Five Logical Fallacies and How to See Through Them
Because we use them against ourselves, too.
When I was in college, I struggled in my Philosophy class to understand and recognize logical fallacies. I still struggle with them, especially when I use them against myself, so I created this quick guide to thinking through them.
Slippery Slope
This argument is something we’re all familiar with. If something happens, then something else is going to happen which will lead to something even worse (or better) happening. This is like, “If I eat a popsicle, then I will keep eating popsicles and I will get fat.” This is untrue; one popsicle won’t make you fat. Eating popsicle after popsicle will, sure, but that’s not what your doing. We do this all the time when we make mistakes or get upset; one error is not going to get us fired. A string of errors will, so we must be diligent and prevent that.
To spot this one, look out for hyperbolic conclusions based on limited examples.
Non sequitur
This type of argument means “doesn’t follow.” In other words, the argument is unrelated to the topic at hand. A good example from LiteraryDevices.net is, “David eats broccoli. He should love to eat meat.” Just because David eats broccoli doesn’t mean that he doesn’t love to eat meat. In other words, the second statement doesn’t follow. This is like, “My boyfriend is quiet. He must be mad at me.”
To spot this one, separate the conclusion from the facts and see if there are any real connections.
Circular Arguments
These are arguments where the conclusion and the argument are the same. For example, “She is a kind girl because she is nice.” Circular arguments are easy to use against ourselves and create self-fulfilling prophecies.
To spot this one, separate the conclusion from the argument and see if they are synonymous.
Straw Man
This type of argument is a form of oversimplification. It takes a statement and expands it in order to attack it. This looks like this example from Excelsior Online Writing Lab,
Person 1:
I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change.
Person 2:
So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the southwest and perform a “rain dance.”
Person 2 takes Person 1’s argument, oversimplifies it from “humans contribute” to “humans are directly responsible,” and then shoots it down. In other words, Person 2 is creating a straw man that is easy to defeat so as to win an argument.
To spot this one, look for words taken out of context or arguments that are exaggerated beyond the scope of what was originally said.
Red Herring
This type of argument is similar to a non sequitur in that it changes the subject and avoids a key issue by appealing to emotions. Purdue Owl’s example is, “The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?” The fact that fishers may not have work is upsetting, but it has nothing to do with the level of mercury in seafood.
To spot this one, look for a non sequitur that is trying to pull attention away from the issue at hand.