National Archives
Readers: We’ve talked about cowardly writing. One form of that is the employment of logic flaws, or logical fallacies. Eliot learned these all the way back in high school debate. At best, they’re a form of cowardly writing. At worst, they’re a form of dishonest writing. Here’s a list from the University of North Carolina:
• Hasty generalization. Making a firm statement based on limited samples: “All wealthy people are snobs.” Or, “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!”
• False cause. “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.”
• Slippery slope. “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life and makes us more tolerant of violent acts. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization.”
• Weak analogy. “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers. So restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.”
• Appeal to authority. “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.”
• Ad populum. From the Latin for “to the people.” This is the same as the “bandwagon” fallacy. “Gay marriages are just immoral. Seventy percent of Americans think so!”
• Ad hominem. This attacks the person instead of the idea: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?”
• “You Too.” This argues that if the person who said it is a hypocrite, the argument automatically is wrong. “You tell me not to smoke, but you used to smoke.”
• Appeal to ignorance. “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.”
• “Straw man.” The arguer sets up a watered-down version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace.” Most feminists don’t want to ban all pornography, just aspects such as child porn or cases of exploitation or human trafficking.
• False Dichotomy. Suggesting only an either-or. “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. So we must tear the building down.” Omits the option of repairing the building or blocking off the unsafe parts.
• Begging the question. Also called circular reasoning. “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.”
Watch this on video! https://youtu.be/pCIZ5EP_cns
Next Time: Things don’t have to be horribly wrong to be just plain wrong.
Readers: "Something Went Horribly Wrong," features samples of bad writing we see nearly every day. You can participate! Be our duly deputized “grammar police:” Your motto: “To protect and correct.” Send in your photos of store signs, street signs, newspaper headlines, tweets, and so on. It doesn’t have to be a grammatical error. It can be just what we call “cowardly writing.” Include your name and home town so we properly can credit you. You're free to add a comment, although we reserve the right to edit or omit. Now get out there! Send to Eliot@eliotkleinberg.com
Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Do it now! And tell your friends!