Logical Fallacies

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

​

Have you ever found yourself using all your energy to prove a point and later you find out that you’re actually wrong?

Actually, a lot of people have. If you’re trying to avoid logical reasoning and using arguments that can’t be easily validated, chances are that you’re using logical fallacies. This means that you’re trying to present inaccurate information as facts.

​

Logical fallacies are arguments that are based on distorted reasoning. And if someone tries to estimate these arguments logically, they can easily reveal that they are wrong. Considering that logical fallacies are part of our everyday lives, it’s becoming more and more crucial to discover these errors and learn to differentiate them from the truth.

​

In this section, we’ll review the concept of logical fallacy, discuss the most common types of logical fallacies, and see how they are related to cognitive dissonance.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Arguments

Most academic writing tasks require you to make an argument—that is, to present reasons for a particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward. You may have been told that you need to make your arguments more logical or stronger. And you may have worried that you simply aren’t a logical person or wondered what it means for an argument to be strong.

 

Learning to make the best arguments you can is an ongoing process, but it isn’t impossible: “Being logical” is something anyone can do, with practice.

​

Each argument you make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements that express your reasons or evidence) that are arranged in the right way to support your conclusion (the main claim or interpretation you are offering). You can make your arguments stronger by:

​

1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),

2. making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion (and not some other conclusion, or no conclusion at all),

3. checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of the issue (that is, that your premises and conclusion focus on what is really important to the issue), and

4. not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can’t really support them.

​

If you’re having trouble developing your argument, check to see if a fallacy is part of the problem.

It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence. 

​

What are fallacies?

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others’ writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: first, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. 

​

So what do fallacies look like?

For each fallacy listed, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip on how to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments.

​

Hasty generalization

Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes about people (“librarians are shy and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

Example: “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!”

Two people’s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes are hard for some students” would not be a hasty generalization.)

​

Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument to support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.”

The argument actually supports several conclusions—”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in particular—but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you’ve actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you’re claiming something big.

​

Post hoc (also called false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “after this, therefore because of this.”

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.

Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.”

The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused the other.

Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. And that’s what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later.

​

Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop partway down the hill.

Example: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now.”

Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.

​

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action.

Here’s an example that doesn’t seem fallacious: “If I fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate. If I don’t graduate, I probably won’t be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year.”

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and if B, then C,” and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

​

Weak analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: “My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when I’m stuck inside) and they’re both kind of murky.” So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights? If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive on one’s own, adult humans and fetuses don’t share it, and the analogy is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see whether the two things you’re comparing both share those properties.

​

Appeal to authority

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.”

 

While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

​

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

​

Ad populum

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

​

Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.

​

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your readers believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one.

​

Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

​

Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?” Dworkin’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Here’s an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!” The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.

​

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents’ reasoning, rather than on their personal character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone’s character—if your conclusion is “President Jones is an untrustworthy person,” premises about her untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

​

Appeal to pity

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

​

Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!” The conclusion here is “You should give me an A.” But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve A’s) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion—but the information isn’t logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here’s another example: “It’s wrong to tax corporations—think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!”

​

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someone.

​

Appeal to ignorance

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

​

Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.” In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.

​

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence.

​

Straw man

What is a straw man argument?

A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light. 

The straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy, which means that the flaw lies with the arguer’s method of arguing rather than the flaws of the argument itself. The straw man fallacy avoids the opponent’s actual argument and instead argues against an inaccurate caricature of it. By doing this, the straw man fallacy is a fallacy of relevance, because with it the arguer doesn’t engage with the relevant components of their opposer’s position. 

​

How does a straw man argument work?

A straw man argument is constructed by presenting an opposing position as a warped, extreme version of itself. There are a few different ways an individual might turn a reasonable argument into a straw man:

• Oversimplifying it: An arguer might regurgitate a complex or layered issue as a simple, black-and-white one.

• Focusing on just one part of the opposing argument: By doing this, the arguer ignores the various factors at play and, similar to oversimplifying the opposing argument, presents a tiny sliver of it as if that sliver were the whole thing.

• Taking it out of context: For example, an individual campaigning for better pedestrian safety measures might say, “cars are dangerous,” and their opponent could turn this into a straw man by claiming the campaigner thinks cars should be banned.

• Presenting a fringe or extreme version of an opposing argument as the mainstream version of it: For example, one might create a straw man by claiming that all vegans are opposed to all forms of animal captivity, including pet ownership.

• ​

Straw man arguments are used in a few different ways. In a live debate, one might be used in an attempt to back the opposing debater into a corner and force them to defend an extreme or unpopular take on their position. In a piece of writing, a straw man argument makes it easy for the writer to make their position look rational and appealing. By doing this, though, the writer is giving readers a biased look at the issue they’re discussing. When readers aren’t familiar with the topic, this can give them the wrong idea and prevent them from developing well-reasoned opinions on it. And when readers are familiar with the topic, it can make the writer look foolish and cause readers to take their position less seriously. 

​

When and why is the straw man fallacy used?

You’ve probably seen and heard straw man arguments in webcomics, on podcasts, on talk radio, in blog posts, and on television. They often appear in political rhetoric. You might have even used them yourself, even without realizing it. 

People use straw man arguments for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it’s to turn the opponent into a boogeyman that’s easy to rally supporters against. Other times, it’s due to a genuine misunderstanding of an opponent’s position. Keep both of these points in mind when you find yourself having to counter a straw man argument.

The easiest way to identify a straw man argument is to determine whether an argument sounds too simple or extreme to be true.

 

Take a look at these statements:

• My opponent hates animals and doesn’t care how many will be displaced by his project. 

• Our new principal wants to ban everything that’s fun. 

• Their only priority is to make more money for their shareholders. 

See how all of these statements contain simple statements that lack nuance?

That’s a key characteristic of a straw man argument. In reality, the opponent in the first statement might be focused on his project’s development and prioritizing it over ecological concerns, but that doesn’t mean he hates animals. The principal in the second statement might be making changes at their school, but to say they want to ban everything fun shuts down any opportunity for productive dialogue in the conversation about these changes. And in the third statement, the company being discussed very well might prioritize keeping up their shareholders’ earnings —but it’s highly unlikely that’s their only priority. 

​

How to counter a straw man argument

To counter a straw man version of your position, restate your position in the clearest, most definitive language possible. The clearer you are, the more difficult it is for your opponent to distort your works or take them out of context. This works as a straw man prevention strategy as well as a straw man rebuttal strategy. 

When you’re actively being misrepresented by a straw man, stay calm and try to avoid straw-manning your opponent in return or letting your argument devolve into other fallacies, like the tu quoque fallacy (wherein you accuse your opponent of the same wrongdoing you yourself are accused of). Regardless of what you’re responding to, using fallacies in your discourse only undermines your position. Here are more effective ways to counter a straw man argument:

• Asking your opponent to elaborate on their claim: Depending on the claim, ask them where they got their data or how they came to that conclusion based on what you’ve said and done.

• Pointing out that your opponent is misrepresenting you: Simply call it what it is: a straw man argument. 

​

​

​

Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

​

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.” Let’s try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what’s wrong with this argument:

​

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

​

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

​

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

False dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

​

Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the building down.” The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.

Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

​

Begging the question

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-conclusion form:

​

Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,” and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs” (that is, evades) the real question.

​

Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia is morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active euthanasia is murder.” And that is a debatable premise—again, the argument “begs” or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, “Murder is morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.

​

Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you’ve just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in different words). If so, you’re probably begging the question. The moral of the story: you can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you’re trying to prove.

​

Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

​

Example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.” The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both something that is correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and something to which someone has a claim (as in “everyone has a right to life”). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it’s important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.

​

Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren’t slipping and sliding between those meanings.

​

So how do I find fallacies in my own writings?

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:

• Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to strengthening those parts.

• List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you’re using.

• Learn which types of fallacies you’re especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there’s a particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.

• Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like “all,” “no,” “none,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “no one,” and “everyone” are sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words like “some,” “many,” “few,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth.

• Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are accurate and fair.

​

​

There are even more Fallacies then explained in the text.

Check all these out!

​

​

​

 

​

 

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 Types of Arguments and Their Importance

While many people associate the term, "argument," with a negative connotation, arguments are actually a regular part of the workplace and other areas of a person's life. Arguments are used to negotiate as well as to determine the best solution for a particular issue. They can also be used to determine the extent of truth there is in a certain claim or hypothesis.

​

There are several different types of arguments, and each type is used in different scenarios. In this section, we'll explore why it's important to know the different types of arguments and take a look at each type in depth.

​

Why is it important to know the types of arguments?

Understanding the different types of arguments is important because it allows you to determine which type is most appropriate in a given situation. There are a number of different types of arguments, including causal arguments, narrative arguments and evaluation arguments. Each has a different purpose, and using the right type of argument for the given situation will ensure you get your point across in a clear and confident manner.

​

There are a few primary reasons why an argument may occur.

These reasons include:

• To solve a problem or make a judgment

• To defend or explain an action or stance

• To communicate your point of view and way of thinking to a person or group

Being skilled at arguing requires excellent communication and logic skills. These skills will also help you decide which type of argument is most fitting for the situation.

Type of arguments

The following are the primary types of arguments used in daily life:

​

1. Causal argument

A causal argument is a type of argument used to persuade someone or a group of people that one thing has caused something else. This type of argument focuses on how something occurred and how a problem arose as a result of that occurrence.

This argument type is important because it helps people determine the reasons why certain things happen and to make clear the cause to ensure it doesn't happen again. For example, arguing why climate change is occurring allows individuals to explore potential causes and come to an agreement on those causes.

​

2. Rebuttal argument

A rebuttal argument is centered on refuting an idea or belief that has been present up until this point in time. This type of argument often involves including why a particular idea or belief is flawed and how you feel it can be fixed or changed. Most rebuttal arguments include a statement of the counterargument, a statement regarding your position and how it's different from the counterargument and evidence to support your position.

​

3. Proposal argument

A proposal argument is one in which a person proposes a particular solution to a specific issue. This argument should include the establishment of a problem, the details of the proposal and reasons why the proposal is a good idea. For example, an employee may make a proposal argument that proposes a new way to increase customer retention rates.

​

4. Evaluation argument

An evaluation argument is an argument that is used to evaluate whether a particular element is "good" or "bad." For this argument to work, those participating in the argument must first come to an agreement as to the criteria of "good" and "bad." For example, you may make a list of the most widely recognized standards or protocols for judging a particular issue.

​

5. Narrative argument

A narrative argument is an argument in which an individual states their case by telling a story that illustrates a point directly related to the argument. Unlike other arguments which rely solely on figures and facts, narrative arguments allow individuals to use a narrative to express their stance on a particular issue. For example, an employee may describe their experience with another company's customer service representatives to make a stance on a change the employee wants to make in their own company's customer service approach.

​

6. Toulmin argument

The Toulmin argument was developed by Stephen E. Toulmin and is an argument that is composed of six different parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal and backing. In this argument, the claim is what the arguer wishes to prove; the grounds of the argument are the facts and evidence that support the claim; the warrant is what links the grounds to the claim; the backing is additional warrant support; the qualifier is used to show that the claim does not always apply to all situations and the rebuttal is acknowledging that there are other valid viewpoints for the claim.

​

7. Rogerian argument

A Rogerian argument is an argument used to determine the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the interests and needs of all parties involved. This type of argument is used to help those with opposing viewpoints reach a common ground by allowing them to look at a situation from a different perspective. In a Rogerian argument, both parties acknowledge the opposition and build trust by identifying each others' merit.

​

8. Classical Western argument

A classical Western argument is used to persuade a group of people of the validity of an argument and/or reveal the truths that define or affect the argument. This is a basic type of persuasive argument and typically includes five different components: an introduction, narration, confirmation, refutation, and a conclusion.

Classical arguments are often used when an individual or group wants to be more aggressive or direct, or when someone wants to establish power with another individual or group. Many people who use the classical argument wrap up their conclusion by incorporating appeals to the audience's motivations, values and feelings to help them identify with the argument.

​

​

Behavioral science is, at its core, the why and the what of human decision-making. It aims to help people become more aware of or engage in something and can be applied not only to external audiences but internal ones too. Behavioral science provides insights into the cognitive biases and nuances of human behavior, which can be leveraged for your communications strategy.

​

Speaking Ethically

and Avoiding Fallacies

 

What comes to mind when you think of speaking to persuade?

Perhaps the idea of persuasion may bring to mind propaganda and issues of manipulation, deception, intentional bias, bribery, and even coercion. Each element relates to persuasion, but in distinct ways. We can recognize that each of these elements in some ways has a negative connotation associated with it.

Why do you think that deceiving your audience, bribing a judge, or coercing people to do something against their wishes is wrong? These tactics violate our sense of fairness, freedom, and ethics.

​

Manipulation involves the management of facts, ideas or points of view to play upon inherent insecurities or emotional appeals to one’s own advantage. Your audience expects you to treat them with respect, and deliberately manipulating them by means of fear, guilt, duty, or a relationship is unethical.

In the same way, deception involves the use of lies, partial truths, or the omission of relevant information to deceive your audience. No one likes to be lied to, or made to believe something that is not true. Deception can involve intentional bias, or the selection of information to support your position while framing negatively any information that might challenge your belief.

Bribery involves the giving of something in return for an expected favour, consideration, or privilege. It circumvents the normal protocol for personal gain, and again is a strategy that misleads your audience.

Coercion is the use of power to compel action. You make someone do something they would not choose to do freely. While you may raise the issue that the ends justify the means, and you are “doing it for the audience’s own good,” recognize the unethical nature of coercion.

​

Eleven Points for Speaking Ethically

In his book Ethics in Human Communication Johannesen (1996) offers eleven points to consider when speaking to persuade. His main points reiterate many of the points across this chapter and should be kept in mind as you prepare, and present, your persuasive message.

Do not:

• use false, fabricated, misrepresented, distorted or irrelevant evidence to support arguments or claims

• intentionally use unsupported, misleading, or illogical reasoning

• represent yourself as informed or an “expert” on a subject when you are not

• use irrelevant appeals to divert attention from the issue at hand

• ask your audience to link your idea or proposal to emotion-laden values, motives, or goals to which it is actually not related

• deceive your audience by concealing your real purpose, by concealing self-interest, by concealing the group you represent, or by concealing your position as an advocate of a viewpoint

• distort, hide, or misrepresent the number, scope, intensity, or undesirable features of consequences or effects

• use “emotional appeals” that lack a supporting basis of evidence or reasoning.

• oversimplify complex, gradation-laden situations into simplistic, two-valued, either-or, polar views or choices

• pretend certainty where tentativeness and degrees of probability would be more accurate

• advocate something which you yourself do not believe in

​​

In your speech to persuade, consider honesty and integrity as you assemble your arguments. Your audience will appreciate your thoughtful consideration of more than one view, your understanding of the complexity, and you will build your ethos, or credibility, as you present your document. Be careful not to stretch the facts, or assemble them only to prove yourself, and instead prove the argument on its own merits. Deception, coercion, intentional bias, manipulation and bribery should have no place in your speech to persuade.

​

Avoiding Fallacies

Fallacies are another way of saying false logic. These tricks deceive your audience with their style, drama, or pattern, but add little to your speech in terms of substance and can actually detract from your effectiveness. In Table 8.2 below, eight classical fallacies are described. Learn to recognize these fallacies so they can’t be used against you, and so that you can avoid using them with your audience.

​

1. Red Herring

Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue, particularly by relating the issue to a common fear.

It’s not just about the death penalty; it’s about the victims and their rights. You wouldn’t want to be a victim, but if you were, you’d want justice.

​

2. Straw Man

A weak argument set up to be easily refuted, distracting attention from stronger arguments

What if we released criminals who commit murder after just a few years of rehabilitation? Think of how unsafe our streets would be then!

​

3. Begging the Question

Claiming the truth of the very matter in question, as if it were already an obvious conclusion.

We know that they will be released and unleashed on society to repeat their crimes again and again.

​

4. Circular Argument

The proposition is used to prove itself. Assumes the very thing it aims to prove. Related to begging the question.

Once a killer, always a killer.

​

5. Ad Populum

Appeals to a common belief of some people, often prejudicial, and states everyone holds this belief. Also called the Bandwagon Fallacy, as people “jump on the bandwagon” of a perceived popular view.

Most people would prefer to get rid of a few “bad apples” and keep our streets safe.

​

6. Ad Hominem

“Argument against the man” instead of against his message. Stating that someone’s argument is wrong solely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself.

Our representative is a drunk and philanderer. How can we trust him on the issues of safety and family?

​

7. Non Sequitur

“It does not follow.” The conclusion does not follow from the premises. They are not related.

Since the liberal anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s, we’ve seen an increase in convicts who got let off death row.

​

8. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

“After this, therefore because of this,” also called a coincidental correlation. It tries to establish a cause-and-effect relationship where only a correlation exists.

Violent death rates went down once they started publicizing executions.

 

Avoid false logic and make a strong case or argument for your proposition. Finally, here is a five-step motivational checklist to keep in mind as you bring it all together:

1. Get their attention
2. Identify the need
3. Satisfy the need
4. Present a vision or solution
5. Take action

​

This simple organizational pattern can help you focus on the basic elements of a persuasive message when time is short and your performance is critical. Speaking to persuade should not involve manipulation, coercion, false logic, or other unethical techniques.

​

What are the characteristics of an ethical speaker?

The characteristics of an ethical speaker are creating a sense of trust with the audience by acting and speaking with integrity. Ethical speakers also respect others by removing bias and prejudice from speeches and ensure all information in a speech is true and cited. The ethical speaker believes in the words they are saying and the message they are sending.

​

Why is it important to be an ethical speaker?

When public speaking, it is important to ensure the rules of ethics are followed because misinformation, lies, and manipulations can deeply impact society. Lies can undermine the truth, causing issues of mistrust, and hateful words or thoughts can lead to violence and civil unrest.

​

How can you be a more ethical speaker?

Being an ethical speaker is easy when you follow the five principles: trustworthiness, integrity, respect for others, dignity in conduct, and truthfulness in the message. It's also important to ensure you cite sources if you take information from a website, book, film, or any other form of media.

​

Audiences are increasingly more savvy and sophisticated. Creating communications that look pretty and appealing isn’t enough to engage audiences, and traditional communications methods and models no longer move the needle. Behavioral science considers the environmental, social, and personal factors that impact how a person chooses to act. 

By using behavioral science principles, you can design your messages to be more impactful and drive greater actions and better behaviors. It is important to start small and build up: begin with a clearly defined target audience, a communications channel strategy (e.g., press releases, speeches, webinars, blog posts, events), and a primary message or call-to-action.

Behavioral science principles include: 

• Addressing audience needs. If this is a benefit statement, indicate how the change or engagement makes life simpler or saves time. 

• Highlighting differentiation. If there is a before and after effect, it could increase the likelihood that the communication will resonate with your audience and they will pay attention. 

• Creating a positive step into the unknown. Asking for changes in behavior and engagement can potentially create barriers, such as fear, uncertainty, and a trust/distrust dynamic. By initially addressing these barriers, audiences are more inclined to engage rather than dismiss. 

• Enlisting advocates and evangelists. This will help with audience members becoming early adopters and increase the bandwagon effect. 

• Optimizing value. While value is subjective, it is important that the value proposition communications resonates with your audience in terms of their willingness to change and engage. 

• Mitigating push versus pull. Sometimes pushing communications does not make up for the pull from your audience. Determine which option by the type of communication. For example, videos and webinars pull; press releases and blog posts push.

Your communications strategy and communications team can help your audience close the intention-action gap, which is the difference between what people know and how people decide to act in the moment. One tool in the communications strategy toolbox is the ability to frame a particular message. You should look for ways to frame their communications to direct and drive emotional engagement and increase your audience’s motivation. 

Finding the right balance

Ensuring that your target audience is receptive to the information you’re putting out there and that the message resonates enough for them to take action, often depends on factors such as timing and a feeling of connection. If the communication proposition highlights shared values, your audience is more likely to understand the difference between intention and action and to make a decision based on that. 

Communications activities should be designed so as to not overwhelm audiences. The message needs to be presented in a way that is simple, direct, and easy to follow. If the message is a graphic, it needs to be grouped and presented in meaningful sections. And in terms of the language you are using in your communications, remember to speak to your audience and not at them. 

Where do we go from here?

Any communications approach that leverages behavioral science needs to acknowledge the possibility of cognitive overload, decision fatigue, and backlash. This is where your overall communications strategy can work in tandem with tactics and activities to mitigate these possibilities. 

The last 18 months have highlighted that we are social creatures by nature. You can integrate a social component to your communications activities to increase the chances of your audience changing their behavior or engaging with the message to take action. You can structure your message so that it highlights how others are already on board. You can also use personalization to get your audience to buy into the message or call to action. 

By adopting a behavioral science approach to your communications strategy, you can enhance behavioral outcomes by improving clarity, relevance, and the impact of your message. This in turn motivates your audience to engage.

As with all communications activities and campaigns, setting goals, identifying what will be measured and how, and where appropriate, reusing and adapting your messages for different channels is essential. Communications that integrate behavioral science principles can move your organization closer to its goals of making an impact in the world.

​

​

​

​

​

Reasoning is a cognitive process that involves the construction of logical justifications for actions or decisions.

It’s heavily used in problem-solving and decision-making scenarios, utilising one’s intellectual capabilities to achieve a particular objective.

Understanding and applying reasoning not only guides personal and professional ambitions but also promotes critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, which are crucial for any field.

​

Types Of Reasoning

1. Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning involves taking a generally true statement and applying it to a specific instance.

This type of thinking could be likened to solving a puzzle. We begin with the bigger picture, which is the general fact, and piece it together, referring to specific details, to draw a conclusion.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

...