Avoiding Fallacies

Even when we take pains to write logical, well-supported arguments, however, we can run into trouble. Sometimes we fall into patterns of thought that don't really make sense. If we include such errors of logic in our arguments, our readers are sure to spot them, and sure to be unconvinced by them. Some pitfalls to watch for.

Unqualified or hasty generalization

Here the fallacy is basing a conclusion on insufficient evidence. Few sweeping statements can stand without qualifications or limits. Example: College students these days study only for a career, not for the love of learning. Although the evidence may show strong interest in careers among students, the statement above drastically oversimplifies the truth by ignoring any other possibilities.

Either/or fallacy

The arguer claims that only two choices exist—good and bad— with no chance of compromise. Example: We can be the friends of democracy, or its enemies, the lines are clearly drawn. Unfortunately, extreme characterizations rarely hold up.

Blurring the issues

Other common errors can crop up when we lose focus or willfully attempt to cloud the issues we're addressing. Such distractions only undermine our attempts to be persuasive. Example: Yes, I did cheat on the exam, but 1 wasn't the only one. Three guys had crib sheets, and two others had advance copies of the test. Blaming others doesn't affect the question of my guilt, but only diverts attention from it.

Arguing in a circle (begging the question)

In this error, the arguer assumes the very conclusion he or she is trying to prove. Example: Because a balanced budget is the only responsible fiscal policy, we should balance ours immediately. Here the author appears to draw a conclusion from a premise, but the premise and conclusion are nearly the same.

Non sequitur

Here, a claim is justified by irrelevant support. Example: The cocaine problem is the fault of the media, which have glamorized it on television and in movies. These are separate issues; the drug culture exists apart from the way in which it's portrayed in television or film.

Attacking the person (ad hominem argument)

This tactic diverts attention from the issue by questioning the opponent's character. It almost always backfires. Example: The president's policies are unfair—the product of a man who couldn't care less about ordinary people. The fairness or unfairness of policy is the question, not whether the president himself is compassionate.

Arguing from analogy

Although analogy and metaphor (figurative comparisons) are very useful ways to explain things, basing an argument on them won't work. Example: The moral fiber of the American people is weakening, and eventually it will break, like thread stretched beyond the limit of endurance. Though moral character may weaken, the comparison to fiber or thread isn't literal or factual; it proves nothing.

Arguing from poor or inappropriate authority

It's always useful to cite expert or first-hand testimony as evidence in an argument, as in court, but the quality of the authority can make or break a case. If testimony comes from unqualified or inappropriate sources, it adds nothing and can badly damage your claim. Example: My uncle made some money in the stock market last year, and he says it's time to sell—another crash is coming. My uncle may be qualified to speak about the experience of investing, but he may be much less able to give learned advice. Authorities have credentials—a record of education and achievement—and even the most expert figures may disagree. We can use their words for support—as evidence, not proof.

Avoiding fallacies in argument is, like most things, a matter of common sense and concentration. If you're paying close attention to your arguments, and viewing them as an opponent would (looking for weaknesses, gaps in logic, faulty assumptions), you're much less likely to include fallacies, and more likely to write sound, convincing argumentative essays.