Logical fallacy #10: The false analogy

"Comparing apples to oranges."

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. 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.” While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can 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 about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world. So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

Example: Pennélope writes, "This website is filled with different examples of the false analogy logical fallacy. Most of them are used in the media, in politics, and our daily life. Personally, I found it really helpful: https://biznewske.com/false-analogy-fallacy-examples/."

She also came up with the following analogy: "Airplanes are like boats. They both transport people from one piece of land to another." She notes, "This analogy is considered a logical fallacy because even though airplanes and boats are tranportation devices and are completely capable of transporting people from one piece of land to another, they have different mechanisms and methods to achieve their purpose."

 

In evaluating this and any other analogy, we can consider the following tip.

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

 

(Credit: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Thesis statements

 

A necessary element of an "argument" essay is, obviously, an argument. We might also call an argument a "thesis statement." We could even refer to it as your "main point." 

In a nutshell, thesis statements are statements about a text that are not obvious. They are things that you have to argue. You produce evidence to support your ideas as you try to convince your reader that your perspective is valid.

Whatever we call it, how do you come up with one?

Here are two strategies that I suggested in class. You can use these together or separately.

Bear in mind that as you write and revise, your argument will probably change somewhat. This is because you're figuring out what you think, refining your ideas, through the process of writing. This is part of what makes writing a dynamic process, and ideally enjoyable.

Strategy 1

1. After reading the text carefully, make a list of all the "concepts" or "keywords" you think it contains. 

Ask yourself, "What is this text about?" Your answers in a word or short phrase are the concepts and keywords. Examples from essays we have read recently might be "love," "anger," "self-discovery," "identity," and so on.

2. Combine these keywords in a sentence that describes the text you read.

3. Consider the sentence you wrote. Is it an argument? That is, does it make a statement that is not obvious and requires evidence of some kind to prove? Is it interesting to you? If not, keep working and refining your idea until you get a sentence you think is interesting and that qualifies as an argument.

4. Consider your argument. What do you need to prove in order to show your reader that your idea is valid?

5. Gather evidence from the text in the form of quotes that you think prove each element of your argument. 

6. Organize the quotes in an order and start writing your essay, moving from quote to quote, as if you were walking across a river on a path of stones, stopping to analyze each one.

Strategy 2

1. After reading the text carefully, Come up with a list of questions about the text. Your question should focus specifically on the text rather than on a general issue related to the text.

2. Choose the question that you find most interesting to investigate.

3. Develop an answer to that question. It should make a statement that is not obvious and requires evidence of some kind to prove. It should also be interesting to you. This will be your argument. You will refine it as you write.

4. Consider your argument. What do you need to prove in order to show your reader that your idea is valid?

5. Gather evidence from the text in the form of quotes that you think prove each element of your argument. 

6. Organize the quotes in an order and start writing your essay, moving from quote to quote, as if you were walking across a river on a path of stones, stopping to analyze each one.

Logical fallacy #9: Appeal to authority

When she was in fifth grade, my daughter Tallulah begged me for a pair of headphones with cat ears. I told her I thought the ones that she had were still perfectly good. She responds that they don’t work very well and she is sure the cat ear headphones will be MUCH better, because Ariana Grande had some.

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, 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 A: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Sean Penn, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” While Sean Penn may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

(Adapted from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Example B: Pennélope writes,

A slightly recent example of this fallacy is when many Republicans believed the 2020 elections were rigged because Donald Trump said so. The error here is accrediting Trump and only building up their arguments with his (erroneous) point of view. Trump is not a specialist in that department and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source. Also, in an argument citation shouldn't be the only concept you expose in argument. One must add proof, surveys, statistics, etc.  

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

 

(Credit: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Logical fallacy #8: The Straw Man

This is basically simplifying or changing someone’s argument in order to make it easier to attack. “But I never said that!” you might respond, when someone has just created a straw man.

A straw man fallacy is a kind of logical fallacy that occurs when a person deliberately distorts their opponent’s argument and proceeds to argue against that distortion instead of the actual position.

In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. 

Example A:

A: “We should divert more federal funding to social programs as those help people manage their expenses and contribute to the economy.”

B: “That is completely ridiculous! We can’t just give money to people who don’t work, that would make them lazy and greedy.”

B’s response is a straw man fallacy. It’s a straw man fallacy because A didn’t say that we should give free money to people who don’t work. They merely stated that more federal funds should be diverted to social programs, many of which go to people who do, in fact, work. B begins by giving a straw man of A’s position and then proceeds to argue against that position as if it’s what A believes. 

Instead of arguing against the actual position, B argues against a caricature of A’s argument. Straw man fallacies occur when a person misrepresents their opponent’s position or argument and argues against that caricature instead of the actual position. Straw man arguments give the illusion of refuting an argument by attacking a figment of reasoning rather than the actual reasoning.

 

• Leaving out a key premise or part of your opponent’s argument
• Oversimplifying or exaggerating features of the argument
• Focusing only on a single aspect of the argument
• Making up claims that your opponent did not say
• Equivocating on the meaning of key terms in the argument

(https://www.developgoodhabits.com/straw-man/)

Example B: Pennélope writes,

For this fallacy, my example will consist of a Tiktok trend (sorry in advance). The trend consists of person A, in this case the girlfriend, and person B is the boyfriend. The dialogue goes a little like this:

A: Hey, would you still date me if I was a worm?

B: No.

A: Really, so our relationship means nothing to you? Obviously you don't love me anymore.

Clearly, this is an example of the straw man fallacy since the boyfriend's answer to her question makes no reference to her final statement. Dissecting the dialogue, the reader can quickly realize the girlfriend instead twisted his answer and overexaggerated it. Obviously no human would date a worm, it's unrealistic and not possible. Yet, this doesn't mean the boyfriend loves the girl any less.  

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent’s argument, then you’ve really accomplished something.

(Credit: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Logical fallacy #7: Ad hominem

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be directed to membership in a group or institution.

(Texas State Department of Philosophy)

 

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter. It translates as "against the man."

 

An abusive ad hominem fallacy is a direct attack on the person. For example, it occurs when the opponent's appearance is brought up in the discussion. You'll see this a lot of times when men are discussing positions of female opponents. The person's clothes and hair and personal attractiveness are brought up during the discussion when they have nothing to do with the subject matter. Looks and clothes never come into the discussion, however, when the men's points of views come up for debate. (ThoughtCo)

Pennélope shares the following image that describes the dynamic of an ad hominem attack:

 

Example: "When I scroll through Twitter these days or even chat with classmates, I am often quickly exhausted by the conversation. There are so many people saying so very little in the world today. Attacking a person’s appearance, their career, their religion or their intelligence does not 'advance the cause' like many think it does. Saying 'you’re a Nazi-loving white supremacist' or 'you’re an evil, baby-killing liberal' (I’ve read both), without grounding these claims with any semblance of logic rarely helps, and it always harms."

(Claire Redinger, "It's Not Debatable: Ad Hominem Attacks Destroy Constructive Conversation," The Gateway, October 7, 2020, https://unothegateway.com/opinion-its-not-debatable-ad-hominem-attacks-destroy-constructive-conversation/) 

Writing response due Monday, October 18, by midnight

                       Jay Roberts as a young Marine

Read Jay Roberts, “Center of the Universe”

https://www.orangecoast.com/features/center-of-the-universe/

What detail, idea, sentence, or other element of this essay struck you the most, and why? Explain your response by carefully analyzing the language of a particular paragraph.

Length: 2 paragraphs

Logical fallacy #6: The false dilemma

“It’s my way or the highway!” 

 

Definition: In false dichotomy, 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. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

Examples: 

A. Pennélope writes with the following example:

 "You are either with us or against us!" from Pirates of the Caribbean

She continues, The argument provides the audience only two choices in their decision making process, in this case, join my battle or be my enemy. Person A forces and/or manipulates person B into joining his fight by only providing these two choices, although in reality, there are more than these two. For example, one can choose to be neutral and not engage in either party. 

That's correct!

B. “The DMN building on campus 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.” The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.

 

Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

 

(Credit: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Writing response due Monday, October 4, by midnight

Nicholas Casey

Choose two quotes from the essay that you found interesting and analyze why these particular quotes struck you.

(2 paragraphs)