INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION
Logic is the study of the methods and principles
systematically used to distinguish correct
reasoning from incorrect reasoning.
Logic is not interested in the subject matter (or
content) of a specific topic of discussion but with
the form, quality and structure of the
relationship between the parts that make up an
argument. Our aim, therefore, will be to learn
how to test, assess and evaluate arguments.
Why is logic important? Why should anyone
study it? Consider the following example of an
argument from Plato’s Euthydemus:
- You say you have a dog.
- Yes, a villainous dog, too.
- And he has pups?
- Yes, who are very like the dog himself.
- And is the dog the father of the pups?
- Yes: I saw him and the mother of the pups
come together.
- Is the dog not yours?
- Certainly he is.
- Then he is a father, and he is yours;
therefore he is your father, and the pups
are your brothers… Do you beat this dog?
- Yes, indeed…
- Then you beat your father!
This is certainly a ridiculous argument, but, on its
surface, it seems perfectly methodical and
reasonable. Why is it incorrect, and why should it
not be persuasive? The study of logic answers
this question.
1
Propositions. These are the building blocks of
arguments. A proposition is the meaning of a
declarative sentence; that is to say, it is the
meaning of a sentence that declares, asserts or
claims that something is or is not the case.
Since propositions are statements that can be
asserted or denied, they have truth-value: they
are either true or false; even if we don’t know
what their truth value is, we can still know that
they have a truth value.
Inference. This refers to the thought process by
which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed
on the basis of one or more other propositions
accepted at the starting point of the process.
Arguments. An argument is group of
propositions in which some of them are intended
to provide support for another.
For an argument to be present, the propositions
informing it must have a structure.
An argument in logic should not be confused with
the colloquial use of the term argument,
meaning a quarrel or heated discussion. A logical
argument is simply a structure of propositions in
which some are alleged to follow from others in
order to reach a conclusion.
The conclusion of an argument is the proposition
that is affirmed on the basis of the other
propositions of the argument, and these other
propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as
providing support or reasons for accepting the
conclusion, are the premises of that argument.
In order to distinguish the parts of an argument, Truth
you must ask yourself what is being argued for,
This is an attribute of individual propositions. A
or what the argument is trying to prove. The
single statement that serves as a premise in an
answer to that question will reveal the
argument may be true or false. Truth is
conclusion of the argument.
something that can be said of propositions, but
An argument is a piece of reasoning where one not of arguments.
or more propositions (premises) work to support
another (conclusion). So if a passage makes no
claims supported by reasons, it is not an Validity
argument. It might be a number of things: a
This refers to the relationship between the
question, a complaint, an announcement, an
premises of an argument and its conclusion: If
explanation, a statement of opinion, a statement
the conclusion follows necessarily from the
of desire, or something else.
premises, the argument (or conclusion) is valid.
Arguments always attempt to persuade by
The validity of a deductive argument depends
offering reasons and support for the claim being
entirely and exclusively on the form of the
made in the conclusion.
argument; that is to say, on its structure: the
relationship between premises and conclusion,
without regard for their truth.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
A valid argument simply tells us that the logical
A deductive argument makes the claim that its
inference from premises to conclusion is correct.
conclusion is supported by its premises
It doesn’t tell us, however, anything regarding
conclusively.
the truth of the premises or of the conclusion…
A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is except in one case:
claimed to follow from its premises with absolute
In a deductively valid argument, if the
necessity, this necessity not being a matter of
premises are true, the conclusion must be
degree and not depending in any way on
true as well. Because of this guarantee—
whatever else may be the case.
because there’s nothing in the conclusion
that wasn’t already in the premises—valid
arguments are therefore considered to be
Truth, Validity, and Soundness
truth-preserving.
As stated above, logic deals with the relationship
between the parts of an argument. This means
that a deductive argument can be logical if the Soundness
conclusion follows from its premises, even if
This refers to the relationship between the truth
these are not true. However, this does not mean
of propositions and the validity of an argument.
that logic is not concerned with truth; rather,
logic defines truth, and separates it from two An argument is sound when the argument is
other concepts, validity and soundness. All three BOTH valid AND all of its premises are true.
terms refer to different concepts.

Page 2 of 17
 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
An inductive argument is one whose conclusion
is claimed to follow from its premises only
probabilistically, this probability being a matter
of degree and dependent upon what else may be
the case. Although inductive arguments can be
very convincing, their conclusions do not follow
with absolute certainty.
Truth, Strength, and Cogency
As stated above, logic deals with the relationship
between the parts of an argument. This means
that an inductive argument can be logical if the
conclusion follows from its premises, even if
these are not true. However, this does not mean
that logic is not concerned with truth; rather,
logic defines truth, and separates it from two
other concepts, strength and cogency. All three
terms refer to different concepts.
Truth
As stated above, this is an attribute of individual
propositions. A single statement that serves as a
premise in an argument may be true or false.
Truth is something that can be said of
propositions, but not of arguments.
Page 3 of 17
Strength
An inductively strong argument is one that
succeeds in providing probable—but not
conclusive—support for its conclusion.
A strong argument simply tells us that the logical
inference from premises to conclusion is correct.
It doesn’t tell us, however, anything regarding
the truth of the premises or of the conclusion.
In a strong argument, if the premises are true,
the conclusion is likely to be true as well. It is still
possible, however, for the conclusion to be false.
The conclusion of an inductive argument is an
extrapolation from the premises: that is to say, it
goes beyond what’s contained or implicit in the
premises.
Because the truth of the conclusion cannot be
guaranteed with absolute necessity from its
premises, inductive arguments are not
considered to be truth-preserving.
Cogency
This refers to the relationship between the truth
of propositions and the strength of an
argument.
An argument is cogent when the argument is
BOTH strong AND all of its premises are true.
 LOGICAL FALLACIES
Logical fallacies are arguments which are not sound, but which appear to be so. It is customary to reserve
the term “fallacy” for arguments that, although technically incorrect, are psychologically persuasive.
Logical fallacies fall into roughly three main categories (although there are many different ways in which
they can be categorized):

1. Fallacies of Ambiguity. These rely on shifts of meaning and/or obscurity of words or phrases, from
their use in the premises to their use in the conclusion.

2. Fallacies of Presumption. These mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some proposition
that is assumed to be true, but is in fact false, or dubious, or without warrant.

3. Fallacies of Relevance. These mistaken arguments rely on premises that may seem to be relevant
to the conclusion, but which in fact are ultimately just distractions.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
Accent. This fallacy occurs when a shift of meaning arises within an argument as a consequence of changes
in the emphasis and tone given to its words or parts. When reading such an instance, the meaning of the
phrase may seem ambiguous, and the ambiguity disappears only once you say it out loud.
The problem, however, consists in figuring out HOW to read the phrase out loud. On what non-arbitrary
basis can we make such a determination, especially in cases when we don't have the proper context to
understand the intended meaning of a phrase?
Keep in mind that how you say something out loud can be determined by how the phrase in question is
punctuated.

 Fruit flies like an arrow.  Let’s eat grandma.

 We should not speak ill of our friends.  I love her period!

The fallacy of accent can also be committed when a quoted passage is shown without the proper context
through which it can take on the meaning its author intended:

 “As long as it’s hot and wet and goes down the right way, that’s all that matters.”
—Duchess of York

Page 4 of 17
Equivocation. Equivocation is a semantic fallacy. It occurs when the meaning of a word or phrase changes
from one meaning in one part of the argument to a different meaning in another part:

Criminal actions are illegal. Nobody is perfect.

All murder trials are criminal actions. I am nobody.
Thus all murder trials are illegal. Therefore I must be perfect.

All jackasses have long ears. Margarine is better than nothing.

Joe is a jackass. Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore Joe has long ears. So margarine is better than butter.

Equivocation can also occur when different speakers use the same word in a discussion without realizing
that each of them mean something different by that same word:

Court Transcript: Court Transcript:

- Are you sexually active? - Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning
- No, I just lie there. pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent
to your attorney?
- No. This is how I dress when I go to work.

- Who did you pass on the road?

- Nobody
- Quite right, this young lady saw him too. So of course Nobody walks slower than you.
—Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Amphiboly. This is a fallacy of syntax. Amphiboly takes place when, as a result of the loose or awkward
way in which the words in that statement have been combined, one of the statements in an argument has
more than one plausible meaning.

The farmer blew out his brains after taking
affectionate farewell of his family with a shotgun.
Headline: Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time
in Ten Years.
Church Bulletin: Our youth basketball team is
back in action Wednesday at 8 PM in the
recreation hall. Come out and watch us kill Christ
the King.
If you can get Sue to work for you, you will be
lucky.

Page 5 of 17
Composition. This fallacy is committed when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a part to the
attributes of the whole itself, or when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of an individual member
of some collection to the attributes of the totality of that collection.
While parts and wholes sometimes share some attributes, it is a mistake to think that such attributes are
automatically and logically transferred from the parts to the whole, or from the members of a population
to the population as a single entity.

Sodium and Chloride are each dangerous to I love peanut butter, and I love tuna salad, so
humans. Therefore any combination of this peanut butter tuna salad sandwich is
sodium and chloride will be dangerous to going to be great!
humans.

Division. This fallacy is committed when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a whole to the
attributes of one of its parts, or when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a collection of
elements to the attributes of the elements themselves.

Microsoft is a very important corporation. Conventional bombs did more damage in

Mr. Doe is an official in Microsoft. W.W. II than nuclear bombs. Thus, a
Therefore Mr. Doe is important. conventional bomb is more dangerous than a
nuclear bomb.

Page 6 of 17
 FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION

Sweeping Generalization (Accident). Assuming that what is true under certain conditions is true always
and everywhere. A mark of this fallacy is that a general rule is used to explain a specific case that does not
fall under its rule. This fallacy can be easily recognized by the fact that the argument moves too quickly
from a generalization and sweeps over the exceptions.

Birds normally can fly. You can't send the hazmat team in there.
A penguin is a bird. Nobody is allowed in.
Therefore a penguin can fly.

Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident). Assuming that an individual case or a small sample is a valid
basis that warrants a general conclusion. In this fallacy, one moves too quickly to a generalization. In order
to be justified in drawing a general conclusion from a sample, the sample must be large enough and
representative enough of the population in question (this is usually solved by scientists through the
assignment of randomized samples). If these conditions are not met, the generalization is not warranted.

 All men are rats! Just look at the louse that I married.

 Defending the quality of his deep-fried cookery, an owner said: Take my son, Martin. He’s been
eating fish and chips his whole life, and he just had a cholesterol test, and his level is below the
national average. What better proof could there be than a frier’s son?

Bifurcation (False dilemma, bipolar thinking, either/or fallacy). This fallacy omits consideration of all
reasonable alternatives and creates what superficially looks like a dilemma with mutually exclusive
options. In order to prove the fallacy has been committed, one need only point to a reasonable alternative
not already considered.

- Jill and I both support having prayer in
public schools.
- I never said that!
- You’re not an atheist, are you Jill?
Either you’re with us, or you’re with the
enemy. There’s no in-between.
We’ll have to cut education funding this year;
either we cut the funding for social programs
or we live with a huge deficit.
Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was
cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't
explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a
miracle.

Page 7 of 17
Begging the question (Circular reasoning). When one assumes in the premises of an argument the truth
of that which one seeks to establish in the conclusion.
An argument is supposed to provide reasons for accepting a conclusion, so when one of the premises and
the conclusion of an argument are the very same idea (even when expressed with different words), such
a premise does not provide any reason to support the conclusion: the conclusion merely repeats
something that has already assumed, but not shown, to be true.

Since I’m not lying, it follows that I’m telling If such actions were not illegal, then they
the truth. would not be prohibited by law.

Complex Question. When a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some assumption
buried in that question.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Does your mom you’re gay?
Have you finally confessed to being a
terrorist?
- The figures indicate that your sales
increased as a result of these misleading
advertisements. Is that correct?
- They did not!
- But you do admit, then, that your
advertising was misleading. How long have
you been engaging in practices like these?

This fallacy can also be committed when two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.

 You should support home education AND the God-given right of parents to raise their children
according to their own beliefs.

False Analogy. When two things are compared and conclusions regarding the second are drawn on the
basis of the first without a proper logical connection.

Bob is dead, they shot him in the head! Students are like nails, and just as nails must
be hit in the head in order to make them
You wanna make an omelet, you gotta work, so must students.
break some eggs.
—Fight Club

Page 8 of 17
Questionable Cause. When one treats as the cause of a thing what is not really the cause of that thing, or,
more generally, when one blunders in reasoning that is based upon causal relations.

I failed the logic test because I wasn’t wearing
my lucky bracelet. Next time I’ll remember to
wear it.
Putting more police on the streets actually
causes crime to increase! When we increased
the number of cops on the beat, the number
of crimes witnessed by police actually went
up!

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for ‘after something, therefore because of it’. Erroneously assuming
that just because one event precedes another in time, the first is the cause of the second.
While it might be true that causes always precede effects, not every event that precedes another is its
cause. Sometimes all we really have is a coincidence or a sequence of events without causal
connection between them.
Post hoc claims are acceptable as causal hypotheses or suggestions to be tested, but causal
conclusions can only be justified when such claims have been tested, and confirmed.

Nearly all heroin addicts used marijuana Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes
before they tried heroin. Thus, marijuana up. That rooster must be very powerful!
leads to heroin addiction.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Joint Effect). This is the mistake of confusing correlation with causation.
The fact that two phenomena, A and B, are correlated with each other (whether directly or inversely)
doesn’t automatically tell us:

- Whether A causes B
- Whether B causes A, or
- Whether A and B are the joint effects of some third factor, C, which is the cause of both.

Identifying correlations is useful as a first step in a causal investigation. The fallacy takes place when
we reach a causal conclusion merely from the fact that we have identified a correlation.

Page 9 of 17
 As this graph shows, when ice cream
consumption increases, crime increases
as well, and so does the number of people
who die drowning. Clearly, then, ice
cream consumption causes crime to rise.
These are ten habits that successful people all
share in common. If you want to be
successful, you should engage in those habits
too. Number one: wake up. Number two,
brush your teeth…

Most sexual predators have been found
to have watched porn, therefore, if we
want to protect our community, we need
to make sure that porn is banned from
our society.
Statistics indicate that people who are
successful seem to have more sex than
people who are not, therefore, if you want to
be successful, you need to start having more
sex than you have so far.

Slippery Slope. This way of thinking asserts that one undesirable action will inevitably lead to a worse
action, which will necessarily lead to a worst still, all the way down the ‘slippery slope’ to some terrible
disaster at the bottom. Although this progression may indeed happen, there is certainly no causal
guarantee that it will, and it is incumbent on those who propose it to justify the presumed chain of
causation.

 Don’t date anyone, because if you do, eventually you’ll find a permanent relationship,
which will eventually lead you to get married, and that will lead to having children
who will one day inevitably die. Are you sure you want to be responsible for the death
of your own children?

Page 10 of 17
 FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

Genetic Fallacy (ad hominem). Condemning the source or an argument (or explaining how the idea in
question originated) instead of concentrating on the soundness of the argument itself. This kind of fallacy
is particularly pernicious because we are naturally inclined to get distracted about the quality of an idea
by our perception of the source of that idea, but we should remember that the quality and the merits of
an idea are independent of who came up with it.

The current Chancellor of Germany was in the
Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of
background, his so called 'reform' plan must
be a fascist program.
I don’t care how you try to convince me that
Christianity is the one true religion: of course
you believe in it, that’s how your parents
raised you.
We must take Paul’s conception of marriage
with a grain of salt. Paul himself, you will
remember, was not married.
The human brain has evolved to believe in
immaterial spirits, purposes imbued in the
natural world, and a sense of the
transcendent, so religious belief is only the
result of the faulty wiring of our brains.

Abusive ad hominem. When an attack is directed not at the claims being made or the merits of the
argument, but against the persons proposing an argument, seeking to defame or discredit them.

"If they don't have the guts to come up
here in front of you and say, 'I don't want
to represent you, I want to represent
those special interests, the unions, the
trial lawyers' ... if they don't have the
guts, I call them girlie men."
—Arnold Schwarzenegger (2004,
referring to members of the
California legislature)
I can't believe that anyone really listens to
what the National Rifle Association has to
say. After all, they're just a bunch of paranoid
and ignorant yokels.
He says he has found a cure for AIDS? I don't
believe him: he's a wife-beater, and I don't
think we need to pay attention to people like
that.

Page 11 of 17
Circumstantial ad hominem. This form of ad hominem fallacy is indirectly used against some group of
persons, suggesting that they hold their views mainly because of their special circumstances or
interests. While this may or may not be true, it’s ultimately irrelevant to the quality and the merits of
an idea.

We should discount what Premier Klein
says about taxation because he won't be
hurt by the increase.
Or course social welfare is supported by
the poor. After all, they have the most to
gain from it.
I think that we should reject what Father
Jones has to say about the ethical issues of
abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After
all, Father Jones is required to hold such
views. Besides, being a man, he’s not
properly qualified to say anything about
women’s issues.

Tu quoque. This is a Latin transliteration for ‘look who’s talking’. In this fallacy, the person arguing a
case is charged with acting in a contradictory manner (being a hypocrite), but this is ultimately a
distraction, since the fact that one’s actions may contradict what one says or believes doesn’t by itself
undermine the quality of the idea or claim in question.
This fallacy can also take place when we attempt to justify or excuse our questionable behavior by
pointing to some other party who engages in the same bad behavior (as in the classic children’s
response ‘but she started it!’). Remember, however, that two wrongs don’t make a right.

- Based on the arguments I’ve presented, it
follows that it’s morally wrong to use
animals for food or clothing.
- But you are wearing a leather jacket and
you have a roast beef sandwich in your
hand! How can you say that using animals
for food and clothing is wrong?
 I’m sorry, but you don’t get to defend the
idea of strong family values and commitment
to one’s spouse when you are constantly
cheating on your wife with your secretary and
when half your salary gets spent at the
brothel and the STD clinic!

Guilt by Association. This is the mistaken attempt to discredit an idea or an argument simply based
upon the fact that some group or person with a shady reputation or questionable credentials is
associated with such an idea.

You are defending the idea that we You dare to question the legitimacy of our
should be vegetarians? Do you know who military interventions abroad? That’s exactly the
else was a vegetarian? Hitler! kind of thing that Osama Bin Laden would do!

Page 12 of 17
 Poisoning the Well. Using an unfalsifiable (untestable) claim to attempt to trap the person against
whom one is arguing in a position from which there is no possible escape so that any water drunk from
that well will be automatically poisoned (since it will look like ‘confirmation’ of the original claim).
When a claim can always be reinterpreted to be consistent with any and all evidence, no matter how
disparate, that’s not an indication that it’s true: it’s an indication that it’s meaningless, or, as
philosophers refer to such claims: it’s not even wrong.

If you disagree when I say that mankind is
corrupt, you prove yourself to be already
corrupted. —Nietzsche
God works in mysterious ways.
Everything happens for a reason.
Of course I believe in karma… eventually he’ll
get what’s coming to him.

Appeal to Ignorance. When it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has not been proved
false, or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved true, or when someone
demands that his/her opponent disprove one’s affirmative belief.
In this fallacy, an absence of evidence is used as evidence, which is clearly illogical.

- Religious believer: skeptics have never been - Religious skeptic: believers have never been
able to prove that God does not exist. able to prove that God does exist. Therefore,
Therefore, God does exist. God does not exist.

Notice that this fallacy is not concerned with whether a claim is true or false. It’s concerned
with whether we have any justification to back up a particular claim.
In the case above, the skeptic would not be committing this fallacy if she argued instead
that since there is no positive evidence for the belief in God, one is not entitled or rationally
justified in holding such a belief until such evidence is presented and scrutinized. The
epistemic claim may be warranted, the metaphysical claim is not.

The fallacy of appealing to ignorance is also committed when the person offering the conclusion demands
that her opponent to disprove the conclusion. If the opponent is unable to do so, then the conclusion is
asserted to be true. This argument form is invalid because the person making the affirmative claim is the
one who has the responsibility of proving his case; the skeptic is entitled to reject any claim that does not
satisfy her standards of reason and evidence.

Page 13 of 17
  "[Joe McCarthy] announced that he had penetrated 'Truman's iron curtain of secrecy' and that he
proposed forthwith to present 81 cases… Cases of exactly what? 'I am only giving the Senate,' he
said, 'cases in which it is clear there is a definite Communist connection…persons whom I consider
to be Communists in the State Department.' … Of Case 40, he said, 'I do not have much information
on this except the general statement of the agency…that there is nothing in the files to disprove
his Communist connections.'" —Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960), pp.
106-107.

 Do you know where everything came from? Can you prove that God doesn’t exist? No? Then you
have to accept the conclusion that God does in fact exist.

Argument from Personal Incredulity. Arguing that one’s inability to explain something gives one
license to arbitrarily imagine the answer, or to imagine that there is no answer at all.

I don’t know how to solve this equation, I can’t imagine how you could have naturally
so the answer must be unknowable. healed, so it must have been fairies.

God of the Gaps. This instance of appealing to ignorance is a position that assumes an act of God as
the explanation for some unknown phenomenon simply because we don’t know how else to explain
it. Instances of miracles usually (though not always) fall under this category.
When we can’t explain some phenomenon or process, what we ought to do is, first, admit our
ignorance, then come up with various plausible hypotheses, and then test them to see which are on
the right explanatory track and which are not.

Science can’t explain where everything The doctors have no idea how to explain
came from or how the complexity of life why my cancer went into remission.
started, so God must have designed it. Thank you, Jesus!

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority. When the premises of an argument appeal to the judgment of some
party or parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.

Bill Cosby eats Jello Pudding. You'll love it too. Socialism must be the best system for society
because Albert Einstein believed it so.

Page 14 of 17
Appeal to Emotion. When careful reasoning is replaced with devices calculated to elicit enthusiasm and
emotional support for the conclusion advanced.

An intelligent and discerning person like It would break your mother's heart to hear
you naturally sees the force of my you defend those immoral Harry Potter
argument. books in that way.

The appeal to emotion fallacy is ridiculed in the story of the trial of a youth accused of the murder
of his mother and father with an ax. Confronted with overwhelming proof of his guilt, he pleaded
for leniency on the grounds that he was now an orphan. (Did you catch the other fallacy?)

Appeal to Consequences. In this fallacy, we confuse and conflate two concepts: the good and the true (or,
conversely, the bad and the false). It takes place when we point to the disagreeable consequences of
holding a particular belief in order to show that such belief is false.

Despite the overwrought emotionalism of If God did not exist, then all basis for morality
the abolitionists, slavery cannot be immoral, would be lost and the world would be a
since it would destroy the southern way of horrible place. Therefore, it must be true that
life if we were to free our slaves. God exists.

If children were taught that we have a history

of social injustice, they would lose respect for You can't agree that evolution is true,
us, and since we need them to respect us, it because if it were, then we would be no
can’t be the case that we have a history of better than monkeys.
social injustice.

Appeal to Tradition. This fallacy argues that a practice or way of thinking is ‘better’ or ‘right’ simply
because it is older, traditional, or it has ‘always been done that way.’

Real men don’t cry—that’s the way I was Marriage is a traditional institution between
brought up. a man and many women; therefore,
polygamy should not be outlawed.

Page 15 of 17
Naturalistic fallacy (appeal to nature, the is/ought fallacy). In this type of argument we have another
confusion and conflation of two separate concepts: something is claimed to be good or right simply on
the basis that it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong simply because it is unnatural or artificial.
In this sort of argument, nature is taken to be an ideal or desired state of being, not simply explaining how
things are but how they should be (which is why this is also known as the is/ought fallacy). The problem
with such an argument, therefore, is the fact that it attempts to derive a normative value (an ought) from
an empirical fact (an is).

Stay away from big pharma, man. You should
only drink natural herbal remedies, like
hemlock tea.
Being queer is wrong because it’s unnatural!
I think you can agree with me that male
promiscuity can be best understood as an
evolutionary adaptation for the maximization
of one’s fitness. Therefore, it’s perfectly okay
that I’m always cheating on my wife, since
this is a natural adaptation.

Special Pleading. This fallacy occurs when someone makes him or herself a special exception to the
reasonable application of standards, principles, or expectations, without justification. Because we tend to
treat our own circumstances as unique and deserving of special consideration when compared to the
circumstances of others, we have an unfortunate natural tendency to create unjustified double standards.
When a double standard is appropriate, one should be able to explain the relevant difference between
the two populations to which it is applied.

The reason my psychic abilities didn’t work
today is because of the presence of
unbelievers. (Notice how this is also a case of
questionable cause).
I know that I have argued that people who
use drugs should be sent to prison, but my
sister shouldn’t go to jail for doing heroin.
Why? Well, because she’s my sister. That’s
different.

Straw Man. This fallacy is based on the (often deliberate) misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Once this weaker straw version is articulated, the speaker creates the illusion of having refuted his
opponent’s proposition when, in fact, that is not a fair characterization of the opposition.

 During the public debate over health care reform legislation, Sarah Palin claimed that the new law
would institute “death panels” that would sit in judgment of a patient’s worthiness to society, and
that it would most likely unilaterally decide to euthanize the elderly and the mentally retarded.
The law in question, however, didn’t include any such provisions. What it said was that it would
offer free end-of-life counseling services to those terminally-ill patients who requested them.

Page 16 of 17
Appeal to Popularity / Bandwagon. This fallacy relies on the uncritical acceptance of others’ opinion
simply because others believe it. The desire to conform to this kind of peer pressure is influenced by a
desire to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ and avoid getting left by yourself on the side of the road. This fallacy
is also known as the appeal to popularity, appeal to the majority, appeal to the herd, etc.

I used to think that opera was my favorite People bought more Britney Spears’ music
kind of music, but my friends say that only last year than Mozart’s. Britney Spears must
losers enjoy this music. So I’ve stopped be a better musician; after all, millions of
listening to it. people could not possibly be wrong.

Other resources:
Fallacy Files
The Nizkor Project
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe
One Good Move
Michael Shermer: How Thinking Goes Wrong

Page 17 of 17