Rhetorical Fallacies
-Rhetorical ‘do-nots’: poor, misleading arguments
-Errors in Logos + Ethos + Pathos x Toulmin Model
(1) Logical fallacies
- Faulty logic
- Poor or deceptive use of factual information
(2) Emotional (Pathetic) fallacies
- Unreasonable, overdramatized or presumptious appeals to emotion
(3) Ethical fallacies
- Unrealistic or misleading representations of the author’s credibility or authority
***
Logical Fallacies:
(1) Hasty Generalization
Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence.
Insufficient grounds/backing for a claim.
e.g.: One simply needs to turn on MTV to see that rap music is a degenerate style which only promotes violence and sexism.
(2) Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc)
Confusing chronology with causality: suggesting that one event caused another because it preceded it.
Faulty warrant.
e.g.: In the year after the release of Marilyn Manson’s previous albums, school violence rose 30% - surely not a coincidence.
(3) Non Sequitur (Latin for “It doesn’t follow”)
A leap of logic – an important step in the line of thought is omitted, making the claim difficult to follow or justify.
Missing warrant.
e.g.: If you actually had a good taste in music, you wouldn’t be listening to punk.
(4) Equivocation
Half-truth: saying something that is partially true, or true only with a particular caveat or definition.
Convoluted warrant or partially inaccurate grounds/backing.
e.g.: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – President Bill Clinton
(5) Begging the Question
Repeating the same claim in a different way, circling around an argument without adding support.
Repeating claim without adding grounds/warrant.
e.g.: The reason there's such a big demand for this product is because everyone wants to get it.
(6) Faulty Analogy
Misleading, inaccurate or inappropriate comparison.
Illogical or convoluted warrant; excessive qualification.
e.g.: Music piracy is no different from car theft or mugging, as it takes away something that rightfully belongs to others.
(7) Stacked Evidence
Distortion through representing only one side of an issue.
Ignored rebuttal; Claims supported by biased evidence.
e.g.: Women write better novels because they are more sensitive, more interested in romance and create more believable characters.
Pathetic Fallacies
(1) Sentimental Appeal
Distracting the audience from facts using dramatic emotion.
Grounds based on selectively-emotional content rather than broad scope of facts.
e.g.: Conservative energy policies kill thousands of baby seals every year.
(2) Red Herring
Distracting the audience through irrelevant information.
Unrelated or marginally related grounds used to support a claim.
e.g.: This movie is terrible because Samuel L. Jackson is not in it.
(3) Scare Tactics
Frightening an audience with exaggerated dangers stemming from a cause or action.
Threatening descriptions as warrant.
e.g.: The union is led by communists, who will only be happy when our free market society is destroyed forever.
(4) Bandwagon Appeals
Encouraging an audience to agree with a claim because someone else does.
Popularity of a claim (rather than strength of grounds) as warrant.
e.g.: One million iPhone 4S customers can’t be wrong.
(5) Slippery Slope
Suggesting that one action will lead to a chain of events which will have disastrous results in the end.
Faulty warrant , exaggerated qualifier – taking logical connections far beyond the original claim.
e.g.: Reducing our military budget will force us to rely on the US more than we already do, spelling the end for Canadian independence.
(6) Either/Or Choices
Reducing complicated issues to only two possible solutions.
Faulty warrant or false rebuttal.
e.g.: You can either buy this great product on sale right now, or forever miss a great offer.
(7) False Need
Presenting something as a necessity (even when it is not).
Faulty grounds, exaggerated warrant.
e.g.: If you don’t join the club, you’re a nobody.
Ethical Fallacies
(1) False Authority
Appeal to an authority that may not be qualified to make a particular judgment.
Faulty grounds+warrant.
e.g.: My dad says capitalism is terrible, therefore it must be true.
(2) Authority Instead of Evidence
Using personal authority as grounds for a claim.
Faulty grounds+backing.
e.g.: Trust me – my dad wouldn’t lie.
(3) Guilt by Association
Attacking someone’s character based on people they associate with.
Faulty grounds/backing.
e.g.: Your brother is a drug dealer, so you can’t be class president.
(4) Dogmatism
Shutting down discussion by claiming that only the writer’s/speaker’s position matters.
Faulty everything – precludes further discussion.
e.g.: I know it’s true because we learned that in class, and obviously that’s a better source than anything you can offer.
(5) Moral Equivalence
Equating minor problems to serious crimes or faults.
Faulty warrant.
e.g.: This professor grades like a Nazi.
(6) Ad Hominem Attack
Arguments aimed at an opponent’s character rather than his/her reasoning.
Misleading grounds/backing – not directly relevant to claim.
e.g.: Why should we believe this candidate when he is a French-speaking cultural elitist who can’t relate to the common man?
(7) Strawperson Attack
Deliberately setting up arguments that can be easily attacked and dismantled to misrepresent an opponent’s position.
Inappropriately extending an opponent’s claim.
e.g.: My opponent believes that we should legalize marijuana, giving everyone open access to drugs and endangering our children’s future. Unlike my opponent, I believe in our children and want them to grow up without drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment