College of
Business
Administration
College of
Business
Administration
ARGUMENTS consist of PREMISES leading to CONCLUSIONS.
PREMISE: Reasons given in support of a conclusion.
Premise (Independent Variable)
Conclusion (Dependent Variable)
Premise: That man is blind
Conclusion: Therefore he needs a guide when he goes shopping
FALLACY: Drawing an improper conclusion from the premise
* Naturalistic Fallacy *
Occurs when something is identified as being good or desirable because it appears to be a natural characteristic ("Is implies Ought")
* Everyone is basically self-interested, therefore pursuing one's self-interest is a virtue.
* Everyone wants to be wealthy so systems should be designed based on economic incentives.* Fallacy of Sweeping Generalization (Faulty Deduction) *
Occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case to which the rule is not applicable because of special features of the case.
* Everyone has a right to his own property, therefore, even though Jones has been declared insane he should keep his machine gun.* Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Faulty Induction) *
Occurs when an isolated or exceptional case is used as the basis for a general conclusion which is unwarranted.
* I had a bad relationship with the first person I ever dated. I'm sure all relationships are bad.
* The government's bailout of Penn Central was a fiasco. Therefore, the government should never provide bailouts.* Fallacy of Bifurcation *
Occurs when one presumes that a distinction is exclusive and exhaustive, when other alternatives exist.
* America, love it or leave it.
* Companies can either make a profit or be socially responsible.* Fallacy of Begging the Question (Circular reasoning) *
Occurs when, instead of offering proof for its conclusion, an argument simply reasserts the conclusion in another form.
* God exists because the Bible says so. I know the Bible is true because it is the work of God.
* The reason why George Bush lost the 1992 Presidential election to Bill Clinton is because Clinton received more votes.* Fallacy of Question-Begging Epithets *
Occurs when slanted language is used to reaffirm what we wish to prove but have not proven yet.
* No right-thinking American could support this measure, a cunning plot hatched in back rooms by corrupt politicians.
* How can you believe the statistical analysis provided by corrupted researchers living off tobacco industry grants?* Fallacy of False Analogy *
Occurs when a comparison between an obscure or difficult set of facts to one that is already known and understood, and to which it bears a significant resemblance, is erroneous and distorts the facts of the case being argued.
* Why should we sentimentalize over a few hundred thousand Native Americans who were ruined when our great civilization was being built? It may be that they suffered injustices, but, after all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
* Why should production employees be upset with not being notified in advance about plant closings? Many managers are in the same boat.* Fallacy of False Cause *
Occurs when events are causally connected when in fact no such causal connection has been established.
* Most of Chrysler's management before the bailout were caucasians. Therefore, the government should demand more minorities in upper management before providing the guaranteed loan.* Fallacy of Ad Hominem *
Occurs when an argument diverts attention away from the question being argued by focusing instead on those arguing it.
* Clinton evaded going the Vietnam draft, thus we shouldn't trust his views on sending troops to Bosnia.* Fallacy of Appeal to Authority *
Occurs whenever an idea is justified by citing some source of expertise as a reason for holding that idea.
* You shouldn't lie because that's what the Bible says.
* Of course there shouldn't be government intervention, afterall, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are opposed to government intervention.* Fallacy of Mob Appeal *
Occurs when an appeal is made to emotions, particularly to powerful feelings that can sway people in large crowds.
* I (Paul Tsongas) almost died of cancer, therefore you can trust me to be a good president.* Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance *
Occurs when an argument is based on an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the conclusion's correctness.
* I know that God doesn't exist because nobody has yet been able to prove God's existence.
Adapted by Denis Collins from S. Morris Engle (1976) With Good
Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Return to Professor Dunn's home page.