+

Critically Evaluating Arguments:

Fallacies & Bias
Daidrah Telfer, PhD 1

School of Humanities & Social Sciences

+ Lecture Guide 2

1. Recap: Requirements of a critical

review; types of evidence

2. Evaluation of evidence

3. Analysis of the Argument:

- Validity/Logic
- Fallacies and invalid arguments

D. Smith
+ 3

The Lecture Objectives

LECTURE OBJECTIVES

At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:

1. Evaluate different types of evidence
2. Explain some of the common fallacies
3. Avoid fallacies in argumentation
4. Evaluate different types of argument

D. Smith
+ Some types of Evidence 4

 Statistics
– gives numerical information about
a subject/issue;

 Expertopinion – evidence offered by an

expert in the field. Can be a type of
testimonial evidence; for e.g., when used in
the courtroom.

D. Smith
+ Some types of Evidence 5

 Anecdotal evidence – evidence that is not as a result of

scientific research but based on personal observations.
For e.g. anecdotes - a brief story told by an individual
about a personal experience – is a common type of
evidence used.
 Anecdotal evidence can also be based on hearsay rather
than hard facts.

D. Smith
+ Some types of Evidence 6

 Testimonials: (an anecdote that describes the supposed

merits of a product or service; a persons’ testimony offered
to prove the truth of the matter asserted; statements of
victims or witnesses)
 Examples

 Hypothetical situations
 Analogical Evidence
 Documentary Evidence
 Hard evidence versus soft evidence
D. Smith
+ Analysing Evidence
In order to analyse evidence you have to:

1. identify the claim (the point the author is trying to prove;

2. identify the evidence (the specific facts the author gives to
support the claim);
3. explain why the author uses this evidence/how the
evidence is supposed to relate to the claim.

Once you understand the link between claims and evidence, you
are better able to evaluate the argument

7 D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence
 Credibility/Reliability- Is the evidence true, real,
honest, trustworthy, convincing or believable? Can you
verify where the evidence comes from?

 Who is the author? What are the author's credentials

(educational background, past writing, experience) in
this area? Have you seen the author's name cited in other
sources or bibliographies?

8 D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence
Credibility/Reliability: Authority
Is the content a first-hand account or is it being
retold? Primary sources are the raw material of
the research process; secondary sources are
based on primary sources.

Who published the source? Is it a university

press or a large reputable publisher? Is it from a
government agency? Is the source self-
published? What is the purpose of the
publication?
9 D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence
Credibility/Reliability: Authority
Where does the information in the source come
from? Does the information appear to be valid
and well-researched, or is it questionable and
unsupported by evidence? Is there a list of
references or works cited? What is the quality of
these references?

10 D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence
 Currency- is the evidence up-to-date? Does it
still apply to the time the article is written? Is
information provided by the author that allows
you to assess the currency of the evidence?

 Beguided by the 5 year time span used in the

Social Sciences to determine currency.
 Anyevidence within 5 years of the publication
date of the article is considered current.

11 D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence

Currency cont’d
 Evidenceoutside of that time span has to be
considered on a case by case basis.
 A distinction needs to be made between
currency of the evidence and currency of the
issue.

12 D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence
 Relevance – Is the evidence definitely
related /appropriately linked to the claims
made by the author?

Is it really about the claim the author wants to

prove, or did they go off on a tangent,
providing facts that do not have anything to
do with the claim?

D. Smith

13
+ Evaluating Evidence
 Sufficiency - Is there enough evidence to
convince you? Do you need more evidence
to feel convinced? “Generally speaking, of
course, more evidence is better, and more
types of evidence are better.”

D. Smith

14
+ Evaluating Arguments 15

Validity:

Validityis a property of the argument's form. It doesn't matter what

the premises and the conclusion actually say. It just matters whether
the argument has the right form.

So, inparticular, a valid argument need not have true premises, nor
need it have a true conclusion. The following is a valid argument:

All cats are reptiles.

Bugs Bunny is a cat.

So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.

2/27/2020
+ Evaluating Arguments 16

Logic:

The principles of correct reasoning.

Determining whether an argument makes sense or not.

A logical argument is one in which the conclusion follows directly

from/organically linked to the premises and underlying
assumptions.

2/27/2020
+ Evaluating Arguments 17

Fallacies:

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments/errors in

argumentation that undermine the logic.

Logical fallacies: an argument with poor reasoning

Logical fallacies:

Formal - an error in a logical form of an argument.

Informal: while it is logically valid, its technical structure

(content such as words used) is misleading or unclear which
makes the argument fallacious.
2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 18

Source: The Writing Centre, UNC-Chapel Hill. (2012). Retrieved from

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/

Hasty generalization

Making assumptions about a whole group or range of

cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because
it is atypical or too small).

Stereotypes about people (“librarians are shy and smart,”

“wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a common example of the
principle underlying hasty generalization.

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 19

Example: “My roommate said her philosophy class

was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too. All philosophy
classes must be hard!”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 20

Post hoc (ergo propter hoc) - false/faulty cause

Literal translation - “after this, therefore because of

this.”

Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.

Sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t
really related as cause and event. That is, correlation
isn’t the same thing as causation.

Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the

rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for
the rise in crime.”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 21

Slippery slope (catastrophic consequences)

The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually

ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but
there’s really not enough evidence for that assumption.

The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto

the “slippery slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to
the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop partway
down the hill.

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 22

Slippery slope (catastrophic consequences)

Example: “Animal experimentation reduces our

respect for life. If we don’t respect life, we are likely to
be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and
murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in
which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be
the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible
consequence, we should make animal experimentation
illegal right now.”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 23

Weak/Faulty analogy

If the two things that are being compared aren’t really
alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one,
and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of
weak analogy.

Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both

tools with metal parts that could be used to kill
someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the
purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing
guns are equally ridiculous.”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 24

Appeal to authority

If we try to get readers to agree with us simply by

impressing them with a famous name or by appealing
to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an
expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many

respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have
publicly stated their opposition to it.”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 25

Ad populum - Literal meaning -“to the people.” (using

something they value

 There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but

in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire
most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and
uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or
her argument.

One of the most common versions is the bandwagon

fallacy/appeal, in which the arguer tries to convince the
audience to do or believe something because everyone
else (supposedly) does.

Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of

Americans think so!”
2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 26

 Ad hominem and tu quoque

 Likethe appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies,

the ad hominem (“against the person”) fallacy focus
our attention on people rather than on arguments or
evidence.

 The arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of

the opponent’s argument.

 Theconclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-

and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-
and-So is that So-and-So is a bad person.

 Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several

books arguing that pornography harms women. But
Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we
listen to her?” 2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 27

Appeal to pity

The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries

to get people to accept a conclusion by making them
feel sorry for someone.

Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on

performance, but you should give me an A. My cat
has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a
cold, so it was really hard for me to study!”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 28

Straw man

Inthe straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak

version of the opponent’s position and tries to score
points by knocking it down. But just as being able to
knock down a straw man (like a scarecrow) isn’t
very impressive, defeating a watered-down
version of your opponent’s argument isn’t very
impressive either.

Example: “Feminists want to ban all pornography

and punish everyone who looks at it! But such harsh
measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists
are wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace.”
2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 29

Red herring

Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on

a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the
audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the
arguer never returns to the original issue.

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be

the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more
smoothly when the students and the professor are
getting along well.” Let’s try our premise-conclusion
outlining to see what’s wrong with this argument:

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 30

False dichotomy (Either/or fallacy)

The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there

are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one
of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only
one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in
the first place.

Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we

tear it down and put up a new building, or we
continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we
shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the
building down.”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 31

Begging the question

Basically, anargument that begs the question asks

the reader to simply accept the conclusion without
providing real evidence.

One main type- the argument relies on a premise

that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you
might hear referred to as “being circular” or
“circular reasoning”).

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally

acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help
another human being escape suffering through
death.”

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 32

Non-Sequitur - Literal meaning – ‘It does not follow’

An argument in which the conclusion does not

follow from the premises, i.e., there is a flaw in the
logical structure of the argument.

Alsoknown as irrelevant reason and fallacy of the

consequent.

Examples: 'Slim, of medium height, and with sharp

features, Mr. Smith's technical skills are combined
with strong leadership qualities' (New York Times).
What, we might ask, do Mr. Smith's height and
features have to do with his leadership qualities? (Bill
Bryson)

2/27/2020
+ Types of fallacies 33

Equivocation

Slidingbetween two or more different meanings of a

single word or phrase that is important to the
argument.

Example: “Giving money to charity is the right

thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.”

The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right”

can mean both something that is correct or good (as
in “I got the right answers on the test”) and
something to which someone has a claim (as in
“everyone has a right to life”).

2/27/2020
 +
DETECTING BIAS

2/27/2020 34
+ Detecting bias 35

Bias

The tendency to favor a particular point of view and

to present that view instead of other equally valid
alternatives.

D. Smith
+ Detecting bias 36

Personal vs. professional bias

Bibliographical Information

Title of the Work

Presenting various points of view

Choice of evidence/examples

D. Smith
+ 37

The End

2/27/2020