Examples Of Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are common errors found in an argument that are used to undermine reasoning based on logic. Its main purpose is to dupe readers into believing that the use of seemingly, factual information can be taken as correct information. This week’s reading provides many examples of logical fallacies including: equivocation, non-sequitur and a red herring. Equivocation is using half-truths to claim that your logic is correct. The use of vocabulary is essential in equivocation because those statements rely on the technicality that the statement is indeed true, but the intention behind it is misleading. Working in education, I have come across students saying, “I did my homework” which is their half-truth of attempting some of the questions but not completing the entire assignment.
A non-sequitur is an argument where the reasons being provided are not logically linked or connected. Claims are typically made in a wild leap as an attempt to try and make connections, but are done unsuccessfully. At times a non-sequitur can be used in an argument as a tool for humor to alleviate tension in a situation. A red herring is …show more content…
a statement used in an argument used to divert the reader’s attention from the true purpose of an argument. The information can typically be useless information that would distract the reader from the central issue. Most examples of red herrings in a logical argument would be to make a statement that evokes a sense of emotion from the reader. Weak arguments use this tactic to steer away from those weaknesses to focus on something else.
Many of these logical fallacies are commonplace in media’s attempt to both bring attention and draw away from a variety of issues.
Even in our everyday use of argument, people fall to logical fallacies to make their point known. It is easy to fall into these types of fallacies because logic and reason sound smart, and sounding smarter can be seen as correct, even with wrong information. Logical fallacies are so easy to use because people are not as skeptic when appealing to their sense of reason as they might be when trying to appeal to their sense of emotion or character. It is also easier to find information pertinent to your issue rather than appealing to someone using a personal anecdote or having them question their own beliefs. It is not an adequate way to argue a topic because it relies on the misuse of information to make a
point.
Jack Shakley’s article “Indian Mascots – You’re Out!” uses a hasty generalization when he brought up a specific statistic about how Native people felt about the use of Indians in mascots and logos. Shakley states “84% of Native Americans polled no problem with Indian team names or masots” (p. 521). The generalization is found in his next statement, making a bold claim that the 16% who did not agree find it offensive and that it is a cause of “deep concern” (p. 521). Shakley is making a long inference from one statistic with no evidence about the feelings of the 16% that were polled. This claim weakens the argument because he is misusing a statistic to show merit on a valid argument. The use of this logical fallacy hurts his chance of being seen as a reliable source on this topic due to this mistake.
The Daily Californian’s “LiveBlog: ‘Increase Diversity Bake Sale’” utilizes a non-sequitur when they post a quote from Andre Louis who believes that “‘[UC Berkeley] demonstrates on a daily basis that it cares much more about politics, political correctness and demagoguery than either free inquiry or education, which is what I stand here defending’” (p. 761). This is an example of a non-sequitur because Lewis is claiming that because this bake sale is being protested, UC Berkeley must hate free inquiry and education. He is making broad claims that are not logically connected to one another and is missing the purpose of the bake sale and the protest. Rather than getting a quote about his opinions towards SB 185, Lewis discusses the unfairness of the bake sale. This quote weakens the Daily Californian’s article because it straying away from the underlying issue and trying to sensationalize the event of the day. It is a bit of a red herring as well, as if they are trying to get people to focus more on the dilemma of the bake sale rather than addressing the lack of diversity within the California public educational system.
A non-sequitur is an argument where the reasons being provided are not logically linked or connected. Claims are typically made in a wild leap as an attempt to try and make connections, but are done unsuccessfully. At times a non-sequitur can be used in an argument as a tool for humor to alleviate tension in a situation. A red herring is …show more content…
a statement used in an argument used to divert the reader’s attention from the true purpose of an argument. The information can typically be useless information that would distract the reader from the central issue. Most examples of red herrings in a logical argument would be to make a statement that evokes a sense of emotion from the reader. Weak arguments use this tactic to steer away from those weaknesses to focus on something else.
Many of these logical fallacies are commonplace in media’s attempt to both bring attention and draw away from a variety of issues.
Even in our everyday use of argument, people fall to logical fallacies to make their point known. It is easy to fall into these types of fallacies because logic and reason sound smart, and sounding smarter can be seen as correct, even with wrong information. Logical fallacies are so easy to use because people are not as skeptic when appealing to their sense of reason as they might be when trying to appeal to their sense of emotion or character. It is also easier to find information pertinent to your issue rather than appealing to someone using a personal anecdote or having them question their own beliefs. It is not an adequate way to argue a topic because it relies on the misuse of information to make a
point.
Jack Shakley’s article “Indian Mascots – You’re Out!” uses a hasty generalization when he brought up a specific statistic about how Native people felt about the use of Indians in mascots and logos. Shakley states “84% of Native Americans polled no problem with Indian team names or masots” (p. 521). The generalization is found in his next statement, making a bold claim that the 16% who did not agree find it offensive and that it is a cause of “deep concern” (p. 521). Shakley is making a long inference from one statistic with no evidence about the feelings of the 16% that were polled. This claim weakens the argument because he is misusing a statistic to show merit on a valid argument. The use of this logical fallacy hurts his chance of being seen as a reliable source on this topic due to this mistake.
The Daily Californian’s “LiveBlog: ‘Increase Diversity Bake Sale’” utilizes a non-sequitur when they post a quote from Andre Louis who believes that “‘[UC Berkeley] demonstrates on a daily basis that it cares much more about politics, political correctness and demagoguery than either free inquiry or education, which is what I stand here defending’” (p. 761). This is an example of a non-sequitur because Lewis is claiming that because this bake sale is being protested, UC Berkeley must hate free inquiry and education. He is making broad claims that are not logically connected to one another and is missing the purpose of the bake sale and the protest. Rather than getting a quote about his opinions towards SB 185, Lewis discusses the unfairness of the bake sale. This quote weakens the Daily Californian’s article because it straying away from the underlying issue and trying to sensationalize the event of the day. It is a bit of a red herring as well, as if they are trying to get people to focus more on the dilemma of the bake sale rather than addressing the lack of diversity within the California public educational system.