The Little Blue Reasoning Book - Brandon Royal [45]
Tip #50: The word “unsurpassed,” both technically and legally, does not mean “best.” It is possible that all products, competitors, etc., could be tied at number one and yet all could claim to be unsurpassed.
APPENDIX II – FALLACIOUS REASONING
A traditional approach to argumentation involves studying common types of fallacious reasoning. This method is consistent with what a person might encounter in an introductory logic course in college or university.
It is valuable to recognize fallacious types of reasoning and defend against them. One benefit of studying fallacious reasoning is to avoid unknowingly constructing fallacious arguments. “Feeling” that an argument is fallacious is one thing; being able to specifically identify why something is fallacious is quite another. This difference is analogous to feeling sick but not knowing why, as opposed to seeing a doctor and finding out exactly what the reason is.
The fallacies presented in this section are divided into four major groupings, including: (1) fallacies based on language; (2) fallacies based on “bad” evidence; (3) fallacies based on flawed assumptions; and (4) fallacies found in deductive logic. Each fallacy is accompanied by a brief description of the fallacy and at least one key example to illustrate it.
1) Fallacies Based on Language
Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when someone uses a word or phrase that has two different meanings depending on its context.
“Gambling should be legalized everywhere because it is something we can’t avoid. It is part of life itself. People gamble every time they get behind the wheels of their cars or say their wedding vows.”
The word “gambling” is used in two different contexts, creating ambiguity or equivocation.
Equivocation can even occur in the revered domain of syllogistic logic.
“All lemons are yellow.
This car is a lemon.
Therefore, this car is yellow.”
Since lemon has two different meanings — the first referring to a fruit and the second meaning “inferior” or “of cheap quality” — a case of fallacious reasoning arises: the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.
Distinction Without a Difference
The fallacy of distinction without a difference occurs when a person argues that his or her position is different from a previous one by means of careful distinction of language. However, even though the words chosen are different, they are in substance identical to the ones already used.
“I didn’t lie. I just stretched the truth a bit.”
What is the difference between lying and stretching the truth?
2) Fallacies Based on “Bad” Evidence
Hasty Generalization
The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion is reached based on too small a sample size or on a sample that is unrepresentative.
“I have been to Phoenix three times and each time it has rained. Phoenix sure does get a lot of rain.”
Circular Reasoning
The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when a conclusion is based on a premise (a piece of evidence) which in turn is based on the conclusion.
“Mr. Weeble’s desk is always messy because he’s incompetent. A messy desk is the sign of a cluttered mind, and this tells us something: he simply can’t get the job done.”
The argument above effectively states: “incompetence leads to a messy desk and a messy desk leads to work not getting done (i.e., to incompetence).”
Fallacy of Negative Proof
The fallacy of negative proof occurs when a claim is deemed true because it is not proven false, or false because it is not proven true. For example, the fact that no one has found evidence that Atlantis (the fabled lost continent) existed does not prove that Atlantis did not exist.
“Because no intern in our office has ever complained about his or her salary, we can be confident that interns in our office are satisfied with their wages.”
Ad Hominem
The ad hominem fallacy consists in attacking the person, often in a personal or abusive way, rather than attacking