Logical Fallacies RHETORICAL APPEALS
Rhetorical Appeals Ethos Appeals to credibility Pathos Appeals to emotion Logos Appeals to logic
Structure of an Analysis/Argument Arguments operate under logic Your argument will fail if it is not based on logic An argument is only valid if its conclusion follows logically; from a combination of the rhetorical appeals
Fallacious Ethos Argument to a person attacking a person instead of an argument Example: "You say I shouldn't drink too much, but you drink every day." The validity of the argument (drink less) can't be based on the behavior of the person making the argument. Instead, the validity of the argument should be evaluated on its own terms separate from the person making the claim. Appeal to Anonymous Authority: Using appeals to nonspecific groups (e.g., doctors, scientists, researchers, and so on). For example, "Research shows that all women are inferior to men." Or, "Studies indicate that all college students binge drink." Neither of these statements offers a specific credible source, so both claims lack authority.
Fallacious Ethos Argument from Authority: Claiming to be an expert and, on that basis, to be deserving of trust. It's important to remember that there are different kinds and levels of expertise: My weekend cooking class doesn't make me an authority on recipes, though I can honestly say I've studied cooking. So, I might be an authority on some elements of cooking, but not all of cooking. When faced with an argument from authority, it is important to investigate the credentials of the speaker or writer. Appeal to Authority: Using a statement taken out of context as authoritative support. For instance, it would be fallacious to use Malcolm X's declaration "by any means necessary" to justify an oppressed group's violence against police officers. Such an assertion ignores the context, and therefore the complexity, of Malcolm X's statement. Argument from False Authority: Using an expert in a specific field as an expert in all related fields. For instance, if I am writing a paper about heart disease and I quote my chiropractor, then I would be making an appeal to fallacious ethos; despite being a doctor, he/she is not an authority on heart disease. Check your SOURCE
Fallacious Pathos Argument by Dismissal: Rejecting an idea without providing a reason or explanation for its dismissal. Argument by Emotive Language: Using emotional words that are not supported by evidence and/or are unconnected to the argument being made. For example, in abortion debates regarding a woman's right to choose, the argument sometimes shifts from a discussion of medical or legal rights to a graphic description of the abortion process or extreme analogies between abortion and genocide. Planned Parenthood funding Appeal to Pity: Drawing on irrelevant personal experiences or feelings in order to produce a sympathetic response.
Fallacious Pathos The Slippery Slope: Suggesting that a particular argument or course of action will lead to disastrous consequences without offering evidence. This fallacy usually produces an emotional response. A common example is the assertion that legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and/or pedophilia.
Fallacious Logos Straw Man: Intentionally misrepresenting your opponent's position by over-exaggerating or offering a caricature of his or her argument. It would be fallacious to claim to dispute an opponent's argument by creating a superficially similar position and refuting that position (the "straw man") instead of the actual argument. For example, "Feminists want to turn men into slaves." This statement fails to accurately represent feminist motivations which can be very diverse.
Fallacious Logos False Dilemma: Assuming that there are only two options when there are, in fact, more. For example, "We either cut Social Security, or we have a huge deficit." There are many ways to resolve deficit problems, but this statement suggests there is only one. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on a small minority.
Fallacies Logos Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (With This, Therefore Because of This): Confusing correlation with causation that is, thinking that because two things happened simultaneously, then one must have caused the other. For example, "There has been an increase in both immigration and unemployment; therefore, immigrants are taking away American jobs." This statement is fallacious because there is no evidence to suggest that immigration and unemployment are related to each other other than that their rates increased simultaneously.