Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [135]
1. Ad hominem. Literally, the Latin phrase means “to the person.” When an argument is aimed at the character of another person rather than at the quality of his or her reasoning or performance, we are engaging in an ad hominem argument. If a political candidate is attacked because he or she is rich, rather than on the basis of his or her platform, he or she is the victim of an ad hominem attack. In some cases, an ad hominem argument is somewhat pertinent—e.g., if a political candidate is discovered to have mob connections.
2. Bandwagon (ad populum). Bandwagon arguments appeal to the emotions of a crowd, as in “everyone’s doing it.” A bandwagon argument is a bad argument from authority, because no reasons are offered to demonstrate that “everybody” is an informed and reliable source.
3. Begging the question (circular reasoning). When you beg the question, you attempt to prove a claim by offering an alternative wording of the claim itself. To beg the question is to argue in a circle by asking readers to accept without argument a point that is actually at stake. This kind of fallacious argument hides its conclusion among its assumptions. For example, “Huckleberry Finn should be banned from school libraries as obscene because it uses dirty language” begs the question by presenting as obviously true issues that are actually in question: the definition of obscenity and the assumption that the obscene should be banned because it is obscene.
4. Equivocation. Equivocation confuses an argument by using a single word or phrase in more than one sense. For example: “Only man is capable of religious faith. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is capable of religious faith.” Here the first use of “man” is generic, intended to be gender neutral, while the second use is decidedly masculine.
5. False analogy. A false analogy misrepresents matters by making a comparison between two things that are more unlike than alike. The danger that arguing analogically can pose is that an inaccurate comparison, usually one that oversimplifies, prevents you from looking at the evidence. Flying to the moon is like flying a kite? Well, it’s a little bit like that, but … in most ways that matter, sending a rocket to the moon does not resemble sending a kite into the air.
An analogy can also become false when it becomes overextended: there is a point of resemblance at one juncture, but the writer then goes on to assume that the two items compared will necessarily resemble each other in most other respects. To what extent is balancing your checkbook really like juggling? On the other hand, an analogy that first appears overextended may not be: how far, for example, could you reasonably go in comparing a presidential election to a sales campaign, or an enclosed shopping mall to a village main street?
When you find yourself reasoning by analogy, ask yourself two questions: (1) are the basic similarities greater and more significant than the obvious differences? and (2) am I over-relying on surface similarities and ignoring more essential differences?
6. False cause. This is a generic term for questionable conclusions about causes and effects. Here are three versions of this fallacy:
a. Simple cause/complex effect. This fallacy occurs when you assign a single cause to a complex phenomenon that cannot be so easily explained. A widespread version of this fallacy is seen in arguments that blame individual figures for broad historical events, for example, “Eisenhower caused America to be involved in the Vietnam War.” Such a claim ignores the cold war ethos, the long history of colonialism in Southeast Asia, and a multitude of other factors. When you reduce a complex sequence