As I listen to the latest asinine, irrelevant, horse
manure, “political scandal”, I feel I must educate on some very important
issues about campaigns nowadays. They
are full of Fallacies!
Rhetorical Fallacies
ž Rhetorical
fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don’t allow for the open, two-way exchange
of ideas upon which meaningful conversations depend. Instead, they distract the
reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning. They can be
divided into three categories:
›
1. Emotional fallacies unfairly appeal to the
audience’s emotions.
›
2. Ethical fallacies unreasonably advance the
writer’s own authority or character.
›
3. Logical fallacies depend upon faulty logic.
ž Rhetorical
fallacies often overlap.
Emotional Fallacies
ž Sentimental
Appeals use emotion to distract the audience from the facts.
›
Example: The thousands of baby seals killed in
the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy
source.
ž Red
Herrings use misleading or unrelated evidence to support a conclusion.
›
Example: That painting is worthless because I
don’t recognize the artist.
ž Scare
Tactics try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by
threatening them or predicting
Unrealistically
dire consequences
›
Example: If you don’t support the party’s tax
plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty.
ž Bandwagon
Appeals encourage an audience to agree with the writer because everyone
else is doing so.
›
Example: Paris Hilton carries a small dog in her
purse, so you should buy a hairless Chihuahua and put it in your Louis Vuitton.
ž Slippery
Slope arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes
with disastrous results.
›
Example: If you get a B in high school, you
won’t get into the college of your choice, and therefore will never have a
meaningful career.
ž Either/Or
Choices reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of
action.
›
Example: The patent office can either approve my
generator design immediately or say goodbye forever to affordable energy.
ž False
Need arguments create an unnecessary desire for things.
›
Example: You need an expensive car or people
won’t think you’re cool.
Ethical Fallacies
ž False
Authority asks audiences to agree with the assertion of a writer
based simply on his or her character or the authority of another person or
institution who may not be fully qualified to offer that assertion.
›
Example: My high school teacher said it, so
it must be true.
ž Using
Authority Instead of Evidence occurs when someone offers personal
authority as proof.
›
Example: Trust me – my best friend wouldn’t
do that.
ž Guilt
by Association calls someone’s character into question by examining
the character of that person’s associates.
›
Example: Sara’s friend Amy robbed a bank; therefore,
Sara is a delinquent.
ž Dogmatism
shuts down discussion by asserting that the writer’s beliefs are the only
acceptable ones.
Example: I’m sorry, but I think
penguins are sea creatures and that’s that
ž Moral
Equivalence compares minor problems with much more serious crimes
(or vice versa).
›
Example: These mandatory seatbelt laws are
fascist.
ž Ad
Hominem arguments attack a person’s character rather than that
person’s reasoning.
›
Example: Why should we think a candidate who
recently divorced will keep her campaign promises?
ž Straw
man arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments
in order to misrepresent an opponent’s argument in order to defeat him or her
›
Example: A: We need to regulate access to
handguns.
›
B: My opponent believes that we should ignore
the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the
Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and
a proponent of freedom.
Logical Fallacies
ž A
Hasty Generalization draws conclusions from scanty evidence.
›
Example: I wouldn’t eat at that
restaurant—the only time I ate there, my entree was undercooked.
ž Faulty
Causality (or Post Hoc) arguments confuse chronology with
causation: one event can occur after another without being caused by it.
›
Example: A year after the release of the
violent shoot-’em-up video game Annihilator, incidents of school violence
tripled—surely not a coincidence.
ž A
Non Sequitur (Latin for “It doesn’t follow”) is a
statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An
important logical step may be missing in such a claim.
›
Example: If those protesters really loved
their country, they wouldn’t question the government.
ž An
Equivocation is a half-truth, or a statement that is partially
correct but that purposefully obscures the entire truth.
›
Example: “I did not have sexual relations
with that woman.” – President Bill Clinton
ž Begging
the Question occurs when a writer simply restates the claim in a
different way; such an argument is circular.
›
Example: His lies are evident from the
untruthful nature of his statements.
ž A
Faulty Analogy is an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading
comparison between two things.
›
Example: Letting prisoners out on early
release is like absolving them of their crimes.
ž Stacked
Evidence represents only one side of the issue, thus distorting the
issue.
›
Example: Cats are superior to dogs because
they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent.
We teach children in school and college that this is
an improper way to debate. However, it seems that true facts and figures, evidence
or even relevance is needed anymore; this also seems to be the problem with the
news media as well by the way.
I do not care what your political affiliation is
because that is not the point. The point is the election process is essentially
a sham, a smoke screen, a dog and pony show, and we are all buying tickets the
show.
Dr
Flavius A B Akerele III
The
ETeam
