Table of Contents |
When you’re writing essays or analyzing sources, it’s important to evaluate the strength of the arguments you encounter. Not all arguments are created equally. Some are based on sound reasoning, while others are not. In the realm of writing and rhetoric, we often say these poor arguments rely on logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that weaken an argument. By learning to spot these fallacies, you can improve your own writing and critically evaluate the sources you use. Investigating logical fallacies can be a tool for analysis. However, most writers do not name a fallacy when they critique a source.
To make things easier, we’ll review some common fallacies based on the types of mistakes they represent: vagueness, oversimplification, and exaggeration. These are the categories of reasoning issues you will use more frequently when you are evaluating and writing about sources from your research.
Vagueness is the lack of clarity or precision in language, often resulting in ambiguous or misleading communication. A term or expression is vague when its boundaries of application are not clearly defined. Terms like “soon,” “large,” “better,” or “some people” are vague unless they are given a specific context. If someone says, “We should act soon,” it’s unclear whether that means in five minutes, five days, or five months.
Vagueness becomes an error in reasoning when it leads to confusion, misinterpretation, or faulty conclusions. In academic argumentation, it obstructs critical thinking by failing to define key concepts or by making claims that cannot be evaluated for truth or relevance. Here are some common logical fallacies that can make an argument vague.
The bandwagon fallacy occurs when someone argues that an idea, behavior, or choice is good simply because "everyone else is doing it." This reasoning is vague because it does not provide meaningful evidence or analysis about the value or effectiveness of the idea, but rather just points to popularity as if that were proof. When using sources, check whether the author is making claims like "this approach is widely adopted" without offering reasons or results. Does the argument offer any evidence beyond the fact that many people support it? Look for actual data, expert opinions, or outcomes that explain the value of the idea, not just how many people agree.
EXAMPLE
The blog claims that remote work should be embraced because it's a growing trend among businesses. However, the argument lacks evidence about how remote work affects productivity or employee satisfaction, making it vague and unconvincing.In this analysis of a source (the blog), the author highlights vague reasoning because there is no explanation of how or why remote work benefits productivity or employee well-being.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is simply a restatement of one of its premises, rather than a true explanation or proof. This creates a loop in reasoning and fails to move the argument forward.
To spot circular reasoning in writing, look for arguments that restate the claim as evidence without adding new information or support.
EXAMPLE
This policy is fair because it treats everyone fairly.This statement is vague and circular because it repeats the idea of "fair" without explaining how or why the policy is fair. To fix circular reasoning, replace the repeated idea with a new, evidence-based reason.
The ad populum fallacy is also known as the “appeal to popularity.” This fallacy undermines the logic of an argument by relying on mass approval rather than evidence or reason. The ad populum fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true or a decision is good just because it is popular or widely accepted. This is misleading, because something’s popularity does not make it logically valid or ethically sound.
EXAMPLE
Most people think college athletes should be paid, so it must be the right thing to do.This argument uses popularity to support a position instead of offering reasons or evidence. Arguments based on popularity can distract from the need for critical analysis. Just because something is widely believed doesn’t mean it’s well-supported or right. In academic writing, you must go beyond what most people think and focus on why they think it, and whether that reasoning holds up.
Oversimplification in reasoning occurs when a complex issue is reduced to a single cause, solution, or explanation, which ignores the full range of contributing factors. This type of flawed logic may seem persuasive at first, but it ultimately misleads readers by offering a shallow or incomplete understanding of the issue. Let’s look at some fallacies of oversimplification.
The causal fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second. This oversimplifies complex situations by ignoring other possible explanations. Look for claims that jump to conclusions about cause and effect without sufficient support. Ask if there is evidence to prove causation, or is it just correlation? Causation means that one event directly causes another to happen. There is a clear cause-and-effect relationship: A leads to B. Correlation means that two things happen at the same time or in a predictable pattern, but one does not necessarily cause the other. To spot causal fallacies, look for alternative explanations or weak reasoning.
EXAMPLE
The article suggests that increased screen time causes poor academic performance. While there may be a correlation, the author’s argument is an oversimplification because the author doesn’t consider other factors like sleep deprivation or lack of parental support.The slippery slope fallacy is a type of faulty reasoning in which someone argues that a relatively small or reasonable first step will inevitably lead to a chain of negative events, often without providing solid evidence that these outcomes will actually occur. This oversimplifies the situation by ignoring the possibility of alternative outcomes. To analyze this reasoning issue, ask yourself: Are the predicted consequences realistic? Look for evidence to support the chain of events. When critiquing a source, point out slippery slope arguments to question their validity.
EXAMPLE
The author warns that legalizing one drug will lead to the legalization of all drugs, but this oversimplified argument doesn’t account for the regulatory processes involved.Cherry-picking is a logical fallacy where someone chooses only the evidence that supports their argument and ignores information that might challenge it. This creates a misleading impression of the facts and prevents a balanced view of the topic.
EXAMPLE
This study found that students using tablets in class performed better on reading tests, so all schools should switch to tablets.In this example, the argument selects one study that supports a positive outcome while ignoring other research that might show negative effects, such as distractions, screen fatigue, or reduced retention. It presents a skewed picture of the evidence by focusing only on the favorable result.
Exaggeration is a logical flaw where a point or claim is overstated beyond what the evidence can support. In argumentation, this makes something seem more extreme, important, dangerous, or beneficial than it really is. While exaggeration can grab attention, it weakens an argument by distorting facts and reducing credibility. Exaggeration often oversimplifies complex issues or uses emotional appeals rather than logic, and can mislead the audience by making your writing sound alarmist or untrustworthy. Let’s look at some examples of fallacies that use exaggeration.
Hyperbole involves exaggeration to make a point. While it can be persuasive, it often lacks factual support and can mislead readers. While hyperbole may seem persuasive, it can distort reality. It appeals to emotion, like fear, outrage, or urgency, rather than logic, which can mislead readers and create an inaccurate or unfair impression of an issue. To spot hyperbole, ask yourself: Is the claim realistic or supported by evidence? When analyzing a source, identify hyperbolic statements and question their accuracy.
EXAMPLE
The author claims that this new app will ‘revolutionize education,’ but this is a clear exaggeration. The evidence provided doesn’t support such a dramatic claim.Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning “to the person.” This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the individual making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Instead of engaging with reasoning or evidence, the focus shifts to personal traits, motives, or background. This exaggerates personal flaws or biases to discredit someone’s ideas. Ad hominem reasoning diverts attention from the real issue. It can appear persuasive by discrediting the speaker, but it fails to evaluate the truth or logic of the claim. In academic writing, it shows a lack of critical thinking and professionalism. When critiquing a source, call out ad hominem attacks to show how they weaken the argument.
EXAMPLE
The author dismisses the opposing viewpoint by exaggerating problems with the credibility of the researcher, rather than addressing the evidence presented.A straw man fallacy happens when someone distorts or oversimplifies another person’s argument, then attacks that weaker version instead of the real point. It’s like building a fake argument out of straw—easy to knock down, but not the same as the actual argument. The straw man fallacy shows a lack of critical thinking and fairness, which may seem persuasive at first, but it misleads readers and weakens credibility. Academic writing involves honest engagement with differing perspectives, even if you disagree or shut down the counter argument.
EXAMPLE
People who support environmental regulations just want to shut down all factories.This claim is a misrepresentation. Most advocates for environmental regulations support cleaner practices, not ending industrial activity, but it seems like it could be true.
When you’re analyzing sources for an essay or research project, you can use these fallacies as a checklist to evaluate the strength of the arguments. Here’s a list of questions you can use as you are reading your research sources:
| Identify the Argument | Look for Potential Fallacies | Analyze the Impact |
|---|---|---|
|
What is the author trying to convince you of? Summarize the main claim in your own words. |
|
How do these fallacies weaken the argument? What evidence or reasoning is missing? |
