Fallacies of Argument

In this chapter, we continue our exploration of the three-fold structure of argument analysis articulated by the ancient Greeks. Pathos (emotion, values) & Ethos (character, credibility) present their own unique characteristics when misused or manipulated in an argument, but the fallacies of Logos (logic) are so common and so debilitating, they require their own consideration. In the study of what we call “informal” logic, there are several places where corruptions or distortions can enter the equation. Sometimes this is deliberate, other times it is not. These corruptions are also commonly referred to as “rhetorical fallacies” because, as we shall see, although they are often primarily distortions in logic, they also infect or distort the credibility and emotional appeals within the improper construction of arguments.

Regardless, we need to develop our skills in recognizing logical fallacies in our work and the work of others and correcting them with clear, fair, and well-supported reasons. This chapter is intended to help you explore and develop these very skills.

A rhetorical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Rhetorical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people. They are not always easy to spot and frequently we commit them accidentally. Spotting them in our own arguments and in the arguments of others is a superpower that can help you strengthen your analytical tool kit.

Rhetorical fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don’t allow for the open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful arguments depend. Instead, they distract the reader with various distortions of thought instead of clarifying ideas using sound reasoning. They can be divided into three basic categories:

1. Emotional fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience’s emotions.
2. Ethical fallacies unreasonably advance the arguer’s own authority or character, or unfairly dismiss that of the opponent.
3. Logical fallacies depend upon faulty logic or reasoning.

Keep in mind that rhetorical fallacies often overlap. Regardless, we need to develop our skills in recognizing rhetorical fallacies in our work and the work of others and correcting them with clear, fair and well-supported reasons. This unit is intended to help you explore and develop these very skills.  Don’t worry so much about trying to memorize the individual names of all of the various rhetorical fallacies. Spend your time and energy, rather, learning to identify when someone (yourself included) is using them in an argument, how and where to find the materials to identify them, and how best to correct them and keep the discussion on track.

• View the video: Introduction to Logical Fallacies
• View the video: Top Ten Logical Fallacies
• View the video: Five Fallacies in Ads

• View the handout: Rhetorical Fallacies #1
• View the handout: Rhetorical Fallacies #2
• View the handout: Rhetorical Fallacies #3

• View the outside link: Your Logical Fallacy Is?
• View the outside link: Fallacies UNC

Our use of logical support in arguments is subject to several possible corruptions along the way to a sound argument. Sometimes an arguer will commit these fallacies on purpose with the intent of fooling or manipulating the audience. But more often, we make these mistake accidentally, with the best of intentions. Regardless, if we are to evaluate and make sound arguments, we need to be able to spot the presence of logical fallacies, in our own arguments and in the arguments of others. The presence of a logical fallacy does not mean the entire argument is invalid, just that the particular reasoning is flawed or lacking in this one place. Finding and correcting logical fallacies can actually lead to making an argument stronger and easier to accept. We have not abandoned the use of Logos, Pathos and Ethos in our evaluation of arguments, but rather now added the concept of rhetorical fallacies to the mix. As we go forward together, try to continue to use all of the tools we are exploring in your analysis and creation of arguments.