This subtopic of the assignment will focus on the varying types and examples of logical fallacies found in everyday argumentation. Mostly, it will be based on the most commonly used logical fallacies found in this modern era. The discussion will revolve around the name of the fallacies, its components and structure, and its results or conclusion. Five popular logical will be discussed, namely the Non Sequitur, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, False Analogy and lastly Begging the Question.
First and foremost, one of the most commonly used logical fallacy is the Non Sequitur. This term originates from the Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow.” A non sequitur is an illogical statement, one that seems to result in a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument. All fallacies are on the most elementary level non sequiturs, but many can be related to some more specific logical error. The term is used for the general absence of logical coherence, as in the example of the structure and premise of a non sequitur shown below;
Premise A: Unemployed people are uneducated.
Premise B: Education is a method to curb unemployment.
Conclusion: Education is the best way to help unemployed people.
The error in the aforementioned example is that most unemployed people are uneducated therefore citing education as a means to curb them form being unemployed as stated in the conclusion is disconnected and does not follow the statement given earlier in Premise A. As such, it negates the conclusion as a valid conclusion and makes the argument that education is the best way for people to be employed void ab initio.
The next example of a popular fallacy comes in the form of Ad Hominem, or more commonly known as personal attack. This was cited in the introduction of this assignment but should be elaborated on as it is so widely accepted by the public at large and sometimes the actual opponent themselves. As it is, an ad hominem argument evades the task of addressing the issue at hand and instead appeals to the feelings of the audience to garner support. The link between the personal attack and the matter at issue depends on the identification of the logical validity of the argument with the moral integrity of the speaker: a bad person cannot be right. Therefore, an ad hominem argument depends on the perception of the public or audience towards the opponent as a bad person or someone not authorized to make their claims and turn that into support for the other party and the conclusions that they are making, however wrong it is. A basic example of this can be seen in the recent scandal concerning Donald Trump and his alleged mistresses.
Premise A: Donald Trump has allegedly been involved in cases of infidelity with a few mistresses.
Premise B: Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Conclusion: Donald Trump will make a bad President as he has had affairs outside of his marriage.
In actual practice, the large public does accept many ad hominem arguments at times. Most actions or beliefs are assumed to sway a particular person’s argument; as many arguments are dismissed on the basis of material interests. However, in a mature argument and discourse, ad hominem arguments are baseless as usually the personal attack in question will not correlate with the issue at hand that is being discussed, disconnecting the audience with a critique of the individual presenting the argument rather than focusing on the question or problem that they are faced with.
Moving on form that, the next type of logical fallacy to be presented as it is very popular in major discourse is Appeal to Authority. Here, a prominent figure is used as an example of why a conclusion is a valid conclusion, whilst usually undermining certain facts and aspects that do not correlate with the figure being attributed with such conclusion. For a clearer picture of how this works is in the works of popular advertising, especially in the modern era.
Premise A: Vivy Yusof is a successful businesswoman and is wealthy.
Premise B: Vivy Yusof studied at England for her tertiary studies.
Conclusion: To become a successful and wealthy businesswoman, you must study at England.
This mainly works in advertising at advertising is allowed to omit certain facts and aspects that would make the conclusion weaker than it seems if it did not omit such facts. For example, Vivy Yusof may have needed more than her tertiary education at England to become a successful businesswoman. Aspects such as networking and her always-available resources are omitted as it would make the conclusion that only her tertiary education is the primary source of her success, to become invalid and weak.
The next example of a popular logical fallacy in popular discourse is the False Analogy. A false or over-extended analogy is an assertion that because a similarity exists in one aspect, it must also exist in other aspects or arguments. Similarly, when a comparison is made between two ideas or premises that seemingly have similar characteristics, but such comparison does not hold up, that would make a false analogy. The characteristics of the two things actually differ in the area that is being compared. These examples should illustrate what makes a False Analogy argument in valid and the structure that is used in everyday discourse.
Argument 1: Historically, public schools have done very well, so the problems of public schools today-lack of achievement, lack of discipline – are due to ineffective teachers. Reality 1: Public schools have only been truly inclusive of all students since the mid-1900’s; also, achievement standards have been raised over time.
Argument 2: The private school down the street has better teachers and children get a better education because 100% of their seniors get into a college.
Reality 2: The private school only has to accept some students, not all.
Argument 3: That group of teenagers is up to no good – they are out after dark, and they are wearing dark clothes and baggy pants.
Reality 3: This is a stereotype – the group of teenagers could be a sports team or church group.
Sometimes these differences in premises are ignored by the person presenting the fallacy in question; and other times, they may not be aware of these differences. The fallacy occurs, and is common, because real-world parallels are always limited and at times scarce to be compared with the issue at hand; however, the differences between things in these types of arguments can often overpower their similarities, making it invalid and baseless in nature. Analogies and metaphors can be very useful to explain the nature things to the audience and the larger public and can often play an important part in learning. However, because of the prevalence of false analogies they are much less useful in making arguments.
Last but not least is the popular fallacy by the name of Begging the Question. Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii, meaning assuming the initial point, is a logical fallacy in which the presenter assumes the statement or premise under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using the premise in question to support itself. However, if the premise is questionable, then the argument is bad. Here are a few well known examples for this logical fallacy;
Example 1: All ravens are black; therefore, all birds that are not black are not ravens.
Example 2: Left-handed people are better painters because right-handed people can’t paint as well.
Both these arguments are formally sound in that, assuming the initial premise is true, the conclusion brought about logically follows. But, however, they are nonetheless unpersuasive and weak in nature because assuming the initial premise to be correct also means assuming the conclusion is correct, which usually is not the case when translated into real-world application and results. However, it has not stopped this fallacy from acquiring popularity, especially in the realm of politics and debating, as people from these fields usually structure their conclusions as a result of a widely believed premise or belief which can be proved to be untrue when actually given the opportunity to research the issue at hand.