Fallacies can be defined as “arguments that tend to persuade but should not persuade”. They appear everywhere, from politics to journalism to simple everyday conversation. They are easily mistaken as valid argumentation by everyone, even the arguer themselves. However, with an understanding of three common types of argumentative fallacy—false dilemma, slippery slope, and straw man—you can learn to spot and challenge them before they trick you.
Fallacies are generally divided into two categories, “formal” and “informal.” Formal are arguments that appear to follow an accepted form, while informal fallacies occur within the content, rather than the structure, of the argument. The following fallacies are thus considered informal.
False Dilemma: The arguer claims there are only two possible alternatives to the issue. One is deemed unacceptable, and thus we should choose the other. In actuality, however, there are more alternatives than the two proposed.
Example: Either we legalize drugs or we keep filling prisons with drug offenders.
Slippery Slope: The arguer states that we shouldn’t do A because A will likely lead to B, which will probably lead to C, and then to D, and so on down the “slippery slope” to an end consequence that is blatantly undesirable. However, a number of these stages are drastic and implausible.
Example: Now they want us to register handguns. Next it will be all guns, then they’ll ban guns altogether, and we’ll be living in a police state.
Straw Man: The name of this argument comes from the idea that a straw dummy is easier to knock down than a real person. The arguer makes their position seem strong by representing their opponent’s as weaker than it actually is. The arguer may try to refute an opposing position by including only easily refuted premises in support of it, and ignoring the premises that are more difficult to refute. The arguer may also misrepresent her opponent’s premises, conclusion, or both, often through exaggeration or caricature.
Example: We desperately need a nationalized health care program. Those who oppose it think that the private sector will take care of the needs of the poor. But this has not been the case in the past, and will not be so in the future either.
It is difficult to counter these deceptive arguments without an understanding of how they are fallacious. The conclusions of such arguments may or may not be true, but the fact remains that the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is inadequate. Being able to recognize these inadequacies gives you the advantage of not falling prey to such arguments, and strengthening your own argumentative abilities as well.
Reference
1. Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing Arguments and Theories by Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen. Thomson Wadsworth: 2006.
