vidence each of Œ:7

ument is often a
Fallacies of Argument
nly with digging
rìth creating and
t help you figure
.airn.
a brief proposal
rrsue. The claim
ng x in Jive years
n ahead of time,
~ interview (writ-
. Then interview
.k the same first
:t nine questions.

'hich one helped

one better helped

ke a class with a
is a good teacher.
~ vaguely defined
f that evidence is
n and then decide
,n.
1 and make notes "Just what you'd expect an eco-alarmist like that to say."
'~ in this chapter
·o take the notes, "Jf you don't give me an A in this class, i won't get into medical school!"
;rough evaluation
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
ng abilities on _the
,f your evaluat:10~-
night you need if
the class and the my friends have iPhones."
1s of local files of · ~11 changed everything."
es, and so on.7
s CONVENTIONS OF ARGUMENT
of them as flashpoints or hotspots because they instantly raise questions
about the ethics of argument-that is, whether a particular strategy of
argument is fair, honest, or p~d. You should avoid fallacies in your
own writing and challenge them in arguments that you hear or read. But
it's important to appreciate that one person's fallacy may well be an-
other person's perceptive insight.
Consider, for example, the fallacy termed ad hominem ("to the man")
argument. It describes a strategy of attacking the character of people
that you disagree with rather than the substance of their arguments: So
you think that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a racist, a radical, and an unti-
Semite? Well, you're just a white-bread, redneck bigot yourself. Many people
have blurted out such insults at some time in their lives and later regret-
ted them.
In some situations, however, a person's moral fiber actually is central
to an argument. The problem arises in deciding when such arguments
are legitimate and when they are fallacious. You're very likely to think of
personal attacks on people that you admire as ad hominem slurs and
those on people that you disagree with as reasonable criticiä_ms. i:s you
can imagine, debates about character can become polarizing. Consider
50 Cent and Kanye West or maybe MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and all the
people that he labels as "the worst person in the world." (For more on
arguments based on character, see Chapter 3.) · scared often act irrationally. Even well-intended fear
Sometimes fallacies are errors that you can detect and expose in
someone else's work, but often they are strategies that hurt everyone
(including the person using them) because they make productive argu-
ment more difficult. Fallacies muck up the frank but civil conversations
that people should be able to have-regardless of their differences.
To help you understand fallacies of argument, we've classified them
according to three rhetorical appeals discussed in earlier chapters-
emotional arguments, ethical arguments, and logical arguments (see
Chapters 2, 3, and 4).
President George W Bush offered in an August 20, 2005, r
the nation:
Fallacies of Emotional Argument
Emotional arguments can be powerful and suitable in many circum-
stances, and most writers use them frequently. However, writers who
pull on their readers' heartstrings or raise their blood pressure too often
can violate the good faith on which legitimate argument depends,
CH A PTE R 1 7 FALLACIES I
Readers won't trust a writer who can't make a poir
someone, provoking tears, or stirring up hatred.
Scare Tactics
Scare tactics are common in everything ranging frc
ance to threats of audits by the Internal Revenue
advertisers, and public figures sometimes peddle tl-
people and exaggerating possible dangers well bey,
likelihood. Such ploys work because it's usually easì,
thing terrible happening than to appreciate its statis
many people fear flying more than they fear drivin
from auto accidents every year, but such accident.
imaginations as spectacularly as air disasters do.
Scare tactics can also be used to stampede legitimé
or prejudice. People who genuinely fear losing their job
to fear that immigrants might work for less money. Pee
on fixed incomes can be convinced that minor modifi
ment programs represent dire threats to their standé
tactics have the effect of closing off thinking beca us
those directed against the use of illegal drugs, smokin
sex-can misfire if their warnings prove too shrill.
listening.
Either-Or Choices
One way to simplify arguments and give them power
options for action to only two choices. One option (or the
ing policy) might be drawn in warm, favorable terms, w}
is cast as a dangerous alternative. That's the nature oft
Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanisté
where to protect their fellow Americans from a savage 1
know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we
face them one day in our own cities and streets, and the:
the safety and security of every American is at stake in tl
they know we will prevail.
rlONS OF ARGUMENT
oints or hotspots because they instantly raise questions
of argument-that is, whether a particular strategy of
honest, or p~d. You should avoid fallacies in your
:Fi'"allenge them in arguments that you hear or read. But
appreciate that one person's fallacy may well be an-
rceptive insight.
xample, the fallacy termed ad hominem ("to the man")
:ribes a strategy of attacking the character of people
with rather than the substance of their arguments: So
erend Jeremiah Wright is a racist, a radical, and an anti-
e just a white-bread, redneck bigot yourself Many people
uch insults at some time in their lives and later regret-
ons, however, a person's moral fiber actually is central
"he problem arises in deciding when such arguments
when they are fallacious. You're very likely to think of
on people that yap 8.dmire as ad hominem slurs and
la! yg.,i disagree wifu as reasonable criti~ms~ you
tes about character can become polarizing. Consider
West or maybe MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and all the
.els as "the worst person in the world." (For more on
>n character, see Chapter 3.)
acies are errors that you can detect and expose in
irk, but often they are strategies that hurt everyone
ion using them) because they make productive argu-
t. Fallacies muck up the frank but civil conversations
be able to have-regardless of their differences.
[erstand fallacies of argument, we've classified them
rhetorical appeals discussed in earlier chapters-
nts, ethical arguments, and logical arguments (see.
L).
rtional Argument
nts can be powerful and suitable in many circum-
writers use them frequently. However, writers who
s' heartstrings or raise their blood pressure too often
od faith on which legitimate argument depends.
CH A PTE R 1 7 FALLACIES OF ARGUMENT @)
Readers won't trust a writer who can't make a point without frightening
someone, provoking tears, or stirring up hatred.
Scare Tactics
Scare tactics are common in everything ranging from ads for life insur- The Privacy Commissioner of
ance to threats of audits by the Internal Revenue Service. Politicians, Canada offers a warning about the
advertisers, and public figures sometimes peddle their ideas by scaring dangers of entering personal
people and exaggerating possible dangers well beyond their statistical information online. What is your
likelihood. Such ploys work because it's usually easier to imagine some- assessment of the warning? Does it
thing terrible happening than to appreciate its statistical rarity. Why do verge on scare tactics or address the
many people fear flying more than they fear driving? More people die issue responsibly?
from auto accidents every year, but such accidents don't fire up our LINK TO P. 669
imaginations as spectacularly as air disasters do.
Scare tactics can also be used to stampede legitimate fears into panic
or prejudice. People who genuinely fear losing their jobs can be persuaded
to fear that immigrants might work for less money. People who are living
on fixed incomes can be convinced that minor modifications of entitle-
ment programs represent dire threats to their standard of living. Such
tactics have the effect of closing off thinking because people who are
scared often act irrationally. Even well-intended fear campaigns-like
those directed against the use of illegal drugs, smoking, or unprotected
sex-can misfire if their warnings prove too shrill. People just stop
listening.
Either-Or Choices
One way to simplify arguments and give them power is to reduce the
options for action to only two choices. One option (or the preferred exist-
ing policy} might be drawn in warm, favorable terms, whereas the other
is cast as a dangerous alternative. That's the nature of the choices that
President George W. Bush offered in an August 20, 2005, radio address to
the nation:
Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and else-
where to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy. They
know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to
face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that
the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and
they know we will prevail.
I
I~ I
;¡
I
 @) CONVENTIONS OF ARGUMENT

The parental ultimatum-a classic form of the either-or argument

ro~
I',¡

i
/I ,.
,.....

;¡
l

/ 5/.PtU.. ~S

'They say we can go therefar Thanksgiving or

they can cut us out ofthe will. Our choice."
© The New Yorker Collection 2001 David Sipress from cartoonbank.com. All rights reserved.

Sometimes neither alternative is pleasant: that's the nature of many Not Just Words
•. 1 ultimatums. For instance, the Allies in World War II offered the Axis pow-
I
ers only two choices as the conflict drew to a close-either continued
war and destruction or unconditional surrender. No third option was Look at the advertisement above. Is it a scar~ 1
available. warning? Somethirtg in between? How effectiJ
Either-or choices can be well-intentioned strategies to get something ad would be for college students or for people
accomplished. Parents use them all the time ("Eat your broccoli, or you or might be tempted to? What effect does thi
won't get dessert"). But they become fallacious arguments when they right-hand comer have on your answers to thel
reduce a complicated issue to excessively simple terms or when they're about the text at the bottom? Do graphic irti
designed to obscure legitimate alternatives. sponsor labels like "Partnership for a Drug- F
For instance, to suggest that renewable power sources such as wind the campaign against marijuana and other j
and solar represent the only long-term solution to our energy needs may effective-or less so? How does this ad compare'
have rhetorical power, but the choice is too simple. Energy shortages can drunk driving on p. 104?
be fixed in any number of ways, including wind and solar power. But to
 CHAPTER 17 FALLACIESOFARGU

@ CONVENTIONS OF ARGUMENT

marriage to having sex with penguins outside JC Penney'!

promote such renewable resources as the only reasonable option risks lem is it's virtually impossible to debate against a slippery
losing the support of people who know better. -Dahlia Lithwick, "SI
But either-or arguments-like most scare tactics-are often purpose-
Ideas and actions do have consequences, but they aren't :
fully designed to seduce those who don't know much about a subject.
as writers fond of slippery-slope tactics would have you be
That's another reason that the tactic violates principles of civil discourse.
Argument should enlighten people by making them more knowledge-
able and more capable of acting intelligently and independently. We Sentimental Appeals
Il usually don't have to choose one side over the other. Here, Paris Hilton
pokes fun at opposing political camps for debating energy issues in Sentimental appeals are arguments that use tender emotio
either-or terms by offering her own alternative: to distract readers from facts. Often, such appeals are hi

Ok, so here's my energy policy. Barack wants to focus on new tech-

nologies to cut foreign oil dependency and McCain wants offshore
i drilling. Well, why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates' ideas? We
can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, WORLD WILDLIFE FUN
while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric 2009 CALENDAR
cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technolo-
gies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence.
I
'i
Energy crisis solved.
-Paris Hilton, funnyordie.com
BabyAnir
l
! Slippery Slope
The slippery-slope fallacy describes an argument that portrays today's
tiny misstep as tomorrow's slide into disaster. Some arguments that aim
at preventing dire consequences do not take the slippery-slope approach
(for example, the parent who corrects a child for misbehavior now is act-
ing sensibly to prevent more serious problems as the child grows older).
., I A slippery-slope argument becomes wrongheaded when a writer exag-
!: gerates the likely consequences of an action, usually to frighten readers.
As such, slippery-slope arguments are also scare tactics. For instance,
defenders of civil liberties often depict any action by Western democra-
cies to use eavesdropping technologies domestically to track terrorists
as assaults on freedom of speech reminiscent of those of the KGB.
In recent years, the issue of same-sex marriage has similarly encour-
aged slippery-slope arguments:
This calendar is designed to elicit sympathy for the penguins on i1
Anyone else bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against and inspire donations to the wildlife organization that protects ti
gay marriage? Since few opponents of homosexual unions are brave sometimes sentimental images of threatened species are attachec
enough to admit that gay weddings just freak them out, they hide less worthy sales pitches-for soda or camping gear, for example.
behind the claim that it's an inexorable slide from legalizing gay
 VENTIONS OF ARGUMENT
CH A PT ER 1 7 FALLACIES OF ARGUMENT
8
marriage to having sex with penguins outside JC Penney's. The prob-
h renewable resources as the only reasonable option risks
lem is it's virtually impossible to debate against a slippery slope.
pport of people who know better.
-Dahlia Lithwick, "Slippery Slop"
or arguments-like most scare tactics-are often purpose-
d to seduce those who don't know much about a subject. Ideas and actions do have consequences, but they aren't always as dire
!r reason that the tactic violates principles of civil discourse . as writers fond of slippery-slope tactics would have you believe.
.ould enlighten people by making them more knowledge-
re capable of acting intelligently and independently. We
have to choose one side over the other. Here, Paris Hilton Sentimental Appeals
opposing political camps for debating energy issues in Sentimental appeals are arguments that use tender emotions excessively
; by offering her own alternative: to distract readers from facts. Often, such appeals are highly personal
!'s my energy policy. Barack wants to focus on new tech-
' cut foreign oil dependency and McCain wants offshore
U, why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates' ideas? We
.ted offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight,
.ng tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric çij
2009 CALENDAR wwi
ray, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technolo-
which will then create new jobs and energy independence.
s solved.

:e
-Paris Hilton, funnyordie.com
Baby Animals
rlope fallacy describes an argument that portrays today's
s tomorrow's slide into disaster. Some arguments that aim
iire consequences do not take the slippery-slope approach
he parent who corrects a child for misbehavior now is act-
prevent more serious problems as the child grows older).
1 Je argument becomes wrongheaded when a writer exag-
sly consequences of an action, usually to frighten readers.
ery-slops arguments are also scare tactics. For instance,
ivil liberties often depict any action by Western democra-
·esdropping technologies domestically to track terrorists
freedom of speech reminiscent of those of the KGB.
ars, the issue of same-sex marriage has similarly encour-
.lope arguments:

bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against
!? Since few opponents of homosexual unions are brave
drnit that gay weddings just freak them out, they hide
,, .lairn that it's an inexorable slide from legalizing gay
This calendar is designed to elicit sympathy for the penguins on its cover
and inspire donations to the wildlife organization that protects them. But
sometimes sentimental images of threatened species are attached to much
less worthy sales pitches-for soda or camping gear, for example.