Ch 7. Fallacies That Violate the Acceptability Criterion

Fallacies of Linguistic Confusion

These fallacies arise from unclear, ambiguous, or misleading language, making arguments unacceptable because their meaning is unclear.

1. Equivocation

Definition: Using a word or phrase in two different senses within the same argument, leading to an unwarranted conclusion.

Examples:

• Gambling argument:
  • “Since people gamble (take risks) every day, and gambling (taking risks) is a part of life, gambling (games of chance) should be legalized.”
  • The meaning of “gambling” shifts from taking risks to games of chance, making the argument invalid.
• Faith and Science:
  • “People who rely on faith for belief are no different from those who rely on science because science is based on absolute faith.”
  • “Faith” in religion means belief without evidence, while “faith” in science means trust in evidence-based reasoning.
• Logic Course Argument:
  • “I won’t take logic because it teaches you to argue, and people argue too much already.”
  • “Argue” shifts from reasoned debate to quarreling.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Identify the word or phrase being used in two different senses.
• Ask the arguer for definitions and apply them consistently.
• Reconstruct the argument by replacing the ambiguous word with its specific meaning to reveal its flaw.

2. Ambiguity

Definition: Using a word, phrase, or sentence that can be interpreted in multiple ways without clarifying which meaning is intended.

Types:

• Semantic Ambiguity – A word or phrase has multiple meanings.
• Syntactical Ambiguity (Amphiboly) – The structure of a sentence makes its meaning unclear.

Examples:

• Ride Home Confusion:
  • “How about a ride home?” (Did the speaker offer a ride or request one?)
  • Both people assumed the other had a car, leaving them stranded.
• Course Selection Confusion:
  • “I hope I have more exciting courses this term.”
  • Does this mean she liked her previous courses or wants different ones?
• Security Announcement:
  • “Personal Security for Women Has Been Canceled for the Semester.”
  • Does this mean no more safety measures or just a canceled class?

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask for clarification before drawing conclusions.
• Point out multiple possible interpretations and ask the arguer to specify.
• Avoid false ambiguity, where a listener misinterprets something deliberately.

3. Misleading Accent

Definition: Placing improper emphasis on words or phrases to mislead someone into drawing an unwarranted conclusion.

Examples:

• Partial News Reports:
  • A report states, “The Clinton campaign received $10 million in improperly reported contributions,” but later, another report states that Bob Dole’s campaign received $17 million.
  • The first report misleads by omitting context.
• Professor’s Deadline Message:
  • Professor says: “If Felicia doesn’t turn in her paper today, I won’t accept it.”
  • Roommate reports: “The professor said he won’t accept her paper.”
  • The omission of “if” distorts the meaning.
• Misleading Blog Titles:
  • Headline: “George W. Bush is One Tough Hombre.”
  • The blog sarcastically criticizes Bush’s tough-on-crime approach, but the headline suggests praise.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Check the full context before drawing conclusions.
• Ask for clarification on what was actually meant.
• Avoid relying on headlines, as they may misrepresent the full story.

4. Illicit Contrast

Definition: The listener falsely infers a contrasting claim from a speaker’s statement by placing undue emphasis on a word or phrase.

Examples:

• Diana’s Dress Argument:
  • Dad says to Cynthia: “That dress looks nice on you.”
  • Diana falsely infers: “So, you think it didn’t look nice on me?”
• Catholic Cardinal and Priest Scandal:
  • Cardinal says: “It is sinful for priests to take advantage of young boys.”
  • Listener falsely infers: “So, it’s okay for priests to take advantage of young girls?”
• Generalizing from Personal Experience:
  • A woman says: “Men are insensitive brutes.”
  • Listener wrongly assumes: “She must think all women are sensitive.”

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask the listener to justify their assumption that a contrast was implied.
• Point out that the original statement did not include the inferred contrast.

5. Argument by Innuendo

Definition: Suggesting a negative conclusion without directly stating it, leading the audience to infer something unjustified.

Examples:

• Political Smear Tactics:
  • “If you knew that one of the candidates was receiving money from illegal sources, wouldn’t you reconsider your vote?”
  • Implied accusation without direct evidence.
• Employment Reference Trickery:
  • Employer asks if a candidate had disciplinary issues.
  • Dean replies: “We were never able to convict this student of any violations.”
  • The phrase suggests guilt without stating it.
• Relationship Implication:
  • Student says: “I often see Professor Iskra, but never with his wife.”
  • Implied meaning: He may be having an affair.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Demand explicit claims instead of vague suggestions.
• Ask the speaker to clarify their stance or deny the implied accusation.

6. Misuse of a Vague Expression

Definition: Using a vague phrase to support a claim or drawing a specific conclusion from vague language.

Examples:

• Moral Education Argument:
  • “Public schools must provide ‘moral education’; therefore, they should not assign books with profanity.”
  • “Moral education” is vague, and their definition would ban most literature, including the Bible.
• Concern for Weak Students:
  • College president suggests faculty should “show more concern for weaker students.”
  • A professor falsely concludes: “The president is forcing us to pass all failing students.”
• Pornography and Community Standards:
  • Prosecutor defines “community standards” as “whatever more than half of people find offensive.”
  • Arbitrarily assigning a precise meaning to a vague term.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask for a precise definition of vague terms.
• Challenge arbitrary interpretations of vague words.
• Avoid being manipulated by vague statements—demand clarity.

7. Distinction Without a Difference

Definition: Claiming a meaningful distinction where none exists, usually to evade criticism.

Examples:

• Feminism Argument:
  • “I’m not against feminism; I just think the man should be the head of the household.”
  • The two claims are contradictory.
• Bad Driving Excuse:
  • “I’m not a bad driver; I just don’t pay much attention to the road.”
  • Not paying attention = bad driving.
• Biblical Interpretation Fallacy:
  • “We must follow what the Bible says, not what someone thinks it says.”
  • All interpretations are ‘what someone thinks it says’—there is no difference.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask the arguer to explain how their distinction is meaningful.
• Use an absurd counterexample, e.g., “I wasn’t cheating; I was just looking at her paper to jog my memory.”

Key Takeaways:

• Linguistic confusion fallacies use unclear or misleading language to create false conclusions.
• Clarification is key—ask for definitions, context, or explicit claims.
• If a word or phrase can be interpreted in multiple ways, the argument is flawed.

Unwarranted Assumption Fallacies

These fallacies occur when arguments rely on highly questionable, often unstated assumptions. Because these assumptions are unacceptable, arguments that rely on them fail as logical reasoning.

1. Fallacy of the Continuum

Definition: Assuming that small differences on a continuum are insignificant and that distinctions between points on a continuum are impossible or arbitrary.

Examples:

• Credit Card Payments:
  • “Adding $25 to a $300 monthly payment and another $60 for a phone won’t make much difference.”
  • Flaw: Small additions accumulate, leading to significant debt.
• Grade Cutoffs:
  • “If my professor added five extra points, why not six? One point isn’t a big difference.”
  • Flaw: A cutoff must be established for grading, even if it seems arbitrary.
• Dieting or Quitting Smoking:
  • “One more donut or cigarette won’t make a difference.”
  • Flaw: Each small indulgence contributes to an overall impact.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask the person to define a vague term (e.g., “rich”) and then gradually subtract amounts. Eventually, their reasoning leads to absurdity (e.g., saying someone with $0 is “rich”).
• Point out real-world cutoff points (e.g., legal speed limits, passing vs. failing grades).

2. Fallacy of Composition

Definition: Assuming that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole.

Examples:

• Team-Taught Course:
  • “Two great professors are teaching this course, so the course must be great.”
  • Flaw: Good individual teachers don’t always work well together.
• Choir Selection:
  • “Each singer in our choir is excellent, so the choir must be excellent.”
  • Flaw: Voices may not blend well, affecting the overall quality.
• Marriage Compatibility:
  • “Dan is a fine man, and Rebecca is a fine woman, so they will make a fine couple.”
  • Flaw: Good individuals don’t always make a good team in relationships.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Show that wholes can be different from their parts (e.g., a salad made of delicious ingredients might taste bad together).
• Give counterexamples where excellent parts create a poor whole (e.g., mismatched furniture).

3. Fallacy of Division

Definition: Assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of each part.

Examples:

• Large University Classes:
  • “The University of Virginia is a large school, so all its classes must be large.”
  • Flaw: Large universities often have small classes too.
• Attractive Features:
  • “Ron has a handsome face, so his nose must be handsome too.”
  • Flaw: Parts may not share the whole’s qualities.
• Consciousness and Human Cells:
  • “Humans are conscious, so individual human cells must be conscious.”
  • Flaw: Consciousness is an emergent property of the whole.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Show that wholes often differ from their parts (e.g., ocean water is salty, but a single molecule of H₂O is not).
• Point out statistical generalizations (e.g., “Most students at this school play sports” does not mean every student plays sports).

4. False Alternatives

Definition: Limiting the number of possible solutions or options to too few, often treating contraries as contradictories.

Examples:

• Abortion Debate:
  • “Abortion is either morally right or morally wrong. Since no one says it’s required, it must be wrong.”
  • Flaw: Ignores middle ground—abortion can be morally permissible in some cases.
• Jesus’ Statement:
  • “If you are not for me, you must be against me.”
  • Flaw: Agnosticism or neutrality is possible.
• Creation vs. Chance:
  • “Either God created the universe, or it happened by pure chance.”
  • Flaw: Natural selection is a third alternative.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask whether all alternatives have been considered.
• Point out missing options (e.g., between capitalism and communism, there are mixed economies).

5. Is-Ought Fallacy

Definition: Assuming that because something is the current practice, it ought to be the practice.

Examples:

• Vacation Planning:
  • “We shouldn’t go to France because we always visit a new country every year.”
  • Flaw: Past actions don’t dictate future choices.
• Marijuana Laws:
  • “Marijuana is illegal, so it must be bad.”
  • Flaw: Legal status doesn’t determine morality.
• College Democracy:
  • “Colleges aren’t democratic, so students shouldn’t have more say in decisions.”
  • Flaw: The way things are isn’t always the best way.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask for independent reasons why a practice should continue.
• Use counterexamples (e.g., “Slavery was once legal. Should it have stayed that way?“).

6. Wishful Thinking

Definition: Assuming that because one wants something to be true, it is true.

Examples:

• Life After Death:
  • “There must be life after death because people desire it.”
  • Flaw: Wishing for something doesn’t make it true.
• Missing Person:
  • “My husband has been missing for 10 years, but he must be alive. He just can’t be dead.”
  • Flaw: Desire ≠ evidence.
• Perfect Marriage:
  • “There is a perfect partner for everyone if you look hard enough.”
  • Flaw: Idealized beliefs don’t match reality.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Present contrary evidence and ask the arguer to evaluate it.
• Use an absurd counterexample (e.g., “I don’t want to have cancer, so I won’t get it.”).

7. Misuse of a Principle

Definition: Assuming that rules have no exceptions or trying to refute a principle by citing an exception.

Examples:

• Zoning Laws:
  • “I can do whatever I want with my property, so I should be allowed to run a used-car business in a residential area.”
  • Flaw: Property rights aren’t absolute.
• Movie Rule:
  • “No one under 18 is allowed in an X-rated theater, so parents can’t bring their sleeping infant.”
  • Flaw: The rule wasn’t meant for such cases.
• Lying is Always Wrong:
  • “Counselors should always tell the truth, even if it means betraying confidentiality.”
  • Flaw: Ethical principles can conflict.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Identify reasonable exceptions.
• Ask about principles they accept and challenge them with exceptions.

8. Fallacy of the Mean

Definition: Assuming that the middle position between two extremes is always the best.

Examples:

• Negotiation:
  • “You want $300, I want $200, so the fair price is $250.”
  • Flaw: The fair price depends on market value, not just compromise.
• Philosophical Dilemma:
  • “I reject determinism and indeterminism, so the truth must be somewhere in between.”
  • Flaw: There may be no middle ground.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask for justification beyond “it’s in the middle.”
• Use absurd counterexamples (e.g., “Would the best way to vote be splitting your vote among all parties?“).

9. Faulty Analogy

Definition: Assuming that because two things are similar in one way, they must be similar in another way.

Examples:

• Open-Book Exams vs. Psychiatrists Using Books
• Marriage vs. Eating the Same Food
• Smoking vs. Ingesting Arsenic

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Show major differences between the compared items.
• Provide a counter-analogy.