CHAPTER
Refutation by Fallacy
Claims
11
fallacy claim, p. 174
incorrect logic, p. 176
sophistry, p. 177
tu quoque , p. 177
begging the question, p 177
authority, p. 178
appeal to pity, p. 180
pragma-dialectical, p. 181
deception, p. 182
refusal to reason, p. 183
cooperation, p. 183
irrelevant, p. 183
KEY TERMS
In Chapter 10 , we discussed the process of refutation and how to build a refuta-
tion case and communicate it. In this chapter, we examine what traditionally
have been seen as individual errors in reasoning that are subject to refutation.
They are known as fallacies. The concept of fallacy originally came from the study
of logic. Logic was closely related to mathematics and not particularly applicable
to decision making. Thus, for most of argumentation we use the term fallacy claim
because fallacy is not automatic but must be argued like any other claim. A fallacy
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 174 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 174 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 175
spelling, the error may well be self-evident once attention is focused on it. In argumenta-
tion, a fallacy claim is rarely self-evident (Lyne 3). Therefore, it must pinpoint the issue
2. A fallacy claim charges significant deviance from appropriate argumentation prac-
tices; it does not make nit-picking criticisms that score debate points rather than advance
critical decision making. Sometimes people trounce on a slip of the tongue, a minor error,
or an overstatement as though it were a triumph. In 2011, in a U.S. Senate debate, Senator
Jon Kyl of Arizona was arguing to end federal subsidies to Planned Parenthood. He ar-
gued that 95% of the money was used to fund abortions. In reality, only 5% or less
3. Although a fallacy claim rests on a significant rule of the sphere, the appropriate deci-
sion makers must reaffirm the rule for the claim to succeed. For example, The U.S. Office
of Science and Technology defines fabrication as “manipulating research materials or
changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented
in the research record” (55722–55725). But over the multiyear life of a research project,
FALLACY BEGAN IN THE STUDY OF LOGIC
Aristotle is credited with formalizing logic, and his work in the Sophistical Refutations ,
Prior Analytics , and Rhetoric is cited as the origin of the concept of fallacy (Hamblin 50–
88). As logicians sought to make sense of Aristotle’s ideas, they did so from a worldview
powerfully shaped by a sense of order and certainty. They were sure that the universe is
orderly and that humans possess the rational capacity to understand and deal with it.
Logic was perceived to be the tool of that rationality.
Logicians believed that just as numbers and abstract symbols, such as P and Q , could
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 175 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 175 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
human discourse (Howell 350–361). It has little patience for the pragmatics of language
as practiced by ordinary people where the meaning of words is negotiated through usage
and may vary within a single argument.
From this worldview, it is no wonder that some philosophers understand Aristotle’s
idea of fallacy as identifying incorrect logic . In logic, the task is to locate logical errors, for
will get wet.” You can validly use this in two ways: (1) affirm the antecedent (a modus
ponens ) “it did rain, so the streets are wet” or (2) deny the consequent (a modus tollens)
“the streets are not wet, so it did not rain”.
However, drawing a claim from affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent
can be subject to a fallacy claim because they may not yield valid conclusions. That is, if you
property lines are not simply a matter of a surveyor’s report. To make good on this claim,
you must successfully argue not only that the property line is where you claim it is, but
also that you have consistently and publicly continued to claim the property. If you have
allowed the fence to stay there without asserting your claim, you may have no case. A
critic who stopped with the observed validity of the argument would miss the key issues.
In one view, it is not worthwhile to study fallacies based on violations of the rules of
formal logic because strengths and weaknesses in argumentation are addressed to decision
maker’s judgment not arbitrary standards (Ehninger and Brockriede 99–100). Gerald J.
Massey claims that there is no theory behind logical fallacies and the subject should be
sent to psychology if anywhere (170–171).
In another view, although argumentation is admittedly inexact and ambiguous, tak-
ing note of such fallacies serves as a point of reference by which arguments “might be
critically analyzed” (Lyne 4). The more knowledgeable you are on the rules of logic and
the ways they can be violated, the more likely you are to sniff out some of the problems in
people’s arguments and come up with effective refutation. But you must keep in mind that
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 176 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 176 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 177
argumentation does not conform to strict rules of logic, and logical incorrectness may not
be an effective fallacy claim.
Fallacy Claims of Sophistry
acquainting students with the devices and ploys which drag that level down” (xi). He says
persuasion is often successful when it ought not to be, and so he defines a fallacy as an
“argument which should not persuade a rational person to accept its conclusion” (1).
We will briefly introduce you to some commonly mentioned fallacy claims arising
from the concern over sophistry. This is not a complete list, nor are these forms of argu-
that “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7),
the New Testament quotation attributed, with widespread approbation, to Jesus, is a
tu quoque argument. Jesus used it to spare a woman accused of adultery while avoiding
damage to himself for seeming to violate the Mosaic law that stoning was appropriate for
adultery. We know of no one who has charged Jesus with committing a fallacy. Rohatyn
is not approving of tu quoque in general; he is merely saying it is not always a fallacy to
use that argumentative form (1).
Begging the Question. When an answer or definition seems plausible but, on closer ex-
amination, assumes as fact that which is not proved, it may be begging the question
( petitio principii ). To beg the question is to assume as true that which you are trying to
prove. It is also called circular reasoning. Circular definitions fall within this classifica-
tion. Douglas N. Walton says that an argument “…that commits the fallacy of begging
the question uses coercive and deceptive tactics to try to get a respondent to accept some-
thing as a legitimate premise that is really not, and to slur over the omission, to disguise
the failure of any genuine proof” ( Begging 285). Walton says this is like pulling yourself
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 177 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 177 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
71) put it humorously: “It could go badly, or it could go well, depending on whether it
goes badly or well.”
In law, the defense may successfully object if the prosecutor says, “At what time did
the murder occur?” The object of the trial is to determine whether a murder occurred,
and the prosecutor assumed it into fact. We may know someone is dead, but whether it is
murder is still at issue.
Similarly, to condemn abortion as murder because it is taking the life of a human
being is to beg the question. The statement uses the point at issue (At what point does life
begin?) to support the claim and thereby fails to carry the discussion any further along.
228). That is to say, authority may be abused if it is used to silence the dialogue. Our
discussion of testimonial evidence in Chapter 7 develops these ideas.
The common use of celebrities in advertising is subject to a fallacy claim. Actress Sally
Field is not an authority on bone loss therapy, nor is former NBA star Michael Jordan an
expert on underwear, or championship golfer Phil Mickelson an authority on arthritis,
or Actress Jamie Lee Curtis on healthy Yogurt. Their celebrity status, when it is all that
is used, is subject to a fallacy claim. When the celebrity makes an argument and provides
evidence, it is more difficult to argue it as a fallacy claim because it is not clear whether it
is a raw appeal to celebrity status or an argument about the subject. Such was probably
the case when the actor with Parkinson’s disease, Michael J. Fox, campaigned for several
U.S. Senate candidates in 2006 because they supported stem cell research. His arguments
may have been a fallacy, but a fallacy claim would be difficult to argue. Perhaps the most
interesting case deserving a fallacy claim is the commercial wherein the celebrity says,
“I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV.”
Appeal to Popularity. Similar to the objection to uses of authority is that over appeals
to popularity . Claiming that something is good because it is popular runs the risk of a
fallacy claim. Douglas Walton writes that the traditional interpretation that any appeal
to popularity is a fallacy, under the Latin name argumentum ad populum , no longer can
be accepted because in a democracy it is relevant and proper to take into account public
opinion and preferences ( Appeal to Popular 276). However, the appeal to popular opin-
ion is only applicable to a fallacy claim when it claims more than that people favor or do
not favor it. A poll showing that seniors favor keeping Medicare as it is can stand for just
that. It would be subject to a fallacy claim to say that a change would, or wouldn’t work.
Unpopular policies can still be better for the country than popular ones. Certainly, we
learned that about raising children. So-called “tough love” is frequently better than giving
in to every child’s wish. In theology, as we will discuss in Chapter 14 , that a religion is
growing in popularity, or that it is one of the largest, is not a legitimate basis for claiming
that it is correct.
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 178 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 178 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 179
Post Hoc Fallacies. Many arguments rest on a claim of causality, as we explained in
Chapter 4 . A fallacy may be claimed when it is believed that a faulty causal relationship is
at hand. The Latin phrase post hoc , ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this),
from which the fallacy gets its name, calls attention to the tendency to assume a causal
relation among events because they are related in time or space.
just as Barack Obama became President the Great Recession occurred. Although at first he
claimed that it was caused by his predecessor, after a couple of years most observers said he
owned the recession. The causes of the recession were complex and not directly and singu-
larly the result of any president’s actions, but charges of causality were made. Every one of
the last four presidents has been subject to some claim based on post hoc fallacies.
People are quick to ascribe causes, often with little or no justification. You come down
with a cold, and your mother says, “I told you not to go outside without your coat.” You
get in trouble, and your father says, “I told you not to run around with that bad crowd.”
Your grades go up at the same time that you are frequently absent from class, and you an-
nounce, “Attending class doesn’t have anything to do with getting high grades.” College
officials often claim that going to college will cause you to earn more money because, on
Fallacies in Language. Following Aristotle’s lead, a great many fallacy claims are based
on problems with the language in which an argument is expressed. Because argumenta-
tion uses ordinary language to deal with questions within the realm of uncertainty, am-
biguity is always present. Still, a critic can sometimes find instances in which language
problems are of such significance as to warrant a fallacy claim.
Article II of the Bill of Rights reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in-
fringed.” This has been used by some to claim that no restriction on the private ownership
of weapons can be constitutional. Others claim that “a well regulated Militia” puts a limit
Ad Hominem Fallacies. When people turn their criticism against a person rather than
the person’s ideas, they may be subject to an ad hominem fallacy claim. There is plenty
of evidence that we do this regularly in our own minds by giving more credence to the
arguments of attractive people and less to the unattractive (Rieke and Stutman 128–129).
It would be as if you said, “Your argument is weak because you’re ugly.” Although you
may not be as blatant as that in using ad hominem arguments, they are still popular.
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 179 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 179 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
180 PART 2 Tools
On February 12, 2007, in Salt Lake City, an 18-year-old boy armed himself with
a shotgun, a handgun, a backpack of ammunition; went into Trolley Square Mall; and
began shooting randomly at anyone who was in his path. By the time he was killed by
police, he had killed five people and wounded four more. When it was learned he was an
immigrant Bosnian Muslim, some people began threatening all Muslims in the city. The
ad hominem fallacy here was to assume that any Muslim was capable of similar acts.
Verbal aggression constitutes a special form of ad hominem fallacy. In conversational
argument, there is a presumption for agreement (Jackson and Jacobs 253). So attacking the
self-concept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the person’s position on a topic
of communication is verbal aggression (Infante and Wigley 60). This aggression has the
effect of inflicting, and may be intended to inflict, psychological pain (Infante 51). These at-
In politics, voters follow a generally held precept that a personal attack on someone
may be seen as an ad hominem fallacy unless the personal weakness complained of is re-
lated to a candidate’s policies or his or her approach to the office sought.
President Barack Obama was the subject of many negative claims about his health
plan, his stimulus policy, his conservation policy, his war plans, and so forth. Although
he was harshly criticized these were not ad homenem arguments because they centered
on objections to his policies. But many of the charges against him were personal—some
said racist—causing a prominent conservative commentator to call for an end to a whole
group of other charges (Schneider).
All of us have at one time or another resorted to these forms of attack. However, even
when decision makers think your charges are accurate, verbal aggressiveness reduces your
credibility (see Chapter 9 ). In some cultures, even the direct expression of disagreement is
perceived as in bad taste.
In western culture, what is important to emphasize is the difference between assert-
iveness and argumentativeness, which do not give rise to fallacy claims, and hostility and
Appeal to Pity. Arguments that are based on the elicitation of pity ( argumentum ad
misericordiam ) have traditionally been considered inherently fallacious. Such a broad
condemnation cannot survive within an audience-centered rhetorical approach to argu-
mentation. As our discussion of forms of support makes clear, values, including feelings
such as pity, compassion, or sympathy, are important to argumentation.
Douglas Walton agrees that the traditional approach to this fallacy must be set aside
in favor of a case-by-case approach. A fallacious appeal to pity might be sustained in
relation to the way the argument is used in context: Did it further or damage the require-
ments of the argumentation? In general, Walton argues that the historical and pragmatic
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 180 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 180 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 181
meaning of pity includes negative elements: A person is pitiful because of suffering from
some undeserved evil ( Appeal to Pity 73). So, concludes Walton, although sympathy and
compassion are usually appropriate in argumentation, pity may be used in an irrelevant
and distracting manner that inhibits the objective of argumentation.
Pity for a criminal guilty of a serious crime who had a difficult childhood will fre-
quently be seen as inappropriate. But it is not considered a fallacy to ask for pity for poor
children in Africa who have AIDS when it is not their fault. Pity is usually acceptable
when it is directed at those who are innocent and have no control over their situations.
patterns are still recognized and used, as we discuss in Chapter 4 , as a way to structure ar-
gumentation, its rules of validity are generally seen as inapplicable to arguments based on
probability and addressed to decision makers. Logic is useful as a guide to what is accept-
able but in social situations it can never constitute an absolute ground for a fallacy claim.
Sophistry has always been a difficult posture from which to identify fallacies because
of the extreme ambiguity of the concept. What is sophistic to one is often acceptable to
another. Who is to say an argument “ought not to be persuasive?” Who has the authority
to say an authority ought not to be believed in this instance? Who decides when respond-
ing to a charge with a countercharge is okay and when it is fallacious? By what rule do
we say that a claim and the argument against a person is an inappropriate ad hominem
argument and is, thus, fallacious?
Fallacies as Violations of Discussion Rules
Because of concerns with traditional approaches, contemporary scholars have sought a
new and acceptable theoretical basis on which to rest the concept of fallacies. Frans H.
van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst of the University of Amsterdam have developed what
they call a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. By this phrase, they mean a
combination of normative rules (a philosophical ideal of reasonableness) with a prag-
matic study of speech acts (what people actually say and mean in argumentation).
From the pragma-dialectical perspective, van Eemeren and Grootendorst develop a
theory of fallacies that first sets out 10 rules for critical discussion (see Chapter 4 ). They
include such prescriptions as allowing everyone to speak, requiring that claims be sup-
ported, demanding relevance of arguments, calling for honesty in representing arguments
presented, expecting that arguments be logically valid or capable of being validated, and
avoiding confusing arguments (209).
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 181 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 181 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
182 PART 2 Tools
The concept of fallacy follows directly from these 10 rules: For them, any move in
argumentation that blocks critical discussion by violating one of these rules is a fallacy.
They conclude their discussion by arguing that all the traditional fallacies, including those
we discussed under incorrect logic and those we discussed under sophistry, can be reason-
ably organized under one of the 10 rules of critical discussion.
Frans van Eemeren has elaborated on the concept of “strategic maneuvering,” which
attempts to recognize the tension you may feel between the desire to argue with perfect
reasonableness and your desire to win the debate. If you allow your commitment to rea-
sonable argumentation to be overruled by the desire to be persuasive, says van Eemeren,
Drawing on all of these views of fallacy as well as our own thoughts in the remainder
of the chapter, we will discuss how fallacy claims are a part of refutation. You should
remember that the contemporary image of fallacy is tied to the actual rules governing
argumentation and the willingness of decision makers to see an argument as a violation
of one of those rules.
SOCIAL GUIDES TO FALLACY CLAIMS
Although it is impossible to identify inherently fallacious ways of arguing, we can list
some relatively enduring patterns on which fallacy claims can be based. You can use these
guidelines in the development of fallacy claims.
Intent to Deceive
Earlier we said that simple errors or misunderstandings do not form the basis of fallacy
claims because they can be brought up, discussed, negotiated, and corrected. But errors
or misunderstandings that can be shown to intend deception are commonly seen as falla-
cious. People may forgive the former but not the latter.
Chris Raymond, in the Chronicle of Higher Education , reports that studies of patient
histories suggest that Sigmund Freud suppressed or distorted facts that contradicted his
theories. He rested his case heavily on the case histories of six people, of whom one left
therapy dissatisfied after three months, two were never treated by Freud or any psycho-
analyst, and another never really had therapy. Of the two remaining cases, Freud’s claims
of effecting a cure were refuted by a confession of Freud himself and a denial by one
Advertisers come in for considerable criticism because of their apparent willingness
to deceive people to win them over. Communication scholars who specialize in the study
of advertising, however, do not identify deception as central to advertising. They do say
it relies on the force of our own self-deceptions, fantasies, values, personal realities, or
worldviews. Loose analysis may lead you to charge deception when an advertiser is merely
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 183
Refusal to Reason
In a pure sense of the term, critical decision making means having a basis for a decision
that can be examined critically. It does not demand any particular kind of rationale; it
merely demands a rationale. To make a claim but refuse to give reasons in its support may
give rise to a fallacy claim. Even to rely on altruism or one’s own authority—“Believe it
because I ask you to”—is a reason that can be critically examined. To say, “Believe it just
because,” or “Believe it for no particular reason,” is to deny others (including yourself)
the opportunity for critical appraisal.
Children about the age of three years use the word because as a reason, whereas older
children and adults almost never do so. This is not so much a refusal to reason as it is a
childish understanding of the process of reasoning (Willbrand and Rieke, “Strategies” 435).
By the same token, when someone older than the age of four years asserts a claim
without any support, or with “because, just because” as a basis, we conclude it is a refusal
In the debate leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguments about the alleged
weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein were often cloaked in national
security claims. Administration spokespersons frequently said that although they were
Breach of Conversational Cooperation
H. P. Grice says that when people engage in argumentation, they do so within a presump-
tion that anything said is intended to be “cooperative,” that it contributes toward the
goal of the interaction. He posits four conversational maxims of such cooperation that
govern each utterance: the utterance is topically relevant; it is expressed clearly; it is suf-
Irrelevant Utterance. Because the cooperative principle guides people to presume com-
ments are relevant, it is possible to damage the critical process by making irrelevant state-
ments with the intent that they be taken as relevant. We stopped at a small-town gas sta-
tion recently, only then noticing that the price was 10 cents a gallon more than the place
184 PART 2 Tools
across the street. The attendant, in response to our request for a justification for his high
prices, said, “Well, you can go across the street if you are willing to put cut-rate gas in
Obfuscation. The cooperative principle leads us to presume that our interlocutors are
doing their best to be clear and as easy to understand as possible. Obfuscation , as we use
it here, is an intent to make communication unclear in order to secure adherence from
those who trust in the commitment to clarity. The common paradigm case of unclarity—the
IRS tax instructions and other publications of the federal government—probably would
not count as obfuscation as defined. Bureaucrat-ese may be a disease, but it is usually not
intended to confuse.
Violations of the Quantity Maxim. The cooperative principle says we presume that our
communications say enough to make sense and no more. Violations of this quantity
maxim seek adherence by taking advantage of that presumption while saying more or less
than would otherwise be appropriate. Closely related to this potential fallacy claim is the
concept of conflict of interest, in which some information that would be significant to a
critical decision is withheld to mask multiple motives.
Tax advisors say that people get themselves in more trouble than necessary during au-
dits with the Internal Revenue Service by saying too much. They advise people to answer
questions with the minimum necessary to respond, and no more. The problem comes,
say the advisors, when the audit seems over, people are standing up to leave, and the
The answer is true in one sense (they did not sleep) but untrue in the meaning commu-
nicated. If exposed, the defendant may be the subject of a fallacy claim of violating the
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 184 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 184 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 185
quantity maxim. The waste disposal company that publishes data showing that a ship-
ment contains “no hazardous waste” without saying that the shipment was originally
hazardous by government standards but has barely fallen out of that definition through
chemical changes is the potential object of a fallacy claim.
This maxim can be violated by overstatement as well. The incessant commercials for
Conflict of Interest. Withholding of relevant information is usually the basis for charg-
ing a conflict of interest . When the ophthalmologist recommends an optical shop nearby,
it is relevant to know it is owned by the ophthalmologist.
An acquaintance went to a lawyer to discuss a suit against a local company she be-
lieved had cheated her. The attorney advised her to forget about the incident and sent her
away. Only later did she discover that the attorney had for many years been on retainer
to represent the company in question. That discovery could count as the basis of a fallacy
claim through conflict of interest.
More to the point is the question of why the firm had not notified the state at the out-
set about its representation of the clinic. Their failure to be “up-front” about the matter
was probably more damaging than the fact of the representation itself. Knowing that the
same firm had been ordered to withdraw from another case by the state Supreme Court
because of conflict of interest simply added to their low credibility (House).
Newspapers usually make a practice of verifying stories before printing them, particu-
larly when reporting sensitive facts such as that a banker is a heavy gambler. Independent
sources are sought along with parallel confirmation. To make little or no effort to confirm
a story may constitute reckless disregard for the truth, a fallacy claim. The CBS program
60 Minutes interviewed people who claimed to have been paid as sources for news stories
for which they had no information. What CBS was doing was making a fallacy claim of
reckless disregard for the truth against some supermarket tabloids.
186 PART 2 Tools
USING FALLACY CLAIMS IN REFUTATION
Claims of logical incorrectness, sophistry, and violations of discussion rules must be con-
sidered in your plan of refutation. Recall from Chapter 10 that you should always aim at
the highest conceptual level and that pointing out specific mistakes or embarrassing slips
may not do much to criticize other positions.
executed were convicted of killing a white person. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of
the pro-death–penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, “blamed racial differences on
fewer prosecutors in heavily minority areas willing to seek the death penalty” (Salant
A20). He claims that prosecutors in more conservative counties use the death penalty
more often. The highest conceptual level on which to base refutation must be whether the
1. State the claim you find fallacious in this circumstance.
3. Provide the support for your fallacy claim.
4. State explicitly how your fallacy claim undermines the overall position you are refuting.
David Cay Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winning economist from Syracuse University re-
sponded to a statement by Gretchen Carlson, Fox News Host, that 47% of Americans
do not pay taxes. Johnson asserted the fallacy claim of obfuscation: the word “taxes” in
this context means federal income taxes and that is intentionally misleading. While many
people do not pay income taxes, they do pay, “plenty of other taxes, including federal
CONCLUSION
Fallacies are violations of significant rules of argumentation relevant to the appropriate
decision makers. They are expressed in fallacy claims. The notion of fallacy as incorrect
logic is identified with the tradition of formal logic. Although this perspective is generally
not appropriate for the realm of argumentation, knowledge of specific fallacies within the
system may serve as a critical guideline. Three formal fallacies are as follows: affirmation
of the consequent or denial of the antecedent, undistributed middle term, and mistaking
validity for truth.
Identifying fallacies with sophistry has been a key element of informal logic. Here
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 186 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 186 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 11 Refutation by Fallacy Claims 187
Contemporary theories tend to see fallacies as violations of discussion rules. In criti-
cal interactions, there are some basic rules of rationality that can be suggested through
a dialectical perspective. Fallacies occur when one of these discussion rules is violated.
Mere blunders or misstatements of fact are not classified as fallacies. A fallacy must occur
within argumentation and serve as a deliberate violation of accepted rules in order to gain
an improper advantage.
There are also enduring, socially negotiated guidelines for the development of fallacy
claims that, although they do not point to certain fallacies, can be used to discern what
may prove to be convincing fallacy claims: intent to deceive, refusal to reason, breach of
conversational cooperation, irrelevant utterance, obfuscation, violations of the quantity
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
2. Exchange your paper with another student. Each of you writes a response to the other’s paper
3. Search on the Internet for arguments that you believe represent three different kinds of fallacies
4. Join in a small group discussion where you share the fallacies you have found with others in the
group.
M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 187 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501M11_RIEK0596_08_SE_C11.indd Page 187 1/18/12 8:33 AM user-f501 F-401F-401