good to have decent housingA7 5he question really is 76ill this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternativeA7 5his type of fallacy is a common one in student papers !hen students use a shared assumption""such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have""and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue# /t.s similar to begging the 4uestion above# 8ne of the most common forms of %gnorantio Elenchi is the 7'ed +erring#7 % red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side"pointQ for instance M)enator Kones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax# %fter all there are other senators !ho have done far !orse things#N %nother example; M/ should not pay a fine for reckless driving# 5here are many other people on the street !ho are dangerous criminals and rapists and the police should be chasing them not harassing a decent tax" paying citizen like me#N 0ertainly !orse criminals do exist but that it is another issueJ 5he questions at hand are (<) did the speaker drive recklessly and (D) should he pay a fine for itA %nother similar example of the red herring is the fallacy kno!n as Tu Quoque (Catin for 7%nd you tooJ7) !hich asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn.t follo! it herself# +or instance 74everend Keremias claims that theft is !rong but ho! can theft be !rong if Keremias himself admits he stole objects !hen he !as a childA7 %traw 2an Argument; % subtype of the red herring this fallacy includes any lame attempt to 7prove7 an argument by overstating exaggerating or over"simplifying the arguments of the opposing side# )uch an approach is building a stra! man argument# 5he name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter !ho meticulously fashions a false opponent out of stra! like a scarecro! and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience# &is 7victory7 is a hollo! mockery of course because the stra!"stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back# 6hen a !riter makes a cartoon" like caricature of the opposing argument ignoring the real or subtle points of contention and then proceeds to knock do!n each 7fake7 point one"by"one he has created a stra! man argument# +or instance one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning !elfare# 5he opponent argues 75ennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their ne!born children#7 5he second speaker retorts 71y opponent believes that some parasites !ho don.t !ork should get a free ride from the tax money of hard"!orking honest citizens# /.ll sho! you !hy he.s !rong # # #7 /n this example the second speaker is engaging in a stra! man strategy distorting the opposition.s statement about medical care for ne!born children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to 7!in#7 &o!ever the second speaker is only defeating a dummy"argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate# Non Sequitur (literally 7/t does not follo!7); % non se&uitur is any argument that does not follo! from the previous statements# Lsually !hat happened is that the !riter leaped from % to ' and then jumped to , leaving out step 0 of an argument she thought through in her head but did not put do!n on paper# 5he phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed midd!e term non causa pro causa and ignorantio elenchi# % common example !ould be an argument along these lines; 7-iving up our nuclear arsenal in the <SOI.s !eakened the Lnited )tates. military# -iving up nuclear !eaponry also !eakened 0hina in the <SSIs# +or this reason it is !rong to try to outla! pistols and rifles in the Lnited )tates today#7 5here.s obviously a step or t!o missing here# The 5%!i ery %!o e5 &a!!acy (also called 75he 0amel.s 3ose +allacy7) is a non sequitur in !hich the speaker argues that once the first step is undertaken a second or third step !ill inevitably follo! much like the !ay one step on a slippery incline !ill cause a person to fall and slide all the !ay to the bottom# /t is also called 7the 0amel.s 3ose +allacy7 because of the image of a sheik !ho let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night# 5he idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose it !ill inevitably stick in its head and then its neck and eventually its !hole body# &o!ever this sort of thinking does not allo! for any possibility of stopping the process# /t simply assumes that once the nose is in the rest must follo!""that the sheik can.t

stop the progression once it has begun""and thus the argument is a logical fallacy# +or instance if one !ere to argue 7/f !e allo! the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the /nternet it !ill then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone# %fter that +'/ agents !ill be reading our mail# 5hen they !ill be placing cameras in our houses# 6e must not let any governmental agency interfere !ith our /nternet communications or privacy !ill completely vanish in the Lnited )tates#7 )uch thinking is fallaciousQ no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area !ill necessarily lead to infringement in another no more than a person buying a single can of 0oca"0ola in a grocery store !ould indicate the person !ill inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store helpless to stop herself# )o remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacyQ once you use one you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies# #ither,Or &a!!acy (also called 7the 'lack"and"6hite +allacy7 and 7+alse ,ilemma7); 5his fallacy occurs !hen a !riter builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only t!o choices or possible outcomes !hen actually there are several# 8utcomes are seldom so simple# 5his fallacy most frequently appears in connection to s!eeping generalizations; M@ither !e must ban T or the %merican !ay of life !ill collapse#N 76e go to !ar !ith 0anada or else 0anada !ill eventually gro! in population and over!helm the Lnited )tates#7 7@ither you drink 'urpsy 0ola or you !ill have no friends and no social life#7 @ither you must avoid either/or fallacies or everyone !ill think you are foolish# &au!ty Ana!ogy; 4elying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively# +or example Meducation is like cakeQ a small amount tastes s!eet but eat too much and your teeth !ill rot out# Cike!ise more than t!o years of education is bad for a student#N 5he analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinks that education is similar to cake# %s you can see faulty analogies are like flimsy !ood and just as no carpenter !ould build a house out of flimsy !ood no !riter should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material# 6ndistributed 2idd!e Term; % specific type of error in deductive reasoning in !hich the minor premise and the major premise of a sy!!ogism might or might not overlap# 0onsider these t!o examples; (<) M%ll reptiles are cold"blooded# %ll snakes are reptiles# %ll snakes are cold"blooded#N /n the first example the middle term MsnakesN fits in the categories of both MreptileN and Mthings"that"are"cold"blooded#N /t is !hat logicians call a Mdistributed middle term#N (D) M%ll snails are cold"blooded# %ll snakes are cold"blooded# %ll snails are snakes#N /n the second example the middle term of MsnakesN does not fit into the categories of both Mthings"that"are"cold"bloodedN and Msnails#N /t is an undistributed middle term# )ometimes e4uivocation (see belo!) leads to an undistributed middle term#

&A$$A/-#% O& A21-06-T7; 5hese errors occur !ith ambiguous !ords or phrases the meanings of !hich shift and change in the course of discussion# )uch more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious# #4uivocation; Lsing a !ord in a different !ay than the author used it in the original premise or changing definitions half!ay through a discussion# 6hen !e use the same !ord or phrase in different senses !ithin one line of argument !e commit the fallacy of equivocation# 0onsider this example; M*lato says the end of a thing is its perfectionQ / say that death is the end of lifeQ hence death is the perfection of life#N &ere the !ord end means 7goal7 in *lato.s usage but it means 7last event7 or 7termination7 in the author.s second usage# 0learly the speaker is t!isting *lato.s meaning of the !ord to dra! a very different conclusion# 0ompare !ith amphiboly belo!# Amphiboly (from the -reek !ord 7indeterminate7); 5his fallacy is similar to equivocation# &ere the ambiguity results from grammatical construction# % statement may be true according to one interpretation of ho! each !ord functions in a sentence and false according to another# 6hen a premise !orks !ith an interpretation that is true but the conclusion uses the secondary 7false7 interpretation !e have the fallacy of amphi$ol' on our hands# /n the command 7)ave soap and !aste paper 7 the amphibolous use of 7!aste7 results in the problem of determining !hether 7!aste7 functions as a verb or as an adjective#

/om osition; 5his fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the !hole to the properties of the !hole itself""it is an inductive error# )uch an argument might hold that because every individual part of a large tractor is light!eight the entire machine also must be light!eight# 5his fallacy is similar to +asty 0enera!ization (see above) but it focuses on parts of a single !hole rather than using too fe! examples to create a categorical generalization# %lso compare it !ith Division (see belo!)# Division; 5his fallacy is the reverse of com osition# /t is the misapplication of deductive reasoning# 8ne fallacy of division argues falsely that !hat is true of the !hole must be true of individual parts# )uch an argument notes that 71icrotech is a company !ith great influence in the 0alifornia legislature# @gbert )mith !orks at 1icrotech# &e must have great influence in the 0alifornia legislature#7 5his is not necessarily true# @gbert might !ork as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy"machine repairman at 1icrotech""positions requiring little interaction !ith the 0alifornia legislature# %nother fallacy of division attributes the properties of the !hole to the individual member of the !hole; 7)unsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products# )usan Kones is a !orker at )unsurf# )he must be an environmentally minded individual#7 (*erhaps she is motivated by money aloneA)

&A$$A/-#% O& O2-%%-O*; 5hese errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information# %tacking the Deck; /n this fallacy the speaker 7stacks the deck7 in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support her case# 5his fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error# 0ontrast it !ith the straw man argument# Argument from the *egative; %rguing from the negative asserts that since one position is untenable the opposite stance must be true# 5his fallacy is often used interchangeably !ith Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed belo!) and the either or !allacy (listed above)# +or instance one might mistakenly argue that since the 3e!tonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate @insteinRs theory of relativity must be true# *erhaps not# *erhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate and @insteinRs theory is fla!ed# *erhaps they are all !rong# ,isproving an opponentRs argument does not necessarily mean your o!n argument must be true automatically no more than disproving your opponent.s assertion that DEDF5 !ould automatically mean your argument that DEDFU must be the correct one# A ea! to a $ack of #vidence (Argumentum Ad %gnorantium literally 7%rgument from /gnorance7); %ppealing to a lack of information to prove a point or arguing that since the opposition cannot disprove a claim the opposite stance must be true# %n example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist# Cogicians kno! this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself# +y othesis /ontrary to &act (Argumentum Ad #peculum); 5rying to prove something in the real !orld by using imaginary examples alone or asserting that if hypothetically T had occurred B !ould have been the result# +or instance suppose an individual asserts that if @instein had been aborted in utero the !orld !ould never have learned about relativity or that if 1onet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college the impressionistic movement !ould have never influenced modern art# )uch hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual !ould have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style# 5he speculation might make an interesting thought"experiment but it is simply useless !hen it comes to actually proving anything about the real !orld# % common example is the idea that one 7o!es7 her success to another individual !ho taught her# +or instance 7Bou o!e me part of your increased salary# /f / hadn.t taught you ho! to recognize logical fallacies you !ould be flipping hamburgers at 1c,onald.s for minimum !ages right no! instead of

taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a la!yer#7 *erhaps# 'ut perhaps the audience !ould have learned about logical fallacies else!here so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless# /om !ex 3uestion (%lso called the 7Coaded (uestion7); *hrasing a question or statement in such as !ay as to imply another unproven statement is true !ithout evidence or discussion# 5his fallacy often overlaps !ith begging the 4uestion (above) since it also presupposes a definite ans!er to a previous unstated question# +or instance if / !ere to ask you M&ave you stopped taking drugs yetAN my hidden supposition is that you ha!e been taking drugs# )uch a question cannot be ans!ered !ith a simple yes or no ans!er# /t is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one# /n this case the unstated question is M&ave you taken drugs in the pastAN follo!ed by M/f you have taken drugs in the past have you stopped taking them no!AN /n cross"examination a la!yer might ask a flustered !itness M6here did you hide the evidenceAN or 7!hen did you stop beating your !ifeA7 5he intelligent procedure !hen faced !ith such a question is to analyze its component parts# /f one ans!ers or discusses the prior implicit question first the explicit question may dissolve# 0omplex questions appear in !ritten argument frequently# % student might !rite M6hy is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public controlAN 5he rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument# &o!ever an observant reader may disagree recognizing the prior implicit question remains unaddressed# 5hat question is of course !hether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases a point !hich the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true !ithout discussion# /ontradictory Premises (also kno!n as a logical paradox); @stablishing a premise in such a !ay that it contradicts another earlier premise# +or instance 7/f -od can do anything he can make a stone so heavy that he can.t lift it#7 5he first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects# 5he second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement# /f the first object capable of moving anything exists by definition the immovable object cannot exist and !ice(!ersa#