Fallacy Summaries with Examples
Name:
Institution:

Fallacy Summaries with Examples
Appeal to Authority
The fallacy of appeal to authority also referred to as the Fallacious Appeal to Authority, irrelevant Authority or Ad Vercundiam takes the following form, the first person is claimed to be an authority on subject S and hence makes a claim C about subject S hence making C true. The fallacy is mostly committed when the individual in question is not a lawful authority on the subject. This implies that if an individual A does not merit making reliable claims on a subject B, the argument becomes fallacious. The reasoning becomes fallacious when the individual under focus is not necessarily an expert hence the given cases makes the reasoning flawed since there is no justification for the claim since an unauthorized person made the claim. In the event that a person falls prey to the fallacy, then it implies that the individual is accepting a claim as being true in the absence of adequate evidence to do so. Additionally, the individual accepting the claim does so erroneously on belief that the individual making the claim is an expert which implies that the claim is reasonable to accept.
Example 1
An argument about the morality of abortion
Individual A: I strongly believe in abortion as being morally acceptable simply because a woman aught to have a right over her own body.
Individual B: I strongly disagree. Findings from numerous medical researches say that abortion is morally wrong regardless of the circumstances. This must be right since all published researches are work of experts in the given fields.
Individual A: I have not come across any research on the morality of abortion.
Individual B: You are free to check through different medical journals published by respected researchers.
Individual A: Are the authors’ medical experts or general practitioners?
Individual B: I can tell, but being renowned researchers, I have no reason to doubt that.
The example uses the fallacy when the second individual believes on the acceptability of abortion because of the trust he has on the authors of the journals. The example can be made more logical through individual B producing evidence about his stand on the issue instead of basing only on his belief.
Example 2
I am not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting; effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.
Since he plays the role of a doctor on hit series, then he believes that if one needs fast acting the best painkiller is MorphiDope 2000. The example can be made logical through provision of more facts certifying the effectiveness of the drug.
Appeal to the people
Appeal to the people, also referred to as argumentum ad populum The fallacy propagates that an argument that qualifies to be considered a logical fallacy is one that is based on numerous widespread not only opinions, but also values and prejudices and is in most cases delivered in a way that is emotionally charged. The fallacy makes attempts to winning popular assent to a conclusion through arousal of feelings and enthusiasms of the whole multitude. The fallacy has several variations but the two popular ones are Snob Appeal and Bandwagon. In Snob Appeal, the fallacy makes attempts to proving a given conclusion through appealing to what an elite or a select few believe or think. Bandwagon on the other hand attempts to prove that a conclusion on the ground purporting most if not all people think or believe that it is true.
Example 1
It is well recognized by most persons that the present technological revolution has affected the ethical basis of the nation's institution of education. Since this belief is so widely held, there can be little doubt of its accuracy.
The example applies the fallacy when little doubt is given to the accuracy of the belief since it has been widely held so. The example can be made more logical through the introduction of more evidence to prove the same.
Example 2
"To his dying day, Governor Marvin Mandel will never understand what was wrong in accepting more that $350,000 worth of gifts from wealthy friends who happened to engage in business ventures that benefited from his gubernatorial influence. The governor has lots of company ... And to a man they have cried in bewilderment that "everybody does it,' that politics survives on back scratching." New York Times, Aug. 5, 1977, 1-A
The fallacy is applied where the governor fails to understand the problem of back scratching. The example can be made logical through deducing the effects or side effects associated with the vice.
Appeal to tradition (Argumentum ad antiquitatem)
The fallacy can also be referred to as common practice, proof from tradition or traditional wisdom. The fallacy is mainly based on the use of historical preferences of a given group of people or tradition either as the specific historical preference of a given individual or in general as evidence of a given historical preference being correct. It is based on the fact that traditions are always passed down from one generation to another with lack of any other explanation other than the way it has always been done which in the real sense is not reason but an absence of reason. It takes the form that since X is old or traditional, them X is either correct or better.
Example 1: A conversation between Dave and Kaitlin
Dave: for a period of over five generations, all the men in our family went to university to study medicine and consequently became doctors. On the other hand, the women got married raising children there after. It is there mandatory that I become a doctor.
Kaitlin: Do you aspirations of becoming a doctor?
Dave: That does not matter because this is the tradition of our family. Who am I to break it?
The fallacy is applied at the instance where Dave believes on the traditions without even giving it his own thought. The example can be made logical if Dave introduces his own tradition.
Example 2
Since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, this therefore forms a background for not allowing gay marriages.
The fallacy is evident where gay marriages are disallowed based on the fact that traditionally it was between man and woman. The example can be made logical through deducing independent reason behind the rejection.
The appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad I gnorantiam)
An argument from the perspective of ignorance is mostly characterized and is at times persuasive despite being normally fallacious. In the case of the fallacy, the proposition is always true mainly due the fact that it has been proved to be true. The error in reasoning is in most cases expressed with influential rhetoric. The informal structure of the fallacy is based on two basic patterns. If the statement say A is unproved, then it implies that Not-A is true while on the other hand if statement Not-A is unproved, then A is true. In the existence of positive evidence for the conclusion, there exist other reasons for accepting the proposition while the absence of evidence in itself is no evidence.
Example 1: An argument between Johnson and Hanson
Johnson: it does not make sense to spend on sending more men to the moon since the money spent could be better spent through offering help to the poor.
Hanson: I don’t believe it is impractical in any way
Johnson: why would you say that?
Hanson: Do you have any proof to imply that I am wrong?
The defense of Hanson is made through an ad ignorantiam which implies the claim can only be true if Johnson cannot refute him. The example can be made logical through provision of proof on either side.
Example 2
[Joe McCarthy] announced that he had penetrated "Truman's iron curtain of secrecy" and that he proposed forthwith to present 81 cases… Cases of exactly what? "I am only giving the Senate," he said, "cases in which it is clear there is a definite Communist connection…persons whom I consider to be Communists in the State Department." … Of Case 40, he said, "I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency…that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections."
Source: Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960), pp. 106-1
The fallacy is evident where he states that I he does not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency. The example could be made logical through deductions more evidence that inform the decision.
Appeal to fear
Appeal to fear may also be referred to as argumentum in terrorem, arguementum ad metum, argument from adverse consequences. The fallacy applies to situations when fear that is not based on any evidence or any given reason is used as the main motivator to make others accept an idea, a proposition or conclusion. The logical form of the fallacy is that if one does not accept a given position; say X as being true, then something bad might happen to the individual. Hence, the given position must be true. It is therefore important that one distinguishes a rational reason in order to believe something and consequently a prudent reason to believe something. Hence, rational reason to believe provides the evidence upon which objective and rational supports the given claim. Hence it provides a reason as to why one should accept the belief since some external factors like fear, threat or benefit that arises from the belief.
Example 1: A conversation on religion
Timmy: Mom, is there anything if I do not believe in God?
Mom: yes, you will burn and rot in hell forever. If I may ask inquire, why do you ask?
Timmy: No big reason.
The fallacy is evident when he is warned about burning in hell forever. This could be made logical if the Mom inquires the probable reasons behind Timmy’s decision.
Example 2:
The government needs to bail out the big but declining automakers. If they don’t, the economy will collapse. We therefore need to bail out it is postulated that economy would collapse if the declining automakers are not bailed out. It can be made logical when evidence is deduced as to why the reason was come up with.