INTRODUCTION

Recall that a fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. To call an argument fallacious is not to disagree with its conclusion. Rather, it is to recognize a flawed reason. It is to note that a premise fails to address the conclusion. When we first learned about fallacies we learned that there are different kinds of fallacies. There are different ways that a premise can fail to address its conclusion. So far we've learned about Fallacies of Language. Now we're going to turn our attention to Fallacies of Relevance.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

A Fallacy of Relevance is a premise that fails to address its conclusion because the premise is irrelevant. By "irrelevant" we don't mean "unimportant." Rather, it's off-topic. Consider the following example:

Matt should adopt a vegetarian diet; for he hasn't tried that yet.

This argument is fallacious. Its premise is flawed. It doesn't address its conclusion. More specially, it commits a Fallacy of Relevance. Its premise is irrelevant. That is, it's off-topic. What is the topic? Look at the conclusion. It's whether or not Matt should adopt a vegetarian diet. Does the premise address this topic? It may seem to address it. It says something about vegetarian diets. But it only notes that Matt hasn't tried one yet. The premise says nothing about whether or not Matt should try one. Here's another example:

Matt should eat meat; for most people eat meat.

Again, this argument is fallacious. Its premise is flawed. It doesn't address its conclusion. More specially, it commits a Fallacy of Relevance. Its premise is irrelevant. That is, it's off-topic. What is the topic? Look at the conclusion. It's whether or not Matt should eat meat. Does the premise address this topic? It may seem to address it. It says something about eating meat. But it only notes that most people eat meat. The premise says nothing about whether or not Matt should eat meat.

I recognize that these arguments may seem relevant. Their premises may seem to address their conclusions. We're used to hearing people talk this way, and seeing people accept this kind of reasoning as if they've addressed the conclusion. Our challenge is to fine-tune our ability to recognize that they actually don't.

We'll do this by learning about different kinds of Fallacies of Relevance. There are many different Fallacies of Relevance. We'll be learning about ten of them:

PERSONAL ATTACK

A personal attack is committed when an argument disagrees with someone's claim by appealing to a premise that negatively criticizes the person making the claim. For example:

I know Mr. T said I should study more, but I think he's wrong; for he's just old.

POISONING THE WELL

Poisoning the Well is committed when an argument disagrees with someone's anticipated claim by appealing to a premise that negatively criticizes the person making the claim. The only difference between this and a personal attack is when the argument negatively criticizes someone. If it negatively criticizes someone before they make their claim, then it's poisoning the well. For example:

I know Mr. T is going to say I should study more, but I think he's wrong; for he's just old.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

Guilt by Association is committed when an argument disagrees with someone's claim by appealing to a premise that negatively criticizes someone associated with the person making the claim. For example:

I know Mr. T said I shouldn't buy an iPhone, but I heard his wife works for Samsung; so obviously he's just wrong.

ATTACKING THE MOTIVE

Attacking the Motive is committed when an argument disagrees with someone's claim by appealing to a premise that negatively criticizes the person's motive for making the claim. For example:

I know Mr. T said I shouldn't do the extra-credit homework, but that's just because he doesn't want to have to grade it; so obviously he's just wrong.

Usually, the point of such attacks is to suggest that the person is wrong because they are biased. However, even if that is their motive, and even if it is a problematic motive, that doesn't address whether or not the person's claim is true.

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS

Personal Attack, Poisoning the Well, Guilt by Association, and Attacking the Motive are called Ad Hominem Attacks. In slightly different ways, each argument disagrees with a claim by negatively criticizing someone instead of addressing the content of the claim.

What makes an Ad Hominum Attack fallacious is not that it's false. For example, even if it's true that Mr. T is old, that doesn't address the issue at hand: whether or not this person should study more. It's irrelevant.

When considering if an argument commits a personal attack, poisoning the well, guilt by association, or attacking the motive, keep in mind it's not because the argument is negatively criticizing someone. Consider the following example:

We shouldn't hire Dana to be our new nanny; for she can't work on the weekend.

This argument's premise is negatively criticizing Dana, but it is doing it in a way that's relevant. It's not saying her opinion is wrong because of who she is.

LOOK WHO'S TALKING

Look Who's Talking is committed when an argument attempts to justify an action by noting that the other person has done something similar. Consider some examples. First:

There's nothing wrong with cheating on my exam. Think about it, you've cheated on exams, too.

Second:

I just think I shouldn't have got in trouble for cheating on my exam. Thinking about it, you've cheated on exams, too.

Third:

I don't think cheating on my exam was a big deal; since you've admitted you cheated on exams, too.

The above arguments' conclusions are worded slightly differently. But each is attempting to justify an action, suggesting it's okay or at least not worthy of punishment; and each attempts to justify its conclusion by pointing at that you, the person to whom I'm trying to justify my action, have done something similar.

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT

Two Wrongs Make a Right is committed when an argument attempts to justify an action by pointing out that there are other allegedly wrong actions, too. Consider the following examples. First:

I just don't think I should be punished for cheating on one exam question. For there were other students cheating, too.

Second:

I just don't think I should be punished for cheating on one exam question. For it's not like I cheated on the whole exam.

Often such arguments are implying that the action being justified is not a bad as the other allegedly wrong action. Sometimes the implication seems to be that one shouldn't be punished when others weren't. Either way, they are attempting to justify an action by pointing out that there are other allegedly wrong actions, too. Only, two wrongs don't make a right.

APPEAL TO TRADITION

An Appeal to Tradition is committed when an argument claims that one should believe or do something because it has been believed or done for some period of time. Consider the following examples. First:

You should consider hiking the John Muir Trail. Think about it. People have been hiking it every year since 1938.

Second:

There's got to be something to Christianity. Think about it, it's been around for almost 2,000 years.

BANDWAGON ARGUMENT

It's a Bandwagon Argument it claims that one should believe or do something because a group of people believe it or do it. Consider the following examples. First:

You should consider hiking the John Muir Trail. Think about it. Thousands of people have hiked it.

Second:

There's got to be something to Buddhism. Think about it, it's the most popular religion in the world.

Third, sometimes Bandwagon Arguments merely associate a belief or action with a group of people:

You have to like pizza. For, you're an American.

APPEAL TO NOVELTY

An Appeal to Novelty is committed when an argument claims that one should believe or do something because it is novel.

Keep in mind that there are two common variations. Sometimes an Appeal to Novelty is claiming that the belief or action is new or untried. Sometimes an Appeal to Novelty is claiming that the belief or action is rare or unusual. Consider the following examples:

First:

You should go to a horror movie; for you've never seen one.

Second:

I know all of your friends are watching a movie tonight; so I say that's a good reason to think you should read a book.

STRAW MAN MISREPRESENTATION

An argument is guilty of a Straw Man Misrepresentation when it argues against something by misrepresenting it. Considering the following example:

You shouldn't take Michael Aparicio's Critical Thinking class; for he makes students write a five-page essay every week.

Sometimes one may not know if an argument is a Straw Man Misrepresentation. Consider the following examples. First:

I don't think Plato was a very good teacher. Think about it. He never encouraged any of his students.

Second:

I just think John Adams was a terrible President; for he actually tried to outlaw free speech.

Our course's practice examples, quizzes, and exams will focus on examples that you will be expected to identify as misrepresentations. However, in life, you often have to research a topic in order to determine whether or not an argument is a Straw Man Misrepresentation.