Logical Fallacies:

Appeal to Authority: Using an expert to back up your opinion when there’s reason to believe we won’t get good information. A – Not Trustworthy 1 – Conflict of interest a – Congressman who pushes a weapons system through because it will be built in his district. B – Experts working outside their field of expertise 1 – Endorsements a – Tiger Woods endorsing Buick b – Ray Charles endorsing Pepsi 2 – Use v. Endorsing a – Brittany Spears endorsing Diet Pepsi but demanding Diet Coke C – Out of date 1 – They may not be current with technology a – a Media Specialist who doesn’t know about the internet D – Unknowable Knowledge 2 – Some things are unknowable a – a doctor who says a patient doesn’t have cancer, when they do – but all available evidence agrees with the doctor E – Failure to take word of authorities when we should 1 – Our own ignorance a – believing that we’re immune to AIDS because “it’s only for homosexuals.”

Inconsistency: Using or accepting conflicting statements to support a conclusion or conclusions. A – One person at one time and place 1 – Promising conflicting items a – “I won’t eliminate or reduce government programs; I also will give you a tax reduction.” B – One person at two different times and/or places 1 – Saying one thing now and another thing later a – Lyndon B. Johnson --as Texan Senator voted AGAINST civil rights consistently --as President of the USA, he pushed important civil rights Legislation through Congress, including the 1965 Voting Rights Act C – Organizational Consistency 1 – Different individuals in the same organization providing conflicting info a – Trial Balloons -- a member of an organization leaking an idea that is killed by the public, so the leader of the organization can say they weren’t ever thinking about it seriously. D – Inconsistency between words and actions 1 – Doing one thing and saying another a – Gerald Ford saying he “didn’t believe the public would stand for” pardoning Nixon – then doing it when he became president. b – Feminists who argue about equal roles for men and women, but don’t give expensive engagement rings or pay for half the check c – School regents who argued against affirmative action, but used their influence to help get certain students into the university d – Not dealing with Cuba for “human rights violations,” but dealing with other countries (China, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, etc.) Straw Man – Mis-representing an opponent’s position or attacking a weaker opponent while ignoring a stronger one A – Mis-representing an opponent’s position 1 – Post Office portraying Fed Ex as having rickety old planes that falling apart 2 – A hotel chain making it seem like their competitor doesn’t have hotels in all areas 3 – “John Kerry will raise your taxes to pay for his spending programs; he’ll HAVE to” B – Ignoring a strong opponent in favor of a weak one 1 – IBM commercial about copiers that won’t collate and staple that their Competitors make --comparing “apples” and “oranges”

False Dilemma – Making it seem like there are NO good options as a result of something A – Either people are good or bad; if they’re good, they don’t need laws to deter crime. If they’re bad, laws to deter crime won’t help. Therefore, we shouldn’t have laws to deter crime. 1 – REFUTATION: SOME bad people might be deterred by harsh laws, thus laws can work --Challenge the claims Either/or Dilemma – Saying there are only two options, and ONE is bad, so you MUST choose the other A – “You have to vote for either the Democratic or the Republican Candidate. You shouldn’t vote for the Democrat, so you must vote for the Republican.” 1 – REFUTATION: There are more than two viable options a – Vote Libertarian; vote Green b – Point out other options than just the two stated

Begging the Question – Assuming the question (or a significant part of the question) without proof; Answering the question by restating it as a statement A – Assuming the question without proof 1 – “It’s always in the interest of the state to have unrestricted freedom of speech, because the state does better when freedom of speech is unrestricted.” a – doesn’t say WHY the state does better; doesn’t offer proof B – Answering the question by restating it as a statement 1 – “Why does Chloroform render people unconscious? Because it is a soporific.” a – Begging the question, because a soporific IS something that induces sleep…this doesn’t tell us how it works the way it does, just that it does what it does. 2 – “Why hasn’t Mr. Palise won a Pulitzer Prize for his photography yet? Because The Pulitzer Prize committee hasn’t determined that his work is deserving of a Pulitzer Prize.” a – Begging the question, because of COURSE they haven’t determined that…otherwise he’d have a Pulitzer Prize

Questionable premise-Questionable statement – Catch-all category when there’s no real name given to the fallacy, but the statement is still questionable. A – Accepting a less-than-believable premise or statement 1 – Ford Motor Company makes the best cars, therefore you should buy a Ford a – Where’s the proof? 2 – Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player in the NBA a – Where’s the proof? B – A statement that is obviously false 1 – All Arabs are terrorists a – Obviously false, therefore not to be accepted Suppressed or Overlooked Evidence – Failing to bring relevant evidence into an argument A – “Candidate X voted 98 times to raise taxes.” 1 – 16 votes were on a budget bill that didn’t actually raise taxes but did determine how they were spent 2 – 48 of the votes were on the SAME bill that came up time and again B – “Candidate Y never met with the Black Caucus of the US Congress.” 1 – Actually, he DID meet with them, but the other candidate didn’t know about it

Tokenism – accepting a token gesture as though it is the real thing A – In Il Postino (The Postman), a politician promised to build pipes for the people to have running water. He began construction before the election…and when he was elected, construction stopped B – Hiring one minority as proof that your company has a completely level playing field