Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [135]
Words like these are sometimes referred to as “weasel” words, along with words like “natural” and “real.” The analogy with weasels goes to the notion that weasels suck out the contents of eggs, leaving empty shells behind.
The sloganizing move gets made when each side tries to attach to the other side various labels that evoke fear, even though the words have been repeated so often, in reference to so many different things, that they have become virtually meaningless. This type of sloganizing almost always takes complex circumstances and reduces them to clear-cut goods and evils. Prominent examples in the current contentious political environment are “socialist,” “big government,” and “capitalist.”
It is usual to organize the fallacies into the categories Pathos, Ethos, and Logos from classical rhetoric (see Chapter 3, the section on Analysis and Argument). Appeals to the audience’s emotions, for example, such as the fallacy called “bandwagon,” fall under pathos. Attacks on the character of one’s opponent, such as the fallacy called ad hominem, are located under ethos. Various kinds of deceptive and erroneous thinking, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, come under Logos.
Here is another useful way to think about the fallacies. The categories overlap somewhat, but it is helpful to differentiate diversionary tactics from moves that misrepresent the issues.
Fallacies that derail an argument by distracting audience attention to a mostly irrelevant topic (e.g., red herring, ad hominem)
Fallacies that oversimplify and polarize positions, often through the use of slogans or scare words (e.g., slippery slope, equivocation, false dichotomies, false analogies, straw man).
Some of the fallacies in this second category appear to make a show of substantiality and logicality, while actively misrepresenting things (e.g., simple cause/complex effect, confusing a correlation with a cause—especially when statistics are involved).
Recognizing fallacies in other people’s arguments all too often leads to games of “gotcha.” Pointing out others’ dubious moves can help you “win;” A better alternative is the Rogerian one, to restate what another person is saying in a manner that he or she is willing to accept. This difficult but rewarding tactic can bring both sides in the argument out from behind the barriers, so to speak, where real discussion might be possible. As you will see, many of these errors involve the root problem of oversimplification.
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