Propaganda ~ Logical Fallacies

[nik]

Propaganda ~ Logical Fallacies

(1) Allen & Greene: The Propaganda Game
(2) Yoder: Fallacy Zoo
(3) US Army: Psychological Operations Field Manual No. 33-1
(4) Sweeney: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
(5) Sweeney: 8 Traits of the Disinformationalist
(6) References

Robert Allen & Lorne Greene: The Propaganda Game

[Excerpts]

Based on the book Straighter Thinking by George H. Moulds ~ Published in 1966 by AIM (Autelic Instructional Materials) Publishers, New Haven, CT

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Instructions [Not included here]

III. Explanations of Techniques

A. Techniques of Self-Deception

1. Prejudice
2. Academic Detachment
3.Drawing the Line
4. Not Drawing the Line
5. Conservatism, Radicalism, Moderatism
6. Rationalization
7. Wishful Thinking
8. Tabloid Thinking
9. Causal Oversimplification
10. Inconceivability

B. Techniques of Language

1. Emotional Terms
2. Metaphor & Simile
3. Emphasis
4. Quotation Out of Context
5. Abstract Terms
6. Vagueness
7. Ambiguity
8. Shift of Meaning

C. Techniques of Irrelevance

1. Appearance
2. Manner
3. Degrees & Titles
4. Numbers
5. Status
6. Repetition
7. Slogans
8. Technical Jargon
9. Sophistical Formula

D. Techniques of Exploitation

1. Appeal to Pity
2. Appeal to Flattery
3. Appeal to Ridicule
4. Appeal to Prestige
5. Appeal to Prejudice
6. Bargain Appeal
7. Folksy Appeal
8. Join the Bandwagon Appeal
9. Appeal to Practical Consequences
10. Passing from the Acceptable to the Dubious

E. Techniques of Form

1. Concurrency
2. Post Hoc
3. Selected Instances
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Faulty Analog
6. Composition
7. Division
8. Non Sequitur

F. Techniques of Maneuver

1. Diversion
2. Disproving a Minor Point
3. Ad Hominem
4. Appeal to Ignorance
5. Leading Question
6. Complex Question
7. Inconsequent Argument
8. Attacking a Straw Man
9. Victory by Definition
10. Begging the Question

IV. The Experts Game [Not included here]

V. Summary

VI. Suggested Answers [Not included here]

VII. Appendix [Not included here]

I. Introduction ~

Propaganda is a subject of great concern in our society today, perhaps more so than in any other society in history. With the advent of television as a complement to the other communications media now available to us, the opportunities to use propaganda in disseminating information, expounding ideas, and offering opinions have increased considerably. And, unfortunately, it is far too often the case that propaganda is used to make us accept questionable points-of-view, to make us vote for men who may be unfit for public office, and make us buy products which are useless and sometimes even dangerous. Therefore, propaganda, or the method of influencing people to believe certain ideas and to follow certain courses of action, is of special importance to each of us.

The word "propaganda" comes from the Latin phrase "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide", or "Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith", a committee formed early in the Roman Catholic Church, whose function it is to aid the propagation or spread of the church doctrine throughout the world. Propaganda plays a dynamic, positive role in the daily lives of many men. Actors, preachers, teachers, politicians, editors, advertisers, salesmen, reformers, authors, parents --- our friends and even ourselves --- practice the art of persuasion. And each of us, as we attempt to put our ideas across to others, to persuade them to agree with our way of thinking, is, in a sense, acting in the ancient Roman tradition of the word: we are all missionaries for our causes.

Propaganda, as we know it today, can be nefarious as well as a noble art. For at one moment its techniques can be used to whip up racial hatred among groups of people; at another moment, its methods can be employed to move persons to acts of warmth and kindness. It is important, therefore, that we consider a person’s motive for using a propaganda technique, as well as understanding that a technique has been used.

Often, the ideas of facts that we wish to convey are linked with words about which everyone has some emotional feeling --- words such as "mother", "home", "beauty", "love", or "cruelty", "murder" or "death" --- since both hostile and loving emotions are a part of us all. But just as there is a place for emotional feeling in men, so also there is a place for more dispassionate thinking. In a democratic society, it is the role for every citizen to make decisions after evaluating many ideas. It is especially important then that a citizen be able to think clearly about the ideas that are daily presented to him. It is imperative that he be able to analyze and distinguish between the emotional aura surrounding the ideas, and the actual content of the idea. To this goal of clear thinking the game of PROPAGANDA addresses itself.

PROPAGANDA has been designed to introduce the players to some of the techniques used to distort the thinking process. However, one should not be deceived into thinking that familiarity with the subject matter in this game qualifies him as an expert thinker. PROPAGANDA should be regarded as an introduction to, rather than a completed course in, clear thinking.

A number of cautions need to be observed as one gains a better understanding of propaganda techniques. Many times defects in argument occur innocently. This is particularly true in discussions involving families, associates, and/or close friends. Although it is hoped that your awareness of the principles and practices of propaganda will be employed in your everyday approach to problem analysis, it is recommended that in you "go slow" in correcting others. No one likes to be branded publicly as an illogical fool. Also, just because a labeled technique can be attached to an argument, that argument is not necessarily invalid. Finally, it is not the aim of the authors that the PROPAGANDA GAME encourage youngsters and adults to become cynical and unduly suspicious of everything that is said and written, but rather that they become aware of the emotional overtones in all arguments and suggestions, and thus gain more thoughtful control over their responses to the multitude of ideas that they encounter daily...

II. Instructions ~ [Not included here]

III. Explanation of Techniques ~

Section A: Habits of Reflective Procedure (Techniques of Self-Deception)

1. Prejudice ~

Example: Nathanael asked (referring to Jesus): "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?", and thus indicated his prejudice against Jesus’ hometown.

Meaning: A prejudice is an unwillingness to examine fairly the evidence and reasoning in behalf of the person or thing which is the object of the prejudice. It is a prejudgment caused by indoctrination, conditioning, or some prior experience of a singularly pleasant or unpleasant character. A prejudice has strong and deep emotional support.

In discussing Prejudice here we are not talking of appeals to known prejudices. These are made from without, as by an advertising man, a salesman, or a politician. Rather, our interest is in how your own Prejudice, unaided by outside support, victimizes you.

Prejudice differs from hasty Generalization in that although hasty Generalization often represents a spontaneous emotional reaction, Prejudice is always a matter of much longer standing. The feeling that operates in the latter case is deep, not superficial, and is often completely hidden from the man in its grip.

2. Academic Detachment ~

Example: "I’ve heard many arguments in favor of the Republican candidate and just as many for the Democratic. Hence I don’t find any reason to prefer one over the other, so I’m going to stay home and not vote for either one".

Meaning: We refuse to commit ourselves when decision or action is demanded. In a situation requiring a stand to be taken, we see (or think we see) persuasive arguments on both sides. But certain situations (e.g., voting) require decision and action of one kind or another. Here, instead of trying to remain neutral, we must make a decision on the basis of which side seems to have the greater weight of evidence.

3. Drawing the Line ~

Example: "Either you tell the truth or you lie".

Meaning: Sharp distinctions are drawn where it is inappropriate to draw sharp distinctions.

It is permissible to draw the line between those who are for you and those who are not for you, those who tell the truth and those who do not tell the truth, and so on. But the error and inclination exhibited by common speech is to fail to realize that the logical class of those who do not tell the truth includes two subclasses that are quite different: (1) those who lie and (2) those who say nothing at all.

4. Not Drawing The Line ~

Example: "If we are allowed to stay out till two o’clock in the morning, why not till three --- one hour doesn’t make that much difference".

Meaning: The existence of differences is denied just because the differences are small and therefore apparently unimportant.

5. Conservatism, Radicalism, Moderatism ~

Example: (1) "This belief is an old one, but I want you to know that the old ways are the best ways".

(2) "What we need is new ideas, completely new ways of thinking; the old is not worthy of our acceptance".

(3) "Vote for me. My program is neither conservative nor radical".

Meaning: These three habits of mind are forms of prejudice. But they are not necessarily such. Prejudices have histories with a beginning. But the neo-conservative, the one who prefers what is old or familiar simply because it is old or familiar, may be born such; it is part of the temperament he brings into the world. Radicalism is the habit of preferring the new or the revolutionary just because of its newness. The moderate habitually chooses middle-of-the-road or compromise ground; he avoids the two extremes. But there is no inherent virtue in moderatism or compromise as such. Actually, there are times when our position should be conservative, and still other times when we should be moderate.

6. Rationalization ~

Example: The student, having failed the test, blames his failure on the classroom’s being so hot that he couldn’t think, whereas in reality he knows that he didn’t spend enough time in study.

Meaning: You cite reasons or causes that will justify action that really has less creditable grounds.

7. Wishful Thinking ~

Example: "My son will win because he ought to win after all his long hard preparation".

Meaning: You believe a proposition to be true because you want it to be true.

When we are forced to admit that our wishes have not become reality, we may then seek comfort in rationalizing. If, in the example cited above, the son does not win and the contest is fair, the parent will feel the necessity of inventing some argument that will excuse the son’s failure.

8. Tabloid Thinking ~

Example: "In college Basil was taught all about evolution --- the apeman theory, you know".

Meaning: To think in tabloids is to oversimplify a complex theory or set of circumstances. The tabloid thinker prefers quick summaries and has the habit of "putting things in a nutshell".

Tabloids concerning people are popular because they offer a neat summary of the character of a prominent person. "Marx? You don’t know who Marx was? Why, he was that philosopher who became impatient and irritable in his old age". It is much easier to remember Marx in this simple fashion than to remember him as a man of many interesting and controversial facets of character and conviction. These human tabloids are frequently emotional, but they are not mere Emotional Terms. To be Tabloid Thinking there must be some indication that someone is trying to sum up another’s character. All stereotypes ("barbers are talkative") are tabloids because they present a certain trait or characteristic, which is really superficial or trivial, as being the essential nature of a given class.

9. Causal Oversimplification ~

Example: "If it were not for the ammunition makers, we would never have wars".

Meaning: A complex event is explained by references to only one or two probable causes whereas many are responsible.

10. Inconceivability ~

Example: "Since Ballhead State has never in its past history won the conference title, I just can’t picture them winning it this year".

Meaning: You declare a proposition to be false simply because you cannot conceive it actualized or possible of realization.

Section B: Watch Their Language --- And Yours Too (Techniques of Language)

1. Emotional Terms ~

Example: Participant in Argument: "If you ignorant fools would only shut your traps a while and let me explain".

Meaning: An emotional term is a word or phrase which, however much factual information it conveys about an object, also expresses and/or arouses a feeling for or against that object. Translated into neutral language the emotionally-charged example given above should read: "I don’t agree and if you’ll just give me a chance to talk, I’ll show you why".

The authors believe that emotional language is appropriate in non-controversial situations. For purposes of the Propaganda game, patriotic celebrations, church services, poetry and other literary forms, and whenever a person is expressing personal feelings without attempting to persuade or convince others are considered to be non-controversial situations.

2. Metaphor & Simile ~

Example: Metaphor --- "Napoleon was like a fox".

Meaning: A metaphor is a comparison implied but not definitely stated. In the case of simile the comparison is explicitly stated by means of such words as "like" or "as".

In controversial situations the employment of metaphor or simile is to be avoided because such figures of speech are apt to suggest likenesses not really intended or not actually present. Napoleon was not actually a fox. He may have been like one, but if so, was it with respect to shrewdness or thievery or both or neither?

3. Emphasis ~

Example: When "We should not speak ill of our friends" is quoted, the original meaning changes if any of the following underlined words is emphasized: "We should not speak ill of our friends". Emphasizing "we" suggests that we should not, true, but others may.

Meaning: The technique of emphasis occurs only when another speaker or writer is quoted and one or more words emphasized so as to imply what would not otherwise be implied and thus put into the mouth of the source, meanings he may not have wished to convey.

Oral emphasis is usually secured by means of pitch, tone, or volume of voice. Written emphasis is secured by a variety of devices, such as italicizing and underlining. "Italics mine" (or its equivalent) is the accepted way for a writer to indicate that he is giving a stress to certain words that the original author had perhaps no intention of stressing.

4. Quotation Out of Context ~

Example: Someone quotes the Bible as saying that, "money is the root of all evil", but leave out the preceding words, "the love of".

Meaning: Quotation out of context is a propaganda technique wheb the effect of quoting a given statement without its context is to distort the original meaning in context.

The context of a given statement is not merely the words that precede and that follow but every accompanying circumstance, whether it be time and place or gesture and facial expression.

5. Abstract Terms ~

Example: A speaker defines "neurosis" as "a psychological term for a state of mind involving the nerves", but when he is asked to identify or point to --- among a large number of people --- a case of neurosis, he is at a loss to do so, showing that he is unable to use the term to make any concrete distinctions.

Meaning: An abstract term is a word or symbol which stands for the qualities (one or more) possessed in common by a number of particular things, facts or events. The technique of abstract terms occurs when an arguer employs a word for which he may have meaning in the form of other words, but the arguer is unable to identify the concrete facts to which to word supposedly refers.

6. Vagueness ~

Example: Someone says to me, "Sit down on that stool", and I sit down on the thing he points to. His meaning is not ambiguous; I understand what he is referring to. But I find the term "stool" vague under the circumstances, and I protest, "But this is not a stool, for it has a little back to it, and so it is a chair". He may reply, "But there is really not enough back there to call it a ‘back’, so I call it a ‘stool’".

Meaning: To call a word "vague" is to say that marginal situations can and do arise where there is doubt as to whether the word should or should not be used in describing those particular situations. The technique of vagueness exists where there is uncertainty as to the scope of the word.

7. Ambiguity ~

Example: Joe says, "Henry likes pudding better than his wife". And one or more people hearing him are left wondering whether Henry likes pudding better than he likes his wife if Henry likes pudding more than his wife does.

Meaning: A word or phrase is ambiguous if in the mind of a hearer or reader it has two or more quite different meanings and the interpreter is uncertain as to which was really meant. In argument such a situation would at all times be undesirable.

8. Shift of Meaning ~

Example: "The fellow who was supposed to arbitrate decided in favor of a company and fined the union. Now anyone who takes sides in a dispute is certainly not impartial. So how can this fellow claim to be an impartial arbitrator?".

Meaning: In shift of meaning a word appears explicitly or implicitly two or more times in an argument but with different meanings.

In the example appearing above "impartial" shifts meaning. In its first use it means "wholly refraining from judgment; taking no stand on an issue". But in its second use it means "judging after investigation but without previous bias". Obviously, the arbitrator’s being impartial in the second sense does not necessitate his being so in the first sense. The implied conclusion ("the arbitrator is not impartial") is invalid.

Section C: How Suggestible Are You? (Techniques of Irrelevance)

1. Appearance ~

Example: A floor wax nationally advertised on television is shown in the commercial being applied to a floor with the immediate result of a brilliant luster. The viewer does not know that the floor has been buffed and polished for days, and then dust coated just before the wax was applied in the commercial.

Meaning: The appearance of a thing (or person) is made the basis of our acceptance or rejection without any thought that this appearance may be a deceptive indicator of value.

2. Manner ~

Example: "He was such a well-behaved man, so understanding, so sincerely helpful. He wanted to help us. I couldn’t insult him. So I gave him our savings to invest. He seemed so trustworthy".

Meaning: A person’s manner of behaving is made the basis of our acceptance or rejection of him without any thought that this manner may be a deceptive indicator of value.

3. Degrees & Titles ~

Example: The name on the office door reads "James A. Rydack, The. B, M. Th. R., As. D., Counselor Extraordinary of the Society of Metaphysicians". A woman about to enter the office says to her husband, "With all those degrees and that title, he must know his stuff".

Meaning: We buy or we believe out of respect for degrees or titles attached to the names of those who persuade us.

4. Numbers ~

Example: From an advertisement: "One million more sold this year than last".

Meaning: We buy or believe because of the large numbers associated with the product or proposition.

5. Status ~

Example: Advertisement appearing in the Hampshire Gazette, January 29, 1970: "President Washington, when he addressed the two houses of Congress on the 8th instance, was dressed in a crow-colored suit of American manufacture. This elegant fabric was made from the manufactory in Hartford".

Meaning: Persons or objects for which we have a strong sentiment of respect or esteem -- or which at least possess some degree of fame or prestige -- are introduced into the argument as endorsing that which we are asked to buy or believe.

6. Repetition ~

Example: Radio commercial: "Get up with GET-UP, GET-UP’s got get up. Got it? Get it? Get GET-UP!".

Meaning: We buy or believe because we have heard or seen the idea or product name so often.

7. Slogans ~

Example: "Wheatless, the breakfast of champions"; "LSMFT" (Lusty Strife means Fine Tobacco); "When better cars are built, Bluink will build them"; "Better buy Bards-Eye".

Meaning: A slogan is a short, meaningful, catchy phrase or sentence intended for general consumption and designed to terminate thought and promote action in favor of the slogan maker. However true the slogan may be, if your action is merely a favorable response to the slogan, the technique is successful.

8. Technical Jargon ~

Example: Advertisement: "Liberty Rubber’s new tires contain Durium, the bonding material that makes these tires wear for years".

Meaning: The technique of technical jargon is the use of technical language or unfamiliar words, whether contained in the dictionary or freshly coined, for the purpose of impressing people.

9. Sophistical Formula ~

Example: Mrs Jones: "You know, Ann, I think the Browns must be having trouble. The last two mornings I’ve seen Tom Brown leave the house, slam the door, and drive off in his car looking awfully mad. I’ll bet they’re headed for a divorce".

Mrs Smith: "I don’t know, Barbara. Rally, they’ve always seemed to be very much in love".

Meaning: To shut off or close the argument a popular maxim or old saying is quoted. But every controversial situation must be settled in its own terms, and not on the merits (if any) of some proverb.

Section D: What’s Your Weakness? (Techniques of Exploitation)

1. Appeal to Pity ~

Example: Student to professor: "I know that my test grades have been poor and that I deserve an F, but my father is in the hospital and it will just break his heart if I get an F in this course".

Meaning: An attempt is made to secure our commitment by presenting the object of commitment as an object of sympathy, thereby arousing our sympathetic feelings to the point where these feelings determine favorable action.

2. Appeal to Flattery ~

Example: Salesman to young matron answering the door: "Is your mother home?".

Meaning: An attempt is made to persuade us to buy or believe by flattering us on our personal appearance or in some other category where we excel or desire to excel.

3. Appeal to Ridicule ~

Example: The sergeant, on the first day of class, having made a certain statement is asked an embarrassing question by a member of the class. Preferring a cheap victory to an honest discussion, the sergeant replies sarcastically, "I am afraid, Private Jones, that I cannot understand what you mean. You are too deep for me". He then goes on to the next questioner.

Meaning: An attempt is made to influence us to accept a certain proposition by poking fun at those who oppose the proposition.

4. Appeal to Prestige ~

Example: Real estate advertisement: "Live in exclusive Broadmoor Terraces, where successful people live. Deluxe executive apartments furnished in the Continental manner".

Meaning: An attempt is made to induce you to buy or believe by stating or suggesting that such action will secure or maintain prestige for you.

Status and Appeal to Prestige, though related techniques, nevertheless represent quite different errors. In the former case it is suggested that if Jones, a person possessing or allegedly possessing status, buys or believes, so should you. There is no implication that your buying or believeing will confer on you equivalent status. The Appeal to Prestige suggests that you should buy or believe because by so doing you will acquire or improve status.

5. Appeal to Prejudice ~

Example: A young man, wishing to make a good impression on his girl friend’s father, learns that he is a rabid Democrat. So one evening, while waiting for the daughter to finish dressing, he engages the father in conversation, and the young man turns the conversation to the point where he can rip to Republicans to pieces. The father later informs the girl that the young man has "good stuff in him and should go a long way".

Meaning: The one who makes the appeal to prejudice attempts to persuade you to act or feel in a certain way by associating his person, product or proposal with a certain one or more of your prejudices, positive or negative --- a prejudice being a prejudgment wrapped in emotion and having a history. Not only does he rekindle your prejudice, he also arouses in you warm feelings toward the one (himself) who apparently shares your prejudice. And so it becomes much easier to make you believe or buy what ever he has to offer.

6. Bargain Appeal ~

Example: The supermarket has a special display at the front of the store: canned peaches by the case (8 cans) for "only $3.20". Checking the shelves where single cans of peaches may be purchased, one finds the same brand priced at 40 cents per can.

Meaning: An attempt is made to get you to buy by appealing to your desire to save money. If you buy without making you own comparison as to price, quality, and service, the technique is successful.

7. Folksy Appeal ~

Example: The salesman who on meeting the prospect for the second (or even the first) time slaps him on the back as if he were a long lost brother and addresses him by his nickname.

Meaning: The user of this device places himself or his product on a level of neighborly intimacy with the reader or listener.

8. Join the Bandwagon Appeal ~

Example: "Vote for a winner, Senator Simpkins".

Meaning: An effort is made to influence you to act in a certain way by asserting or implying that that is what is popular or what is the majority is doing.

9. Appeal to Practical Consequences ~

Example: Slip inserted in workers’ pay envelopes: "If the Republicans do not win this election, this factory will be forced to close its doors and you will be without a job".

Meaning: An effort is made to persuade us to buy or believe by appealing to our concern for our own individual welfare, i.e., if we do as we are asked, we will secure certain beneficial consequences, while if we refuse to do as asked, the consequences will be harmful.

10. Passing from the Acceptable to the Dubious ~

Example: Advertisement: "The boys in the service abroad want letters more than gifts. Write frequently because some letters may be lost. Write only good news because there are enough unpleasant things going on over there. Buy and write on Barton’s Victory Stationery".

Meaning: The arguer states a series of propositions. The early ones are readily acceptable to the audience or reader, but the concluding statement may be dubious. The listener or reader is expected to accept blindly the later ones because he has accepted those which came before.

Section E: The Fault May Be With The Form (Techniques of Form)

1. Concurrency ~

Example: "Who was president at the time of World War I? Wilson, a Democrat. Who was President at the time of World War II? Roosevelt, a Democrat. Who was President at the time of the Korean War? Truman, a Democrat. Obviously, the Democratic party is the war party".

Meaning: Because things exist or appear simultaneously, it is claimed that one is the cause of the other. The form of the argument is: A is present along with B; therefore A is the cause of B. But two concurrents could never be the cause of one another, for a cause is something antecedent in time.

2. Post Hoc ~

Example: "The bankers are the source of our troubles. You will notice that every depression is preceded by bank failures".

Meaning: Because two events (or things) follow one another in close temporal succession the first event is claimed to be the cause of the second. The form of the argument is: A precedes B; therefore A is the cause of B. We may take as a hypothesis for testing, that A is a (or the) cause of B, but we should not forget that any one of a score of other preceding events is equally worthy of consideration.

3. Selected Instances ~

Example: Someone says, "All professors are conceited". When asked for his evidence he replies, "Well, how about Professor Smith, Professor Jones, and Professor Brown. Everybody knows they’re as conceited as they come". But he deliberately skips over Professor Black whom he knows to be a model of humility.

Meaning: Support is drawn for a position by choosing only those cases or instances which can back it up and disregarding those cases or instances which either contradict or do not support the position. The form of the argument is: All A is B; because A1, A2, A3 and A4 are B. the form is invalid; the arguer knows that at least A5 is not B.

4. Hasty Generalizations ~

Example: Having observed five women to be poor drivers, Jones generalizes and declares all women are poor drivers.

Meaning: The arguer jumps to a general or blanket conclusion about members of a given group on the basis of an unrepresentative or insufficient number of cases. The form of the argument is: A1, A2, A3 are B; therefore all A is B.

Selected Instances and Hasty Generalization have much the same effect. There are important differences, however. Hasty Generalization typically occurs on an emotional basis, while selected instances is typically coldly calculating. In the former case there is, at the time at least, no awareness of opposed instances; in the latter case, there is. Selected Instances is not merely crooked thinking but dishonesty. On the surface the two are apt to look alike, and until we have evidence that the arguer is really deliberately closing his eyes to contradictory cases, we cannot label the technique as Selected Instances.

5. Faulty Analogy ~

Example: "Last quarter I had a student by the name of Orzymski who did good work. This quarter I have another student by that name, and I’m expecting good work from him".

Meaning: To reason analogically is to reason that because two of more things or types of things are alike in some one or more respects (we may call this the antecedent resemblance), they will therefore be found alike in some other respect(s) --- the consequent resemblance. In cases of reliable analogies the antecedent factor is already known to have some bearing on the consequent factor. In faulty analogies such knowledge is lacking. The form of the argument is: A is like B in respect c; therefore A is like B in respect d.

In our example, while it is true that Orzymski is a rare name in English-speaking societies and while it is even probable that a second Orzymski enrolled at the same college would be related to the first, we need evidence that heredity is a decisive factor in scholastic performance. But an analogy is no stronger than its linking generalization, which in this case is "Heredity determines scholastic performance". Since our experience contains an abundance of cases of relatives with widely different scholastic records, we can have no confidence in an analogy based on such a linking generalization.

Some arguments take the form of alleging a complete analogy: two things are alike to the point of identity. The argument is: A (or all A) is c and B (or all B) is c; therefore B is A (or A is B). "Communists will not take the oath of allegiance and neither will Jones. Therefore he must be a Communist". The absurdity of this argument becomes readily evident when we see it is just like saying, "Dogs have tails; this cat has a tail; so this cat is a dog".

In discussing Metaphor and Simile the point was made that neither one, especially Metaphor, should be used in controversial situations. That remains true. But a metaphor or simile appearing by itself is to an argument, and is very uncertain in meaning. Analogies make use of simile and make clear how A is compared to B, but it still must be said that analogical argument is strong only when A and B are essentially the same thing, and A has a property deriving from its essential nature, therefore B must have the same property.

6. Composition ~

Example: "He’s a nice boy; she’s a nice girl. I’m sure they’ll make a nice married couple".

Meaning: We reason as if the properties of elements or individuals were always (i.e., necessarily) the properties of the wholes which they constitute. But the assumption that what holds true of a part is automatically true of the whole cannot be justified. The form of the argument is: A is part of B and A is c; therefore B is c.

7. Division ~

Example: "How dare you criticize any member of the Harvard faculty? Don’t you know that this faculty has the highest reputation of any university faculty in the United States?".

Meaning: We reason as if the properties of any whole are always (i.e., necessarily) properties of each part. But the assumption that what holds true of a whole is automatically true of its parts cannot be justified. The form of the argument is: A is part of B and B is c; therefore A is c.

8. Non Sequitur ~

Example: "Your children deserve the best milk. Buy Lorden’s".

Meaning: The conclusion is not necessitated by the premise(s).

Strictly speaking, all the techniques so far covered where the conclusion is invalid are Non Sequiturs. There is, therefore, no one form for a Non Sequitur. In the example cited above no more reason is given to buy Lorden’s milk than to buy Healtest or any one of a hundred other brands of milk.

Since the Non Sequitur label can be applied to so many other techniques, the label will be reserved on for those invalidities that cannot be classified under some other heading. They are, at least, Non Sequiturs.

Section F: Tricks of Argument (Techniques of Maneuver)

1. Diversion ~

Example: Jones: "I think that American industry should be run on a profit-sharing basis".
Smith: "Really! I don’t think so. I don’t see any obligation on the part of owners to share profits with their employees".
Jones: "Profit-sharing will provide the worker with greater incentive".
Smith: "Workers don’t need more incentive. They need higher wages. I remember the wages I got as a boy, working in the bean fields. They were pitifully low".
Jones: "Yes, they were. I remember those bean-picker wages. As I recall, Smith, you were the best picker in the field".
Smith: "No, Jones, I beg to differ. You were the best picker".

Meaning: To divert is to get off the subject. With the original issue left unresolved, one of the disputants begins to talk of something which has no apparent evidential value for his thesis. The diversion is full (instead of merely partial) when the second party to the argument "accepts the diversion and joins in discussion or argument over the new issue.

2. Disproving a Minor Point ~

Example: Jones: I believe that the installment system of buying has been a boon to America, since (1) it has enable the ordinary man to have what has hitherto been only a luxury for the well-to-do; (2) it has raised the standard of living; (3) it has provided employment for many clerks, typists, etc., who must keep installment accounts".
Smith: "After all, the head of a gang of thieves provides gainful employment, and so any defense of installment buying on the grounds of its providing employment is silly and evades the question as whether this kind of employment is desirable. Therefore, I don’t see that you have presented any substantial reason for favoring installment buying".

Meaning: When you have, say, two or more pieces of evidence of varying degrees of importance, your opponent takes on of the less weighty of your arguments (perhaps a rather trivial point) and discredits that. He then acts as if (or attempts to create the impression that) he has disproved your whole case.

3. Ad Hominem ~

Example: Smith: "This town needs more efficient and vigorous police protection. Some on the police force should be retired and some should be fired".
Jones: "Absolutely not. And who are you to talk about improving our police protection? As I recall, 30 years ago you did time for forgery".

Meaning: Instead of attacking your proposition, your opponent directs his argument against you as a person. Although a person’s past record is something one should take into consideration, it should not be one’s sole basis for judging an argument.

The Ad Hominem attack often takes the form of discounting a proposition by attributing prejudice or bias to its supporters. But what motivates is to believe as we do, say what we say, is one thing. The truth or falsity, validity or invalidity, of what we say is another. It is possible to be prejudiced but right.

Another form of Ad Hominem is charging your opponent with the inconsistency of not living up to what he advocates.

4. Appeal to Ignorance ~

Example: "I know that man’s soul is immortal. Why? Because you can’t prove that it isn’t".

Meaning: A proposition (1) is said to be true because it has not been disproved or (2) is said to be untrue because it has not been proved.

What is not disproved on a given occasion is not necessarily true. Is a scientific theory accepted as true because you cannot disprove it? Rather, the theory must be verified positively Every person who presents a proposition in argument has the obligation to offer at least one reason in defense of it.

Likewise, your opponent’s successful attack on all premises or reasons you advance does not in all strictness make his position right or yours wrong. All he has shown is that your position is not true for your reasons. Other people, now or later, may be able to produce better reasons. Similarly, your being able to show that your adversary in his defense has involved himself in contradiction is not sufficient to prove him wrong. Smith may be arguing that the taking of life is evil, but admits that he doesn’t object to killing animals for food. There is a contradiction and confusion, but Smith may still be right that the taking of life is evil.

5. Leading Question ~

Example: (1) "It was early in the morning, wasn’t it?".

(2) "Since when have you stopped drinking?"

Meaning: A leading question is one which (1) dictates or suggests an answer or (2) one which incriminates the answerer (or places him in an undesirable position) no matter how he answers. In the first example the answer "Yes" is natural and is apt to be forthcoming, especially if the person to whom the question is addressed is highly suggestible and/or half awake. In the second example an answer in a form appropriate to the question ("Since Tuesday") would still be an admission that one did drink.

Under the second form of Leading Question may be included any question which assumes as true that which is yet controversial and undecided. "Why is it that labor leaders are so much less concerned about the general welfare than are the leaders of business?". The one to whom the question is addressed tends to ask himself, "Now why is that?", when he ought to immediately respond, "Wait a minute! Let’s settle first whether it is true that they are less concerned".

6. Complex Question ~

Example: "Do you deny that you were in the room at the time of the murder? Do you deny that you have always hated the man? Do you deny that if you couldn’t have killed him yourself you would have been glad to have someone else do the dirty job? Answer me, ‘yes’ or ‘no’".

Meaning: A series of questions are put and then the questioner demands that they be answered as a whole by either "yes" or "no". Since there is always the possibility that the answerer needs to answer each of the questions separately and differently, the complex question puts the answerer in an unfair position.

Although the questions contained in the series may each be a leading question, the complex question differs in that separate answers are not desired.

7. Inconsequent Argument ~

Example: Prosecuting Attorney: "The defendant is charged with assault and attempted robbery. There can be no doubt of this man’s guilt. In the past ten years he has been convicted 13 times on different charges of forgery, theft, and rape. (The prosecutor then goes into each of these cases in detail, He passes to the jurors documents that support what he has said about the defendant’s record) the sickening record that I have exhibited speaks for itself. Gentlemen, I ask for a verdict of ‘guilty’".

Meaning: The arguer proves or establishes something, but not what he said he would prove.

In the example given above, surely proof of a previous bad record is a far cry from proof of guilt in the offenses charged. Proof of a bad record is "inconsequential" --- of no consequence. If bad record proves guilt, then for every crime there are millions of guilty people.

Inconsequent Argument differs from Diversion is that in the latter nothing is proved, whereas in the former something has been proven, though not what the arguer was expected to prove.

8. Attacking a Straw Man ~

Example: (1) Smith: "I am opposed to capital punishment".
Jones: "I’m not".
Smith: "You ought to be. Capital punishment is unchristian".
Jones: "People like you who oppose punishing criminals nauseate me".

(2) Smith: "I am opposed to capital punishment".
Jones: "You fellows that are against capital punishment must want your daughters molested every time they leave the house!".

Meaning: Your opponent either (1) restates your position falsely or (2) exaggerates the consequences that may follow from your position.

9. Victory by Definition ~

Example: Jones: "Communism cannot help but work".
Smith: "I disagree. Look at Russia; things are in a mess there".
Jones: "Oh, sure, but that’s not real communism".
Smith: "Look at China; communism is not working there".
Jones: "They don’t have communism there either".

Meaning: A position is defined in such a way as to exclude all negative cases or adverse evidence.

Evidently Jones is defining "communism" as "that political system which cannot help but work". This certainly does not accurately report how most people use the term. Instead of destroying Smith’s position by evidence, Jones leaves him no ground for an opposing position and so destroys the argument as a whole. The same effect would have been secured if Jones had started out saying, "True communism cannot help but work".

10. Begging the Question ~

Example: (1) "Man is a social animal because he is gregarious".

(2) Jones (at the bank): "I would like a loan".
Banker: "What recommendations of references do you have, something to establish that if we loan you the money, you will pay it back?".
Jones: "Well, I can refer you to my friend Quimby; he’ll vouch for me. He’ll tell you that when I say I’ll pay, I will".
Banker: "But we don’t know Quimby, so how do we know he can be trusted?".
Jones: "Oh, I can assure you that Quimby can be trusted".

Meaning: This technique involves assuming as true what has yet to be proved. Frequently the same proposition is used both as premise and as conclusion in a single argument. This may be done either (1) by the use of synonymous terms or (2) by circular argument, which involves the use of A to prove B and B to prove A.

IV. The Experts Game [Not included here]

V. Summary

As was pointed out in the introduction, the PROPAGANDA GAME is intended to be an introduction to "clear thinking", not a completed course of study. As a followup to the game we recommend Dr Moulds' book, Thinking Straighter. Dr Moulds' book includes more comprehensive treatment of the techniques used in the PROPAGANDA GAME with added examples, a chapter on The External Marks of Authority --- Who Says It? Why Does He Say It? and What Is The Medium of the Argument? --- and a chapter on Internal Criteria of Reliability --- Documented Evidence, Sound Generalization, Internal Consistency, Impartial Treatment, Valid Deduction, and Probable Prediction. After reading this book you should be thinking straighter. You should become more accurate and precise in the use of words and more demanding of precision on the part of others. You should be more careful in drawing your own conclusions and less ready to accept at first glance the conclusions of others. The book is published by the Wm. C. Brown Co (Dubuque, IA).

In conclusion, in a free and democratic society, it is incumbent upon every citizen to be well informed on propaganda techniques. Every citizen should, therefore, play the PROPAGANDA GAME (We're sure you will want to label this technique).

VI. Suggested Answers [Not included here]

VII. Appendix [Not included here]

Stephen Downes' Guide to the Logical Fallacies
(Also published on the Internet as "Brian Yoder's Fallacy Zoo" @ http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/fallazoo.htm )

Contents ~

Fallacies of Distraction
False Dilemma
Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Slippery Slope
Complex Question
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misercordiam)
Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)
Prejudicial Language
Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundium)
Anonymous Authorities
Style Over Substance
Inductive Fallacies
Hasty Generalization
Unrepresentative Sample
False Analogy
Slothful Induction
Fallacy of Exclusion
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Accident
Converse Accident

http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/distract.htm

Each of these fallacies is characterized by the illegitimate use of a logical operator in order to distract the reader from the apparent falsity of a certain proposition. The following fallacies are fallacies of distraction:

False Dilemma

Definition:
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Examples:
(i) Either you're for me or against me.
(ii) America: love it or leave it.
(iii) Either support gun confiscation or have the government provide everyone with his own private nuclear warhead, you decide which one.

Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 136

Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false (or cannot be), it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.)

As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, therefore they must exist.
(ii) Since scientists have not proven that global warming will occur, therefore it won't.
(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Proof:
Identify the proposition in question. Argue without evidence and proof no claims whatsoever can be derived on the subject. Such a claim is neither true nor false, but arbitrary.

References:
Copi and Cohen: 93; Davis: 59; Rand: 79

Slippery Slope

Definition:
In order to show that a proposition is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is claimed to follow from it. A slippery slope is an illegitimate compositing of the"if- then" operator. Of course this ought to be distinguished from pointing out a chain of causal consequences from a choice or position. The difference is that in a slippery slope fallacy the intermediate causal connections are unproven.

Examples:
(i) If we pass laws against private nuclear weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws against guns, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban private nuclear weapons.
(ii) You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
(iii) If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

Proof:
Identify the proposition being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a
consequence of the proposition.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 137

Complex Question

Definition:
Two otherwise unrelated points are treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one may be acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

Examples:
(i) You should support home schooling and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs. (Whether parents have a right to choose how to raise their children and whether that right includes home schooling is an entirely different issue. There is an additional complex question here since one might believe that a certain right exists but not believe it comes from God.)
(ii) Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms? (What if I think people ought to be free to bear arms but that it isn't a right? What if I think it is a right, but I don't think it matters what rights people have?)
(iii) Have you stopped beating your wife? (This implicitly asks two questions: did you beat your wife, and did you stop?)

Proof:
Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that one doen't imply the other.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 86; Copi and Cohen: 96

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

The fallacies in this section have in common the practice of appealing to emotions or other psychological factors. In this way, they do not provide reasons for belief, but merely "trick" people into agreeing with them one way or another without proof.

The following fallacies are appeals to motive in place of support:

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

Definition:
The reader is threatened with unpleasant consequences if they do not agree with the author.

Examples:
(i) You had better agree that the new company policy is the best if you expect to keep your job.
(ii) You had better admit that racism is wrong or one day you might just find out how much you care about your wife and kids.
(iii) The defendant ought to be found innocent because if he isn't, there will be a riot and many innocent citizens will be hurt or killed.
(iv) Accept Jesus as your savior or face the rack and branding irons!

Proof:
Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151, Copi and Cohen: 103

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misercordiam)

Definition:
The reader is told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the author.

Examples:
(i) How can you say that ball was out of bounds? It was so close, and I'm down ten games to two.
(ii) We hope you'll accept our recommendations. We spent the last three months working extra time on it and we are quite exhausted.
(iii) You ought to think highly of my term paper especially since I graduated last in my class.
(iv) You ALWAYS win these arguments. Can't you let me win just this once?

Proof:
Identify the proposition and the appeal to pity and argue that the pitiful state of the arguer has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151; Copi and Cohen; 103, Davis: 82

Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)

Definition:
The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

Examples:
(i) You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than the apes.
(ii) You must believe in God, otherwise life would have no meaning.
(iii) I could never agree that smoking is harmful because if I did I would have to stop.

Proof:
Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 100; Davis: 63

Prejudicial Language

Definition:
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition or suspicion or dislike to the opposing position.

Examples:
(i) Right thinking Californians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
(ii) Not only is paying a higher income tax a patriotic duty, it is also a sacred obligation.
(iii) Senator Jones "claims" that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (The use of "claims" implies that what Jones says is false.)
(iv) The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Capitol Hill.)

Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking Californians" or "sacred obligation"). Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking" or "irresponsible" unless some independent proof can be offered. If they can't they are just _begging the question_.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 153, Davis: 62

Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually superior) sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Examples:
(i) Everyone likes beautiful people, so buy Teeth-Brite toothpaste and become beautiful. Everyone will approve of your choice.
(ii) Polls suggest that President Jones will win the election, so you may as well vote for him.
(iii) Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?
(iv) Most educated people know that it is better to use paper bags than plastic ones. (An appeal to the superior group among whom the position is supposedly popular. (See also argumentum verecundium).

References:
Copi and Cohen: 103, Davis: 62

Changing the Subject

The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful to cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the person instead of the argument.

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just a fat idiot. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Steve Forbes says about cutting taxes because he stands to benefit from a lower tax rate. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Fred's argument because he is just angry about the fact that defendant once cheated him out of $100. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iv) You say I should give up alcohol, but you haven't been sober for more than a year yourself. (ad hominem tu quoque)
(v) You claim that Mr. Jones is innocent, but why should anyone listen to you? You are a Mormon after all. (ad hominem circumstantial)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166; Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155; Copi and Cohen: 97; Davis: 80

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundium)

Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, under duress, or otherwise not being serious
(iv) There is no supporting evidence or argument to justify the position. If O.J. Simpson (an expert on football) insisted that footballs were made of cabbage leaves that wouldn't constitute an argument to that effect.

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Examples:
(i) Noted psychologist Elaine Johnson recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub. (She is not an expert on hot tubs.)
(ii) Economist Alan Greenspan argues that going on the gold standard will lead to economic prosperity. (Although Greenspan is an expert, not all economists agree on this point, nor does his saying so make it true.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that The United States will declare war on Canada. (This is a case of hearsay; in fact, the reporter said that The United States would not declare war.)
(v) The Los Angeles Times reported that sales were up 8.1 percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not in a position to check the Times' sources.)

Proof:
Point out that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) being an expert in the field doesn't automatically make one right and insist that the argument advanced be addressed without the appeal to authority.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155; Copi and Cohen: 95; Davis: 69

Anonymous Authorities

Definition:
The authority in question is not named. This is a type of appeal to authority because when an authority is not named it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert or how the conclusion was arrived at. Though this is just a type of appeal to authority, the fallacy is so common it deserves special mention.

A variation on this fallacy is the appeal to rumour. Because the source of a rumour is typically not known, it is not possible to determine whether to believe the rumour. Sometimes false and harmful rumours are deliberately started in order to discredit an opponent.

Examples:
(i) A government official said today that the new gun law will be proposed tomorrow.
(ii) Experts agree that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to prepare for it.
(iii) It is held that there are more than two million needless operations conducted every year.
(iv) Rumour has it that the President will declare a national holiday on his birthday.

Proof:
Argue that because we don't know the source of the information we have no way to evaluate the reliability of the information or whether it was derived rationally. Insist on seeing the proof for yourself.

References:
Davis: 73

Style Over Substance

Definition:
The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

Examples:
(i) Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on his forehead.
(ii) Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
(iii) Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed young man?

Proof:
While it is true that the manner in which an argument is presented will affect whether people believe that its conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion does not depend on the manner in which the argument is presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

References:
Davis: 61

Inductive Fallacies

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a whole class of entities.

For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.

All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.

Hasty Generalization

Definition:
The scope of evidence (in context of course) is too small to support the conclusion.

Examples:
(i) Fred the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians are thieves. (Of course, we shouldn't judge all Australians on the basis of one example.)
(ii) I asked six of my friends what they thought of the new taxes and they agreed that they are a good idea. The new taxes are therefore generally popular.
(iii) All crows are black. (Even though most of the crows (or even all of them) we see are black, it would be hasty to make such a generalization given what we know about the nature of albinos.)
(iv) Pets are nice and cuddly therefore animals are generally nice and cuddly.

Proof:
Identify the importance of the issue of establishing an appropriate standard of inductive proof. Then demonstrate what the standard ought to be in this case and why the author either chose the wrong standard (or none at all) or didn't meet the correct one.

References:
Barker: 189; Cedarblom and Paulsen: 372; Davis: 103

Unrepresentative Sample

Definition:
The examples used in an inductive inference are relevantly different from the population as a whole.

Examples:
(i) To see how Americans will vote in the next election we polled a hundred people in Grenwich Village. This shows conclusively that the Democratic Party will sweep the polls. (People in Grenwich Village tend to be more liberal, and hence more likely to vote Democratic, than people in the rest of the country.)
(ii) The apples on the top of the box look good. The entire box of apples must therefore be good. (Of course, the rotten apples may be hidden beneath the surface where the moisture and darkness facilitate rotting.)

Proof:
Show how the example cases are relevantly different from the population as a whole, then show that because the examples are different, the conclusion does not follow.

References:
Barker: 188; Cedarblom and Paulsen: 226; Davis: 106

False Analogy

Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be a money-making enterprise, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so they will have to meet different criteria.)

Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a w

[icosaface]

It is going to take me a while to consider that. Thanks nik.

[nik]

it's worth it!

[FastTadpole]

Thanks Nik - it appears your post was cut a bit short by the char limit.

The full site / online thesis is available here:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

and you can download a copy of the entire site and mirror it with permission here:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/educators.htm

The original site by Stephen Downes is now defunct.

[yeti]

nik claims no planes hit the WTC and thinks that pasting a piece on propaganda will support that ridiculous theory.

Apparently some of you are buying it...