24 Recognize Logical Fallacies
Robert Sternberg
A logical fallacy is “a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid” (“Fallacy,” n.d.).
What You’ll Learn:
- How logical fallacies work
- How to avoid logical fallacies in your own writing
Does the following conversation between roommates look familiar to you?
Roommate 1: You were on dish duty yesterday. Why’s the sink still full of dirty dishes?
Roommate 2: Relax. This is an apartment, not a laboratory.
Roommate 2’s response is a classic example of the “straw man” fallacy, in which a person’s point is intentionally misrepresented, making it easier to defeat (“Straw man,” n.d.).
In this case, it’s easy for Roommate 2 to defeat the idea that a student apartment should conform to the same standards of cleanliness as a laboratory. Who would insist on that? Of course, Roommate 1 never said anything of the sort. All she asked was “Why’s the sink still full of dirty dishes?” and pointed out it was Roommate 2’s turn to clean them.
Logical fallacies are as widespread in daily life as they are in writing. Understanding how they work is the best method of protection against their faulty logic.
How Logical Fallacies Work
There are plenty of online resources that classify logical fallacies by name, definition, and example. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab, a web resource for English students and instructors, is an excellent place to start.
You can access its page on logical fallacies here.
Let’s examine a few from the list while keeping the following two questions in mind:
- Why is the fallacy effective at first?
- Why is the same fallacy ineffective on closer inspection?
In June Callwood’s 2007 essay “Forgiveness Story,” published in the Canadian magazine The Walrus, she disapproves of sympathizing with abusers if they—the abusers—were also victims of past abuse; or, in Callwood’s words, she disapproves of the idea that “bad parenting comes from being badly parented” (para. 11).
The reason for Callwood’s disapproval? “This technique can be applied to almost any injustice and falls within the rapists-were-beaten-as-children, poor them school of thought, which for some sceptics veers perilously close to non-accountability” (para. 13).
Read the source.
You may find her argument to be valid and persuasive at first. It’s reasonable to concede that Callwood has made a strong point here (her graphic language, coloured by sarcasm, may add to its persuasiveness). After all, shouldn’t abusers be held accountable for their actions and not be excused of them due to the hardships they have faced in their own lives?
However, consider that within criminology and social theory, many books have been written and studies conducted on the cyclical nature of abuse, with conclusions presenting different and more nuanced insights than Callwood’s.
If you believe an argument oversimplifies matters, it may be an example of a fallacy known as “hasty generalization” or “straw man.” Do you believe Callwood’s claim to be accurate, or overgeneralized? Is it…
You decide.
“This technique can be applied to almost any injustice and falls within the rapists-were-beaten-as-children, poor them school of thought, which for some sceptics veers perilously close to non-accountability.”
In the same essay, Callwood describes our day and age—the 21st century—as one in which we no longer have the ability to forgive. Why? According to Callwood, we do not understand the religious teachings on forgiveness as well as we used to.
This, then, is how Callwood describes the 21st century, in her own words:
[T]his is the age of anger, the polar opposite of forgiveness. Merciless ethnic, tribal, and religious conflicts dominate every corner of the planet, and in North America individuals live with high levels of wrath that explode as domestic brutality, road rage, vile epithets, and acts of random slaughter. (para. 4)
Again, readers may find Callwood’s claim to be persuasive (notice again the powerful, graphic quality of her language: “merciless,” “dominate,” “explode”). If we’ve just watched or read the news, we may find ourselves nodding in agreement with her harsh critique of our century.
Other readers, however, may question whether past centuries weren’t just as plagued—if not more so —by “merciless ethnic, tribal, and religious conflict” (para. 4). Yet people in those times, according to her argument, would have had a better understanding of the religious teachings on forgiveness than ours does.
If you judge that the argument is flawed, it may be an example of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” or, once again, “hasty generalization.” Do you believe this claim is…
You decide.
“[T]his is the age of anger, the polar opposite of forgiveness. Merciless ethnic, tribal, and religious conflicts dominate every corner of the planet, and in North America individuals live with high levels of wrath that explode as domestic brutality, road rage, vile epithets, and acts of random slaughter.”
For our final example, let’s look at the central question at the heart of Callwood’s essay: to forgive, or not to forgive? She clearly answers “forgive” because of the benefits forgiveness can have on our health, both mental and physical.
The way that Callwood presents it, there are two outcomes attached to either choice:
The choice may seem simple. If given the choice between having “scalding thoughts of revenge” or “peace of mind” (para. 18), what would you choose? Most of us would have to agree with the author’s choice here.
Yet some may feel that “scalding thoughts of revenge” and “peace of mind” are but two extreme poles on a spectrum. Between them lie a host of other outcomes, each less extreme in degree than the two poles.
If that’s your judgment, you may feel that you’re looking at an example of a fallacy known “either/or.” With that in mind, do you feel that the argument is…
You decide.
To forgive (“peace of mind”), or not to forgive (“scalding thoughts of revenge”)
Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Your Own Writing
It’s important to be on the lookout for fallacies in the context of arguments and opinions. This applies to your dual roles as reader and writer.
If you agree that logical fallacies can be effective at first, but not as much on closer inspection, then you will probably want to avoid using them in your own writing.
Tip
Because logical fallacies often appear early in the writing process, as in the rough draft, consider using strategies covered in Practice Iterative Design and Peer Review for the purposes of checking your work for logical fallacies
Try It!
Using this list of logical fallacies, try to determine the fallacy in the following example:
We covered logical fallacies—how they work and how to avoid them in our own writing. Continue to keep logical fallacies in mind by:
Learning about the different types (their names, definitions, and examples)
Recognizing specific instances when other writers use them
Understanding their superficial effect (if closely examined, they’re rendered invalid)
Watching out for them in your own writing as you move through the writing process
See related subtopics in Build Your Toolkit and Share.
