Sayed 1

Appeals

Nonrational Appeals:

 Writers seeking to persuade by means of ridicule often use verbal irony. Irony of this sort
contrasts what is said and what is meant. Consider the following statement: “The answer
to this problem is as clear as dirt for me.”

 When used in a more contrived and heavy-handed manner, such language is called
sarcasm. Consider the following statement: “Thanks a lot,” to someone who will not lend
the speaker five dirhams. If it is witty, that is, if the jeering is in some degree clever, it is
called irony rather than sarcasm.

 Pathos comes from the Greek word “emotion” or “suffering.” Writers use this appeal to
stir emotions within the given audience. There is nothing inherently wrong in stimulating
the audience’s emotions, but when an emotional appeal confuses the issue that is being
argued about or shifts the attention away from the facts of the issue, it can reasonably be
said that the writer is using the fallacy of emotional appeal. There is no fallacy involved
when an emotional appeal heightens the facts, bringing them home to the audience rather
than masking them. If we are talking about Animal Rights, it is legitimate to show
pictures of abused animals. When using pathos, remember not to: (1) falsify (especially
by oversimplifying) the issue and (2) distract attention from the facts of the case.

Rational Appeals:

 Logos means logic, and refers to any attempt to appeal to the intellect. Examples include,
but are not limited to: theoretical/abstract language, denotative meanings/reasons,
deductive reasoning, literal and historical analogies, definitions, factual data and
statistics, citations from experts and authorities, and informed opinions.
 Ethos, in English, means ethics and refers to the trustworthiness of the
speaker/writer. Ethos is an effective persuasive strategy because when we believe that the
speaker does not intend to do us harm, we are more willing to listen to what he or she has
to say. For example, when a trusted doctor gives you advice, you may not understand all
of the medical reasoning behind the advice, but you nonetheless follow the directions
because you believe that the doctor knows what he or she is talking about. Likewise,
when a judge comments on legal precedent, audiences tend to listen because it is the job
of a judge to know the nature of past legal cases. Ethos is often seen in advertisements,
where a consumer will purchase a specific product because a famous person is endorsing
it.
 Sayed 2

Fallacies

“The straight road on which sound reasoning proceeds gives little latitude for cruising about.”
(Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau)

 Fallacies: Types of errors, mistakes, and confusions in oral and written discourse in
which reasoning goes awry.

Formal vs. Informal Fallacies

 A formal fallacy is a defect in the form of an argument which renders the

argument invalid. This is because there is a flaw in the logical structure of the argument.
A valid argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An
invalid argument, or formal fallacy, is one in which the conclusion does not always
follow from the premises.

Example:
 Premise 1: If someone is allergic to peanuts, then he does not eat peanuts.
 Premise 2: Ali does not eat peanuts.
 Conclusion: Therefore, Ali is allergic to peanuts.

 An informal fallacy is a defect in the content of an argument. It may have a valid logical
form but be false because of the characteristics of its premises.

Example:
 Premise 1: Normally, birds can fly.
 Premise 2: Laila, the penguin, is a bird.
 Conclusion: Laila can fly.

The following is a list of the most common types of fallacies:

 Ambiguity: A group of words that gives rise to more than one possible interpretation,
confusing the reader and (presumably) frustrating the writer’s intentions.

Example: “Old Calf Pasture”

 A pasture in former times in which calves grazed?

 A pasture now in use for old calves?
 A formerly existing pasture for old calves?
 Sayed 3

 Red Herring: A red herring is an irrelevant issue intended to distract readers from the
relevant issues. The writer changes the subject rather than pursuing the argument.

 Example: I know your car isn’t working right. However, if you had gone to the
mall one day earlier, you would not be having problems.

 Telling the person with the broken car that he or she should have gone to the
mall one day earlier has nothing to do with the fact that the car is not working.
The issue is the car, not shopping at the mall.

 The Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted
or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

 Example: Capital punishment arose in barbarous times; but we claim to be

civilized; therefore, we should discard this relic of the past.

 The circumstance under which something originates usually plays no role

whatsoever in its validity.

 Appeal to Authority: Agreeing with someone because they are an authority. Sometimes
the appeal to authority is fallacious because the authoritative person is not an expert on
the issue in dispute.

 Example: Just because a high-energy physicist has won the Nobel Prize does
not mean that any special weight should be attached to her views on the causes
of cancer, the reduction of traffic accidents, or the legalization of marijuana.

 Ad Hominem: Latin for “against the person.” The temptation to attack an argument or
theory by trying to impeach or undercut the credentials of its advocates; the
speaker/writer attacks the person rather than the argument.

 Example: Sam thinks that prayer should not be allowed in public schools. Sarah
responds by pointing out that Sam has twice been convicted of assaulting clergy
members. Sam’s behavior is reprehensible, but the issue is not Sam, it is prayer
in school. Sam’s argument, not his police record or character, must be
scrutinized.
 Sayed 4

 Appeal to the Reader’s Fear or Pity: Appealing to the reader’s emotion is fallacious if
it is used as a substitution for facts, examples, and other evidence.

 Example: She should not have to pay taxes because she is an aged widow with
no friends or relatives.

 The above example appeals to people’s sense of pity. Should age and
loneliness, rather than income, determine a person’s tax obligation?

 Snob Appeal: Inviting readers to accept an assertion to be identified with others they
admire.

 Example: Justin Bieber has an account at Sharjah Islamic Bank and so should
you.

 A celebrity’s endorsement does not guarantee the worth of a product, a service,

an idea, or anything else.

 Bandwagon Approach: Invites readers to accept an assertion because everybody else

does.

 Example: Halima thinks that women are good drivers. Her classmates,
including a boy she really likes, tell her that women are horrible drivers. She
accepts their point of view because she wants to avoid rejection.

 Oversimplification: To conceal or ignore complexities in a vain attempt to create a

neater, more convincing argument than reality allows; oversimplifying the truth.

 Example: “Poverty causes crime”; “Truth is stranger than fiction”; “Taxation is

unfair.”

 These are examples of generalizations that exaggerate and therefore

oversimplify the truth. Poverty can’t be the sole cause of crime because many
poor people do not break the law. Some true stories do amaze us as much or
more than some fictional stories, but the reverse is true, too. Some taxes may be
fairly high, others fairly low.
 Sayed 5

 False Dichotomy: Sometimes oversimplification takes a more complex form, in which

contrary possibilities are wrongly presented as though they were exhaustive and
exclusive. A favorite of debaters, either/or reasoning, always runs the risk of ignoring a
third (or fourth) possibility.

 Example: “Either we get tough with drug users, or we must surrender and
legalize all drugs.”

 Really? What about doing neither, and instead offering education and
counseling, detoxification programs, and incentives to “say no?”

 Hasty Generalization: The precipitous move from true assertions about one or a few
instances to dubious or even false assertions about all. A hasty generalization usually
exists behind a stereotype—that is, a person or event treated as typical of a whole class.

 Example: “Divorce is rampant in America, Aisha. I heard that 50% of marriages

end in divorce within three years. So, I've decided not to marry you because the
odds are against us.”

 Fallacy of Division: To argue from a property of a group to a property of a member of

that group.

 Example: If it is true that the average American family has 1.8 children, does it
follow that your brother and sister-in-law are likely to have 1.8 children?

 The Slippery Slope: The fallacy here is in implying that the first step necessarily leads to
the second, and so on down the slope of disaster, when in fact there is no necessary slide
from the first step to the second.

 Example: Automobiles cause more deaths than handguns do. If you oppose
handguns on the ground that doing so would save lives of the innocent, you will
soon find yourself wanting to outlaw the automobile.
 Sayed 6

 False Analogy: Drawing a comparison between two things that differ in an essential and
relevant respect.

 Example: There is no crime in committing suicide because it would be no crime

to divert the Nile River from its course. Where, then, is the crime of turning a
few ounces of blood from their natural channel? (David Hume)

 Obviously, in many respects, suicide and the Nile River cannot be compared.
“Isn’t it obvious that the Nile, whatever its exact course, would continue to
nourish Egypt, whereas the blood flowing out of someone’s veins will soon
leave that person dead” (p. 360)? The comparison of water and blood is
completely irrelevant.

 Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: To ground a claim about causation on an observed
temporal sequence; that is, to argue “after this, therefore, because of this” (Latin). The
claim that A causes B is not the same as the claim that B comes after A. The speaker
wrongly assumes that the first event caused the second.

 Example: Mohammed had been poorly performing this season during his
football matches. His friend, Omar, gave him neon pink shoelaces and he
started winning. Mohammed concludes that the laces are good luck, and if he
keeps wearing them, he will win.

 With Post Hoc fallacy, there is no causal connection between A and B because
adequate evidence has not been provided for a claim that A causes B. In the
example above, there may be another reason why Mohammed is now winning
this season (i.e., he started practicing more).