Term Review

Using the same term/phrase with different meanings Also known as “double speak” Results in complete ambiguity▪ It is the vocabulary, not the grammar, that

makes the phrase(s) ambiguous

▪ *Note: Equivocation alone is not a fallacy. ▪ The only time equivocation becomes a logical fallacy

is when it makes an unsound argument appear sound.

Feathers are light;What is light cannot be dark;Therefore, feathers cannot be dark.

Light is a homophone, and unless it is put in an argument, it is not a fallacy.▪ The first two lines are not a fallacy, but the

third line makes it that.

After this; therefore, because of this Implies the sequence of events

caused something to happen. Event #1 happens before event #2;

therefore, event #1 caused event #2 “Murphy’s Law” kind of thing

Happens quite a bit with arguments pertaining to health or medicine and/or crime… Sufficient tests/examples are not

completed to back up opinion.

Grandma June smoked all her life1. Grandma June died2. Therefore, Grandma June’s smoking caused her to die.

#1 happened first (and for a long time); #2 happened afterwards. #1 must cause #2 It may be possible, but we don’t know. There is

no evidence that Grandma died from smoking…even if she died from lung cancer, how can we be sure that the lung cancer was caused from smoking.

The conclusion does not follow from the argument. If I have to write another paper, I will be

mad1. I am mad2. Therefore, I had to write another paper.▪ It isn’t sequential, so it isn’t post hoc▪ The conclusion does not follow the topic…the

topic (mad) is far too large.

Ignores the real issue by emotional appeal, or other distractions.

Often works to divert attention in legal matters

You should not find my client guilty for murder. He only committed the murder because he was orphaned at an early age. Can also be a post hoc fallacy because

oftentimes one event (or a series of events) caused another event.

Self-explanatory

Charlie must be guilty because even his father went to court for stealing last year.

Assumes that something is true when it is in need of proof We could improve the undergraduate

experience with coed dorms since both men and women benefit from living with the opposite gender.

Also called Circular Reasoning.

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."

Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."

Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"

Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

Ignores the real issue by the use of distracting information that has no bearing on the case

A company shows some interesting, but minor problems to an auditor, distracting them from the really serious issues that may be found elsewhere.

“Let’s look at the paintwork here… (instead of the faulty foundation)”

All options are not taken into account in the solution posed by the major premise. Used often in advertisements▪ Bounty or Downy: Downy is the best

Used often in educational debates▪ You either believe in Creationism or Evolution

Ignores the real issue by turning attention to the individual.

How can the Clinton administration do anything to stop illegal drug use in America? Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana in college.

A generalization arrived at without sufficient reasons or examples. Has a lot to do with making sure there is a

representative population.▪ Only 20% of Ohio State University’s freshman

class dropped out last year—an improvement over last year’s rate of 35%. This shows that students in Ohio are taking education seriously.▪ Over 43% of students at Sinclair dropped out, 25% at

OU, and 33% at WSU—population is not representative.