Instructor Manual
Chapter 7: Pseudo-reasoning
Instructors’ material
The self-assessment exercises in the students’ material can be extended for classroom/assessment use.
Exercise B
Ask students to identify the
fallacies/rhetorical ploys.
Solutions
1 fallacy of deriving ought from is; 2 fallacy
of appeal to authority; 3 fallacy of majority belief; 4 buzzwords (‘core
business’, ‘brand values’); 5 scare quotes; 6 ad hominem circumstantial
fallacy; 9 fallacy of affirming the consequent; 10. tu quoque
fallacy
Exercise C
Ask students to reconstruct these fallacies.
There may be some discussion concerning question 4, which could plausibly
understood as a fallacy of majority belief if ‘enjoying’ is taken to involve a
belief about the value of the activity. The argument is probably most plausibly
understood as committing the common practice fallacy, however.
Exercise D
Ask students to reconstruct these
arguments.
Further material for instructors
The following arguments contain fallacies. Reconstruct them to expose the fallacy and then name the fallacy.
- Of course you should vote for Rosie Griffiths. She’s a woman and it’s
about time we had our first female President.
- I’m going to vote for Rosie G. Everyone else I know is.
- Don’t vote for Rosie G. She’s got some strong economic policies and her
foreign policy ideas look really promising, but her stance on law and order
leaves something to be desired.
- I know that Rosie Griffiths has been investigated for tax avoidance, but
that’s no reason not to vote for her. It’s not as if she’s done anything
illegal.
- Most vegetarians say they will vote for Rosie and most vegetarians are
Green voters, so I think she’s going to take a majority of the Green
vote.
- If Rosie Griffiths is elected President, the markets will take a dive and
billions of dollars will be wiped off companies’ values. So if we don’t elect
her, our economy will be continue to grow and prosper.
- So you’re saying I shouldn’t vote for Rosie because if we don’t, your
share portfolio will keep its value, isn’t that a bit selfish? I’m definitely
voting for her now.
- As soon as Rosie announced her candidacy, the price of oil went up. I
think you’re right about the effect her election would have on the
markets.
- So there’s another reason not to vote for her, if she’s loses. It’ll cause
the price of oil to go down and driving, and eventually the price of all good
transported by road will get cheaper.
- Well, nothing you’ve said is going to stop me from voting for Rosie Griffiths. Oprah has endorsed her and that’s enough for me.
Solutions
1 ad hominem (could be deriving ought
from is because lacks a prescriptive premise as it stands); 2 fallacy of
majority belief; 3 perfectionist fallacy; 4 conflation of morality with
legality; 5 base rate fallacy; 6 denying the antecedent; 7 ad hominem
circumstantial; 8 post hoc ergo propter hoc; 9 Inversion of cause and
effect (based on causal relation assumed in question 8); 10 appeal to authority
(I’m assuming that, despite her substantial influence, Oprah Winfrey should not
be considered a legitimate authority on political issues)
The following arguments employ techniques of poor argumentation. Reconstruct the arguments and then identify the technique used.
- The Government should not give in to lobby groups pushing for public
funding of Bestetin. As soon as they start pandering to these groups’
emotional pressure, they’ll open the way to tax payers having to pay for every
new pharmaceutical development, however expensive and however
unnecessary.
- Of course this new anti-ageing drug works. The company who make it says so
and they are very reputable.
- Look, you have a clear choice: take the diet pills or get morbidly obese.
It’s not rocket science!
- Patient to doctor: I really don’t feel any better.
Doctor: Have you been taking your medication regularly? Patient
to doctor: I know I should take the medication, but I hate the idea of
the drug company making money out of my illness.
- You really must take your medication as directed. It’s the best.
Solutions
1. slippery slope; 2. egging the question; 3
false dilemma; 4. red herring; 5. equivocation (best)
Here are some fallacious argument forms (mostly versions of the ad hominem) that are commonly encountered during election campaigns. Often the faulty reasoning is reinforced with images. They could be used for exercises of the types exemplified both here and in the students’ material or students could be asked to find their own examples of arguments of these types in print and digital media material.
- Candidate x has changed his mind on subject a, b, and c. Therefore, you
shouldn’t vote for candidate x.
- Candidate x looks ridiculous in this photograph. Therefore, you shouldn’t
vote for candidate x.
- Candidate x is kissing a cute baby. So we should vote for candidate
x.
- Candidate x is in favour of y. Horrible person z was also in favour of y.
You shouldn’t vote for candidate x.
- Candidate x is well dressed and immaculately groomed, so we should vote
for candidate x.
- Candidate x complimented me (my group), so I should vote for candidate
x.
- The campaign ads of candidate x are full of our nationally valued symbols,
so we should vote for candidate x.
- We are faced with terrible dangers/This is a time of crisis, so you should
vote for candidate x.
- In campaign ads of candidate x, many people speak highly of him/her, so
you should vote for candidate x.
- Candidate x is one of us, so we should vote for candidate x.
- Candidate x will bring back the good old days, so we should vote for
candidate x.
- Candidate x is a good father/husband, so we should vote for candidate x.
Here’s a letter to the editor that includes several fallacies. It provides examples of commonly encountered arguments concerning embryos that remain unused post-assisted reproduction.
Destroying embryos
[ … ] Ordinary folk are appalled at
the treatment dished out to innocent infants by cruel, sadistic adults. The lack
of outrage at the abandonment and planned destruction through government-funded
research of embryos ‘left over’ from in vitro fertilization is equally notable.
It is worth noting that before freezing, the embryo was a growing human life.
When we learn that all human life is a treasure and worthy of the utmost
respect.
Phil O’Connor, Panmure, New Zealand Herald, 24/12/08
(shortened)
The following passage from David Lodge’s recent novel, Deaf Sentence, makes comedic use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It would make a good identification and reconstruction exercise.
9th December. Dad phoned this morning, cock-a-hoop because he has won three £50 prizes in Premium Bonds [a UK savings/lottery scheme], received this morning, only two weeks after sending off his letter of complaint about not winning anything for six months. ‘You see? I told you!’ he crowed.
‘Dad’, I said, ‘you don’t seriously think your letter made them give you a
prize?’
‘Three prizes! ’course it did! I got ‘em rattled. They said
to themselves, this Harry Bates is no fool. He’s going to cause trouble if we’re
not careful. Let’s bung him a few quid [pounds] and keep him quiet.’
I was about to argue that it was just a coincidence, but then I thought: why
deprive him of his moment of triumph? ‘Well, congratulations, Dad. You did
well.’
‘I did, didn’t I? No thanks to you – you didn’t want me to write that
letter, remember.’
‘I must admit I didn’t expect it would have such a magical
effect,’ I said. ‘But I’m not sure it will work again.’
‘Well, we’ll see, won’t we? Maybe somebody up there in Blackpool will make it
his business to keep me happy in future, so I don’t have to send them another
letter.’
‘Well, I hope so, Dad,’ I said. ‘What are you going to spend the
prize money on?”
‘What’?’ I repeated the question. ‘Oh, well, I don’t know,’
he said, the euphoria quickly leaking away from his voice, ‘I don’t know that I
want to spend it only anything. I’ll put it in the bank for a rainy day.’
David Lodge, Deaf Sentence (London: Harvill Secker, 2008), p. 153.
The piece from the Guardian provided for a discussion of the
ambiguity (in the context of pesticides’ toxicity) of ‘safe’ in Chapter 2 could
be used to provide an example of the technique of equivocation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/15/activists-pollution-pesticides-toxins-defra
In many cases, whether or not an argument is fallacious or faulty will depend on the context in which the inference(s) appear. This is particularly so with appeals to authority (some such appeals are legitimate, some aren’t), argument by analogy (some analogies make reasonable and relevant comparisons, some don’t) and red herring, where one must determine questions of relevance. The following letters to editors provide possible examples for students to practise and refine their interpretation skills in this regard. A more complex version of these tasks would involve students reconstructing the arguments before interpreting/analyzing them:
90-days employment bill doesn’t make sense
In the following the author makes appeal to his authority on employment matters. Given the subject on which he is writing, is his argument a fallacious or a legitimate appeal to authority? Explain your answer.
As the owner of an SME [small/medium enterprise] I am concerned at the ‘fire
at will’ bill before parliament. It will not persuade me to hire one more
employee. That is a decision I base on the availability and the profitability of
work. All that it may do is persuade me to go for a riskier candidate to the
detriment of a more reliable candidate.
It will reduce staff turnover. More
capable, in-demand staff will still change jobs fromtime to time. The less
capable will remain in the secure current job, rather than move to a job that
may disappear.
The current government’s drive to entice back from overseas our best and brightest will surely flounder. Why leave the security of a high-paying overseas job for the possibility of temporary employment?
The most perplexing aspect of the bill is the use of parliamentary urgency.
The use of urgency is appropriate to repair an unforeseen defect, to enact tax
changes or to deal with a national emergency. This bill has none of those
characteristics.
I would appreciate the ability to consider the bill and make
submissions. Regrettably, this government does not want to listen.
Greg Presland Auckland, Sunday-Star Times, 14/12/08
In the following letter to the editor, which is written in response to a letter that appeared in the previous week’s edition of the publication, the author employs an analogy between the road situation in various international cities and that of Auckland, New Zealand. Is the analogy legitimate? If so, why? If not, why not? If you do not know enough about the cities mentioned to judge, what would you need to know in order to judge properly?
Road kill
Andrew Atkin (Letters, December 7) leads a
cloistered life if he thinks induced traffic demand doesn’t exist.
Evidence for it is prolific. The reverse is also true where some cities have
torn down motorways and reduced demand, namely in Milwaukee, San Francisco,
Niagara Falls, Paris and Seoul. Portland, Oregon went one better by cancelling a
motorway and substituting light rail.
What qualifies Atkin to make the assertion that rail is an economic disaster
when more than 400 cities already have, and are extending or planning, commuter
rail systems? Is he pitting his dubious opinion against the brains of the best
transport engineers and planners in the world or perhaps listening to the flawed
analysis of oil-financed rail critics?
Auckland ranks as the poorest city of
its size for a balance of commuting options and its population pays a
disproportionate amount of its income for transport.
Patrick McFarlane,
Auckland, Sunday-Star Times, 14/12/08
Plagiarism and Noelle
Red
Herring?
With due respect to your
correspondents Ms Scott and Ken Wortelhock, who gives a toss?
McCarthy’s
typical commentary, whether live on Radio NZ or in print, is lightweight
candyfloss on inconsequential issues. Chick-media at its finest.
And to
think some suggested replacing Jim Mora with McCarthy.
John Hardy, Waitakere
City, Sunday-Star Times, 14/12/08
I recently saw the following slogan on an advertising hoarding:
Look at us, everyone else does
It would provide a good example of an argument that looks fallacious, but
turns out not to be when taken in context. It provides material for a
reconstruction exercise.
At first it looks like a fallacy of majority belief
(action) but, as it’s an advertisement for an advertising agency’s billboards,
with some interpretation, application of the principle of charity and attention
to context, it could be reconstructed as a strong argument. An initial
reconstruction might deliver an apparent fallacy thus:
P1) Everyone looks at us
P2) You should look at what everyone else
does
C) You should look at us.
But by making the premises more specific to the context, it could be
appropriately represented as follows:
P1) Large numbers of people look at
our billboards.
P2) If you want to advertise a product/service successfully,
you should pay attention to what large numbers of people look
at.
C)
You should consider our billboards for advertising your products/services.
The ambiguity of ‘look at’ in this context also