Fallacies

Running head: WEEK 2: FALLACIES

Week 2: Fallacies

Week 2: Fallacies

Our second week writing assignment allows us to choose three logical fallacies to discuss; I have chosen the fallacies of: Appeal to Emotion, Non-Sequitor, and Tu Quoque (Look Who’s Talking). In this paper, I will define the fallacy and explain its significance to Critical Thinking. I will also discuss each of their applications to decision making.

Bertrand Russell stated in A History of Western Philosophy “Logical errors are, I think, of greater practical importance than many people believe; they enable their perpetrators to hold the comfortable opinion on every subject in turn.” Critical thinking in our lives is of vital importance if we are to take charge. Without the use of critical thinking, we would be mere victims of every politician, charlatan, snake oil sales man, and advertiser that comes our way. With the constant contact they have with today’s electronic reach into our lives through email, television, pod-casts, cell phones, etc. we must use critical thinking in order to weed out the fallacies they are purporting to be true. Our well being, finances, and very freedom depend on it.

Appeal to Emotion

The logical fallacy of Appeal to Emotion has the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.

2. Therefore, X is true (Labossiere, 1995).

The object of this fallacy is to substitute strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. “It is an extremely effective persuasive device (Labossiere, 1995).” Someone has fallen victim of this type of fallacy if they feel good about “X”, then it must be true. This type of argument is commonly found in political campaigns and in commercial advertising.

A current example of this type of fallacy can be seen in one of the latest commercials for Corona Beer. In this commercial the scene takes place on a cool beach, with calm, crystal blue water, and white sands. The viewer can almost feel the cool trade winds blowing. The makers of Corona beer want the viewer to associate their product with rest, relaxation, cool trade winds, and sandy beaches; A vacation in a bottle. Their catch phrase is “Miles away from Ordinary”. This is quite clearly an appeal to the consumer’s emotions. They would have you believe that you can escape your ordinary, drab life by simply opening a bottle of their beer (Corona.com, 2006). This advertisement clearly follows the formula: “good emotions are associated with X, thus X must be true”.

Non-Sequitor

Figure 1 (Miller, 2006)

The term Non-Sequitor literally means “does not follow”. This type of fallacy can be in three different forms.

A) Affirming the Consequent

B) Denying the Antecedent

C) Inconsistencies (Downes, 1996).

An argument that uses the Non-Sequitor form of affirming the consequent looks like: If A then B, B therefore, A. An example of this reasoning would be:

I am in Phoenix, I must be in Arizona. I am in Arizona, I must be in Phoenix. Obviously, this is not true. I could be in Tucson and still be in Arizona (Downes, 1996). These types of arguments can be disproved by showing that B might be caused by anything other than A.

A Non-Sequitor argument that uses the Deny the Antecedent form looks like: If A then B. Not A, therefore, not B. An example of this reasoning is: I am in Phoenix then I am in Arizona. I am not in Phoenix therefore, I am not in Arizona. This reasoning can be disproved by showing that the conclusion may occur even if the premise is false. In this example it is clear to see that it just doesn’t follow. I could be in Flagstaff and still be in Arizona.

The last Non-Sequitor argument is one of inconsistency. The author of this type of argument uses too many propositions so that not all of them can be true. An example: “Montreal is about 200 km from Ottawa, while Toronto is 400 km from Ottawa. Toronto is closer to Ottawa than Montreal (Downes, 1996). Once again it can be seen that this type of argument just doesn’t follow. To disprove this type of argument, assume that one of the statements is true and then use it to show the falsehood of one of the other statements.

Tu Quoque

“According to the Oxford English