Just Because Something Has Happened Doesntt Mean It Will Happen Again Fallacy

What this handout is virtually

This handout discusses common logical fallacies that y'all may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The handout provides definitions, examples, and tips on avoiding these fallacies.

Arguments

Virtually academic writing tasks require y'all to make an argument—that is, to nowadays reasons for a particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward. Y'all may have been told that you need to make your arguments more than logical or stronger. And yous may have worried that you simply aren't a logical person or wondered what it means for an argument to be strong. Learning to make the best arguments yous tin can is an ongoing process, but it isn't impossible: "Being logical" is something anyone can exercise, with practice.

Each statement you make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements that express your reasons or evidence) that are bundled in the right manner to support your conclusion (the main claim or interpretation yous are offering). You can make your arguments stronger by:

1. using good premises (ones y'all have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),
2. making certain your premises provide practiced support for your conclusion (and not some other conclusion, or no determination at all),
3. checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of the upshot (that is, that your bounds and determination focus on what is actually important to the upshot), and
4. not making claims that are and so strong or sweeping that you can't really back up them.

You also need to exist sure that you present all of your ideas in an orderly fashion that readers can follow. Run across our handouts on statement and organisation for some tips that will amend your arguments.

This handout describes some ways in which arguments often fail to do the things listed above; these failings are chosen fallacies. If you're having trouble developing your argument, check to come across if a fallacy is function of the problem.

It is particularly piece of cake to sideslip up and commit a fallacy when you accept strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you're more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your bear witness. To help you see how people normally make this mistake, this handout uses a number of controversial political examples—arguments about subjects like abortion, gun control, the death sentence, gay marriage, euthanasia, and pornography. The purpose of this handout, though, is not to argue for whatsoever particular position on any of these bug; rather, it is to illustrate weak reasoning, which can happen in pretty much any kind of argument. Please be aware that the claims in these examples are just made-upwards illustrations—they haven't been researched, and you shouldn't use them as evidence in your own writing.

What are fallacies?

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Past learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you tin can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments y'all make, read, and hear. Information technology is important to realize two things near fallacies: kickoff, fallacious arguments are very, very common and tin can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. You lot can find dozens of examples of beguiling reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. 2d, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An statement that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, and then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as beguiling or fallacy-gratuitous, merely to aid you await critically at your own arguments and move them abroad from the "weak" and toward the "strong" terminate of the continuum.

So what do fallacies expect similar?

For each fallacy listed, at that place is a definition or caption, an example, and a tip on how to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments.

Jerky generalization

Definition: Making assumptions about a whole grouping or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (commonly 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 jerky generalization.

Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be difficult!" Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Tip: Enquire yourself what kind of "sample" you're using: Are you relying on the opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your ain feel in just a few situations? If then, consider whether you need more than bear witness, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Discover that in the example, the more minor decision "Some philosophy classes are hard for some students" would non exist a hasty generalization.)

Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument exercise support a particular conclusion—simply not the determination that the arguer actually draws.

Case: "The seriousness of a punishment should friction match the seriousness of the criminal offence. Right now, the punishment for boozer driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious offense that can impale innocent people. And then the expiry penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving." The argument actually supports several conclusions—"The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious," in item—but it doesn't support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the bounds, enquire yourself what decision an objective person would achieve later reading them. Looking at your decision, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you've actually given that show. Missing the point frequently occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if y'all know you're claiming something big.

Post hoc (also chosen false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "mail hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates equally "later this, therefore because of this."

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes i consequence really does cause another 1 that comes later on—for example, if I annals for a class, and my proper name later appears on the scroll, it's true that the first effect acquired the one that came later. Simply sometimes ii 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 and then the charge per unit of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in criminal offense." The increase in taxes might or might non exist one gene in the rising crime rates, simply the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.

Tip: To avoid the mail hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to accept produced higher criminal offence rates. And that'south what yous should exercise to avert committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should accept something more to say about how A caused B than only that A came first and B came subsequently.

Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually catastrophe in some dire upshot, will take place, but there's really not enough prove for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we have even 1 step onto the "slippery slope," we will terminate up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't finish partway downwards the hill.

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 state of war and murder. Shortly our guild will get a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It volition exist the terminate of civilisation. To prevent this terrible consequence, nosotros should brand animal experimentation illegal right now." Since beast experimentation has been legal for some time and civilisation has not however concluded, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily have place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes the states more than tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And and so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to have the arguer's conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal correct now.

Like postal service hoc, glace slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of events really tin can exist predicted to follow from a certain action. Here's an example that doesn't seem beguiling: "If I fail English 101, I won't exist able to graduate. If I don't graduate, I probably won't be able to get a skillful job, and I may very well finish upward doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next twelvemonth."

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you lot say "if A, then B, and if B, then C," and then forth. Make certain these chains are reasonable.

Weak analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between 2 or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are beingness compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the illustration is a weak one, and the argument that relies on information technology commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: "Guns are like hammers—they're both tools with metal parts that could exist used to impale someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous." While guns and hammers exercise share certain features, these features (having metallic parts, being tools, and existence potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they tin easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

If you think nearly it, you tin can brand an illustration of some kind between nigh whatever two things in the world: "My paper is similar a mud pool because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when I'm stuck within) and they're both kind of murky." So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy betwixt two things doesn't prove much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare fetuses with adult human being beings, so argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an adult human being existence too violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are adept or not depends on the strength of the illustration: do developed humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights? If the holding that matters is having a man genetic code or the potential for a life total of man experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the statement and the illustration are strong; if the property is being cocky-aware, rational, or able to survive on one's own, adult humans and fetuses don't share it, and the illustration is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparison both share those properties.

Appeal to authority

Definition: Oftentimes nosotros add together forcefulness to our arguments past referring to respected sources or regime and explaining their positions on the issues nosotros're discussing. If, yet, we try to get readers to hold with u.s. only by impressing them with a famous proper 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 punishment. Many respected people, such every bit actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may exist an authority on matters having to do with acting, there'southward no particular reason why anyone should be moved past his political opinions—he is probably no more than of an authority on the capital punishment than the person writing the newspaper.

Tip: In that location are ii easy ways to avert committing appeal to potency: Offset, brand certain that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying "Dr. Authority believes X, then we should believe it, too," try to explicate the reasoning or bear witness that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person'due south reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

Ad populum

Definition: The Latin proper name of this fallacy ways "to the people." At that place are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire almost 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. 1 of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audition to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Example: "Gay marriages are merely immoral. 70% of Americans think and so!" While the opinion of well-nigh Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should accept, it certainly doesn't decide what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, merely their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to go united states of america to concur with the conclusion past highly-seasoned to our want to fit in with other Americans.

Tip: Make sure that y'all aren't recommending that your readers believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the absurd people believe information technology, people will like you better if y'all believe it, so along. Keep in mind that the pop opinion is not always the correct one.

Advert hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Similar the appeal to authority and advertizement populum fallacies, the advertizement hominem ("confronting the person") and tu quoque ("y'all, besides!") fallacies focus our attending on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is normally "You lot shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-And so is that So-and-And then is either a bad person (advertising hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

Examples: "Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. Just Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, and so why should nosotros listen to her?" Dworkin's advent and character, which the arguer has characterized and so ungenerously, have aught to exercise with the strength of her statement, and then using them as evidence is beguiling.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the affair he or she is arguing confronting, and so the opponent's argument shouldn't be listened to. Here'south an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn't smoke, and they've given a lot of adept reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and and so forth. You lot reply, "I won't accept your statement, because you used to smoke when you were my age. Yous did information technology, besides!" The fact that your parents have washed the affair they are condemning has no bearing on the bounds they put forwards in their statement (smoking harms your wellness and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.

Tip: Be certain to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal character. (The exception to this is, of grade, if yous are making an argument about someone's character—if your conclusion is "President Jones is an untrustworthy person," bounds nigh her untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

Entreatment to pity

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to become people to accept a conclusion past making them feel distressing for someone.

Examples: "I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should requite me an A. My cat has been sick, my car bankrupt downward, and I've had a cold, then information technology was really hard for me to study!" The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." Just the criteria for getting an A take to exercise with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants united states of america to accept (people who have a hard calendar week deserve A'southward) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant and might fifty-fifty go the audience to consider the determination—just the information isn't logically relevant, and and then the argument is fallacious. Here'south another example: "It'southward wrong to tax corporations—recollect of all the money they give to clemency, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!"

Tip: Make sure that you lot aren't merely trying to get your audience to agree with you lot by making them feel sorry for someone.

Entreatment to ignorance

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Wait, at that place'southward no conclusive show on the event at hand. Therefore, yous should have my determination on this result."

Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. Simply no one has withal been able to show it. Therefore, God does non exist." Here'due south an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: "People have been trying for years to prove that God does not be. But no one has yet been able to show it. Therefore, God exists." In each case, the arguer tries to employ the lack of testify as support for a positive merits near the truth of a conclusion. In that location is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: if qualified researchers accept used well-idea-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven't establish it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to exist able to find, so the fact that they oasis't institute it constitutes some evidence that it doesn't be.

Tip: Await closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and and so draw a conclusion from that lack of testify.

Harbinger man

Definition: One manner of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in accelerate to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets upwardly a weak version of the opponent'southward position and tries to score points past knocking it downward. Just just equally being able to knock downwardly a straw man (like a scarecrow) isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-downwards version of your opponent's statement 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, then the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans should exist left in peace." The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated. In fact, most feminists do non propose an outright "ban" on porn or any penalization for those who merely view information technology or approve of information technology; often, they propose some restrictions on particular things like child porn, or suggest to let people who are hurt past porn to sue publishers and producers—not viewers—for amercement. Then the arguer hasn't really scored any points; he or she has simply committed a fallacy.

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If y'all tin can knock down fifty-fifty the best version of an opponent's statement, and so yous've actually accomplished something.

Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side result that distracts the audition from what's actually at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original effect.

Case: "Grading this exam on a curve would exist the nigh fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Allow's try our premise-determination outlining to see what's incorrect with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more than smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this test on a bend would be the nearly fair thing to do.

When we lay information technology out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get forth doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes crave united states of america to practise things that cause conflict. But the audience may experience like the event of teachers and students agreeing is of import and exist distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given whatever evidence equally to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues exercise y'all see being raised in your argument? Tin you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

False dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets upwards the situation and so information technology looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, and then it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted the states to pick in the starting time place. Just often there are really many unlike options, non merely two—and if nosotros thought most them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear information technology downward and put upward a new building, or we go on to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't take a chance anyone's safe, so we must tear the building down." The statement neglects to mention the possibility that nosotros might repair the building or observe some manner to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, possibly we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.

Tip: Examine your own arguments: if y'all're saying that nosotros have to cull between simply 2 options, is that really so? Or are at that place other alternatives you haven't mentioned? If in that location are other alternatives, don't merely ignore them—explain why they, besides, should be ruled out. Although there's no formal name for it, assuming that there are only 3 options, four options, etc. when really in that location are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

Begging the question

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we've discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to but have the decision without providing existent evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the aforementioned thing as the determination (which yous might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or just ignores an important (merely questionable) supposition that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of full general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very expert reasons for a determination, simply that's non the meaning we're going to discuss here.

Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. Information technology is a decent, ethical thing to help another homo escape suffering through decease." Let'south lay this out in premise-conclusion form:

Premise: It is a decent, upstanding thing to assist another man escape suffering through expiry.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we "translate" the premise, we'll encounter that the arguer has really only said the aforementioned matter twice: "decent, upstanding" means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable," and "aid another human being escape suffering through expiry" ways something pretty similar to "active euthanasia." Then the premise basically says, "active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn't even so given us whatever existent reasons why euthanasia is adequate; instead, she has left u.s.a. asking "well, really, why do y'all think agile euthanasia is acceptable?" Her argument "begs" (that is, evades) the real question.

Hither's a 2d example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to make the statement valid is completely ignored: "Murder is morally wrong. So agile euthanasia is morally wrong." The premise that gets left out is "active euthanasia is murder." And that is a debatable premise—again, the argument "begs" or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we'll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, "Murder is morally wrong," and non notice what is being assumed.

Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a curt, outline-similar form. See if y'all notice any gaps, whatever steps that are required to motion from one premise to the adjacent or from the bounds to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would make full those gaps. If the statements are controversial and y'all've just glossed over them, y'all might be begging the question. Side by side, cheque to encounter whether any of your bounds basically says the aforementioned thing equally the conclusion (but in different words). If and so, you're probably begging the question. The moral of the story: you can't just assume or use every bit uncontroversial evidence the very thing y'all're trying to bear witness.

Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding betwixt two or more different meanings of a single discussion or phrase that is important to the statement.

Case: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities accept a right to our money." The equivocation here is on the discussion "correct": "right" tin 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 (every bit in "everyone has a right to life"). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words similar "freedom," "justice," "rights," and then forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either style, it's important that you lot use the chief terms of your statement consistently.

Tip: Identify the nigh important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than than one meaning. If they could, be certain y'all aren't slipping and sliding between those meanings.

So how do I find fallacies in my own writing?

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your ain arguments:

• Pretend y'all disagree with the determination you're defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to assault? Give special attending to strengthening those parts.
• Listing your primary points; under each ane, list the evidence y'all have for it. Seeing your claims and evidence laid out this style may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a detail claim, or it may help you expect more than critically at the prove you're using.
• Larn which types of fallacies you're especially prone to, and be conscientious to cheque for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authorization; others are more likely to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if at that place'due south a particular kind of fallacy you lot need to sentinel out for.
• Exist aware that broad claims demand more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like "all," "no," "none," "every," "always," "never," "no one," and "everyone" are sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more than proof than less-sweeping claims that utilise words like "some," "many," "few," "sometimes," "normally," and and so along.
• Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are accurate and fair.

Can I get some practice with this?

Yes, you can. Follow this link to see a sample argument that's total of fallacies (and then you lot can follow another link to get an caption of each ane). And so there'southward a more well-synthetic statement on the aforementioned topic.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is non a comprehensive list of resources on the handout'due south topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please exercise not use this list as a model for the format of your ain reference list, as it may not match the citation style y'all are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial. Nosotros revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Copi, Irving M., Carl Cohen, and Victor Rodych. 1998. Introduction to Logic. London: Pearson Education.

Hurley, Patrick J. 2000. A Curtailed Introduction to Logic, seventh ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 2016. Everything's an Argument, 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin'south.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs iv.0 License.
You lot may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the unabridged handout and attribute the source: The Writing Centre, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Brand a Gift

donnersearturefor.blogspot.com

Source: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

Share this post