Description
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Rhetorical Fallacies
Rhetorical Fallacies are Rhetorical Strategies that are inexpertly or deceptively created without the
proper logical support to make them effective appeals to Logos. That does not mean that every
Rhetorical Strategy you disagree with is a Fallacy and every one you agree with is a Strategy, but rather
it shows us that examining the Logos appeals behind an attempted Strategy will tell us whether it is a
Strategy or a Fallacy. Just like Rhetorical Strategies, the way in which logic works or doesn’t work in
each Fallacy is specific to the Fallacy itself. Don’t expect to be able to make sweeping generalizations
about all Fallacies. Instead, each must be examined on its own to determine its level of validity.
Why is it important to be able to tell the difference between Strategies and Fallacies? Because if you
cannot accurately do so, you will mistake them for one another, and then find yourself being
manipulated by Fallacies or dismissing legitimate Strategies as Fallacies without giving them proper
consideration. Neither of those situations being desirable, we will attempt to show the difference
between the two and give you the tools you need to analyze their effectiveness for yourself. Obviously
we cannot go over every Rhetorical Fallacy here, but hopefully you will begin to see what separates the
two is the validity of the logic behind the argument.
Syllogisms
There are many ways to make an ineffective Syllogism through Fallacies, including Tautology, Faulty
Causation, Non sequitar, False Dilemma, and Slippery Slope. There are others, but these ones are
especially connected to Syllogisms. A proper Syllogism has two or more minor premises that, when
agreed with, force the reader to agree with the third premise. A proper Syllogism will also have extra
argumentation to force the reader to agree with the first two premises (or use Warrants no one would
disagree with). When those steps of a Syllogism are not followed effectively, the Syllogism becomes a
Fallacy of some sort. Here’s some examples:
“This Contract appeals to Ethos. Appeals to Ethos are effective because they build credibility.
Therefore, this argument is effective.”
Though it may seem logical, this Syllogism is actually Tautological (or has circular reasoning). Let me
show you why this Syllogism doesn’t work, mathematically: It says that the Contract appeals to Ethos
(A=B), good so far. It then says that appeals to Ethos are effective (C), because they build credibility.
Therefore, this strategy is effective (A=C). You’ll notice that this Syllogism never proves that the
appeal to Ethos is effective. All it does is explain what appeals to Ethos do (build credibility), then
expect that explanation to prove that this one is itself effective. It is also based on the faulty Warrant
that all appeals to Ethos are effective. They are not. Let me give you a strategy version of this fallacy.
“This Contract appeals to Ethos. By establishing herself as an expert in the field of
neurodevelopmentalism through her extensive list of published works in the field, Mrs. Cootes proves
to the reader that she has knowledge of the topic that few have. Therefore, the reader would accept her
as an expert, and will trust the claims that she is making. Since she has established the reader’s trust,
her appeal to Ethos is effective in supporting her Main Claim.”
Notice that, in this situation, I have given specific, logical reasons that someone would trust the author
in this exact case, rather than simply assuming that all appeals to Ethos are effective. Next, let’s look at
Non Sequitars. Non Sequitars are Syllogisms that simply do not lead to the main argument from the
minor premises. For example:
“Headphones were invented by a Mormon so that other Mormons could hear their sermons even if they
were far away from the speaker. People should be able to hear those who are far away. Headphones are
hurting kids’ hearing.”
This argument is entirely flawed because even if one believes steps one and two, that doesn’t mean one
has to agree with the third step. Can one agree that Mormons created headphones and still not believe
that they are hurting kids’ hearing? Yes. Therefore, this is an ineffective Syllogism. Here is an effective
Strategy version of it.
“Recent studies have shown that kids who use headphones habitually have significantly higher hearing
loss than those who do not. One study had students split into two groups with a similar range of hearing
abilities, with their hearing tested at the beginning of the study. One group was given headphones to
use at the factory-suggested base volume level for two hours every day for a month, while the other
group was instructed to not use headphones during that time. After a month, the group who used
headphones were found to have significantly higher rates of hearing loss than those who did not use
headphones. Therefore, it is safe to assume that headphones are causing hearing loss, and we should be
cautioning our youth against using them.” (Note, this is fake information that I made up for this
example. Do not base your life choices on this information.)
This is an acceptable Syllogism because the minor premises (Headphones are causing hearing loss, and
you don’t want your kids to have hearing loss) are either proven to an acceptable level, or would be
immediately believed by the audience. This Syllogism could be argued against (by finding the study
used and showing that it had some failing in its methodology, or by finding a study that came to a
different conclusion), and it could still be wrong, but it is not a Fallacy because it has a logical
connection between the beginning premises and the conclusion.
Now let’s look at False Dilemma. A False Dilemma is where the rhetor either inexpertly or deceptively
limits the possible options of a situation in order to manipulate the first claim of a Syllogism so that the
reader will have to accept the final claim. It is vital to a Syllogism’s effectiveness that the reader agrees
with the first two claims, and having multiple other conclusions to come to can hurt that agreement
(which is normally where one would use Prolepsis to counter those possible disagreements), and so
some rhetors will simply pretend other options do not exist in order to force a reader to choose only one
option rather than logically proving that option to be the best one to choose.
Here’s an example: “The only reason you could be a Democrat is if you are either an idiot or a cuckold.
Which one are you?”
This is a Fallacy because it ties the reader to one of two distasteful answers, with the obvious implied
argument that one should not be a democrat. It ignores any legitimate reason to be a Democrat, and
instead simply pretends that people who see things this way are either too dumb to understand the
situation, or enjoy being victimized. You’ll notice that the author gives no reasoning for either of those
claims, but instead simply makes the claims. I’m not sure there can be an effective version of this
specific strategy, but I’ll do my best.
“The two main reasons people are Democrats are because they believe spending money to help others
is good and that people are inherently trustworthy. These are admirable and laudable beliefs. However,
what these people are forgetting is that in order to help others, we need to first have a strong economy.
If we cause a recession or depression by spending our money on sources that cannot give money back,
then everyone will suffer, and we will be creating even more people who need help while crippling our
ability to give that help. Therefore, while we all wish we could help everyone in need, we need to work
for the greater good and make sure that we are helping others only as long as we are also keeping our
economy stable. What these people are also forgetting is that some people are untrustworthy, and often
one cannot tell the difference between trustworthy and untrustworthy people until it is too late.
Therefore, we need checks and balances against everyone to protect against them taking advantage of
each other, and every argument should be subject to scrutiny and criticism. No argument should be
accepted simply because of how emotionally important it is to the person saying it, but rather
everything should be considered logically, so that we can do what is best for everyone without allowing
abuses of power from any source.”
Is this new argument perfectly constructed? No. Is it even effective? Probably not. It’s lacking specifics
to truly be effective. However, it’s now a rhetorical strategy because it doesn’t pretend those are the
only two options, and it gives arguments against these two counterarguments. What was once a False
Dilemma is now Prolepsis used to make a Distributio argument attempting to portray why one should
be a Republican. (Once again, I’m not saying one should be a Republican. These topics are just random
examples of things people argue about.)
Faulty Warrants
Many Rhetorical Fallacies are based on faulty Warrants that, while they may seem effective at first, are
actually either flawed or manipulative. These include strategies like: False Composition, False
Division, Faulty Causation, Post Hoc, Hasty Generalization, Bandwagon, and Appeal to Ignorance.
These are all based on ineffective Warrants, and I’ll give each of them one after another. False
Composition says that what is true about the parts must be true about the whole. This is not always
true, so as a Warrant it isn’t useful. Example: Milk cartons contain mostly milk, and since what is
true about the part is true about the whole, milk cartons are made of milk. False Division says that
what is true about the whole is true about each individual part. This is not always true, so it’s an
ineffective Warrant. Example: America elected a Republican president last election, so Americans
must be Republicans. Faulty Causation says that correlation equals causation, which is never true
(though correlation can suggest causation). Example: More people drown in pools whenever
Nicholas Cage movies do poorly than when they do well. Therefore, since correlation equals
causation, Nicholas Cage’s movies cause people to drown in pools. Post Hoc, Ergo Proctor Hoc says
that something happening after something else must be cause by that thing, which isn’t inherently true.
Example: 100% of people who have died have drank water, therefore, since things happening
after other things must be caused by those things, water is poisonous. Hasty Generalization says
that what is true about one person or instance is true about all of them. That is rarely a logical thing to
believe. One example of something rarely proves it is true from all other examples. Example: An
African American I know robbed someone, therefore all African Americans are criminals.
Conversely, a police officer shot an unarmed African American, therefore all police officers are
murderers. Bandwagon says that if the majority of people believe something, it must be true. This is
wrong, as the amount of people who believe something has no relevance to its truth. Example:
Atheism is now the most popular belief system in America, therefore, since the majority are
always right, God does not exist. Appeal to Ignorance says that if you cannot prove something doesn’t
exist, then that thing must exist. This is not inherently true, and therefore the Warrant is ineffective.
Example: You cannot prove God doesn’t exist, so He must exist.
As you can see, these are all based on faulty Warrants that, when not considered critically, seem logical
enough. Make sure that the Syllogisms you are analyzing do not include these Warrants, as otherwise,
they are fallacious. Most of these claims could be argued in more effective manners, but not with these
Warrants. The arguments would need to be much more specific, with logical Reasonings to show how
the minor Claims logically connect to the Main Claim. Don’t allow people to rest on illogical or
manipulative Warrants.
Emotional Manipulation
Emotional manipulation is a very popular Rhetorical Fallacy. When one attempts to evoke emotions
without the logic behind them to accept their legitimacy, it is a Rhetorical Fallacy. These Fallacies are
often very emotionally powerful, though, which often makes them very effective. However, without
the logic supporting them, these are arguments that shouldn’t be listened to, even if they are very
emotionally effective. These strategies include: Faulty Analogy, Loaded Language, Ad Hominems,
Scare Tactics, False Pity, and others. A Faulty Analogy is an analogy (or metaphor, simile, etc.) that,
while emotionally powerful, isn’t actually logically sound. In other words, it is a metaphor that
compares two things that shouldn’t be compared. Example: People who disagree with their
government are like weeds. Useless and damaging to the good plants. They need to be pulled up
by the roots and disposed of. Loaded Language involves calling people names, hoping the
connotations of the names will stick, without giving a logical reason that the name should be applied.
Example: Crooked Hillary and Drumpf. Loaded language can also be used to add emotional weight
to a topic by using very powerful words when they shouldn’t be used. Example: By eating my last
cupcake, you have effectively slit the throats and drank my blood of my children. Ad Hominems
attack the author’s character instead of the logic of the argument in which the attack on the author’s
character isn’t connected to the topic. Example: You can’t trust that guy to fix your car, he’s a
Communist! False Pity is trying to make the audience feel pity when that pity doesn’t change the logic
of the argument. Example: How could you call for gun control the day after the shooting?! The
wounds are still so fresh! Basically, when trying to decide if an appeal to Pathos is a strategy or a
fallacy, ask yourself if there’s a solid line of logic leading to the emotion one is trying to convey. If
there is, then it’s a strategy with an effective appeal to Pathos. If there’s not, then it’s a Fallacy that is
attempting to manipulate one’s emotions.
Distractions:
Distractions are Fallacies that bring in irrelevant information into the conversation or try to escape
valid criticism through manipulative tactics. They include Special Pleading, Red Herrings, Tu Quoque,
Straw Persons, Equivocation, and others. Special Pleading is bending the rules so that they only apply
to your enemies, and not to you. Everyone should have the same level of logical scrutiny applied to
their arguments. Example: You can’t comment on this topic because, by doing so, you are silencing
the voices of the minorities this topic affects. Red Herrings are bringing in unrelated topics to avoid
having to engage with the current topic. Regardless of the validity of this unrelated issue, if it doesn’t
connect in a logical manner to the first topic, it is a Red Herring. Example: How can we even be
worried about micro-aggressions against minorities when kids are starving on the streets!? Tu
Quoque tries to excuse an action because another action was done that was equally bad or worse. Every
action deserves to be analyzed on its own as right or wrong, regardless of other actions. Example: If
women are treating men in a sexist manner now, it is only because men have been treating women
in a sexist manner since the dawn of time. Straw Persons are attempted Prolepses that don’t engage
with the actual argument, but rather bring up weak counter arguments to give the false sense of having
won an argument. Example: When women say that they want rights, what they’re actually saying
is that they want someone to love them. We need to expand our social programs to get these
women married. Then their problems will be solved. Equivocation is when someone switches
definitions without a logical reason to, or without letting the audience know that he or she is doing so.
Example: Love is love, and everyone deserves a chance to be in love, therefore bestiality should
be accepted in our society.
There’s many other rhetorical fallacies, and there’s a thousand examples of each of them. Don’t fall into
the trap of believing that whatever argument you disagree with is a Fallacy and whatever argument you
agree with is a Strategy. Engage each attempt at persuasion with its own merits. That’s the only way to
effectively analyze Strategies and make sure that you’re neither obstinately holding on to ideas you
should give up or being manipulated by insidious ideas you shouldn’t give the time of day.
Practice: I’m going to give you a claim, and I want you to make a two arguments supporting that
claim. The first should be based on the Fallacy presented, and the second should be based on the
Strategy presented. If you cannot use the suggested Fallacy and Strategy, you may choose your
own to use. Just tell me what you’re using.
#1 – You should buy food from a grocery store instead of ordering out. (Use False Dilemma and
Distributio)
#2 – Abortions should be legal for anyone in any circumstance (Use Hasty Generalization vs.
Examples)
#3 – Abortion should be illegal in any circumstance (Use Equivocation vs Argument of Definition)
#4 – Religious beliefs should have no place in Governmental decisions (Use Special Pleading vs a
Syllogism).
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
