A large part of academic writing is argumentative writing. However, it isn't as easy as many students would think. Making an argument requires research and fully understanding both sides of the argument before putting words to paper. Many students tend to make logical fallacies in their arguments, decreasing the merit of their writing.
In this article, I will explore the common logical fallacies that students and inexperienced writers tend to make. I'll also help you learn how to counter their use, so you can improve your writing skills.
What is a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is an unsupported argument or mistaken belief that lacks logical reasoning. The problem with logical fallacies is that they prevent the exchange of ideas and will not help you in making a good argument.
Note that an argument may contain a logical fallacy even if the conclusion is true. The problem is that the weak argument may convince readers that the conclusion is false.
In order to understand how to structure an argument, you should learn how it is supported. In turn, this will teach you to avoid using logical fallacies in supporting your arguments. Otherwise, you will find that arguments tend to fall apart very quickly.
Common logical fallacies in argumentative writing
Despite the great diversity that exists among students and other academic writers, they still have a lot in common when it comes to the challenges they face in their argumentative writing. The logical fallacies that most writers make typically fall within one of the categories below:
Slippery slope
In this case, a claim or suggestion is dismissed because of the belief that it would lead to a chain reaction of unfavorable events. Without any supporting evidence, the writer claims that going down the slippery slope is inevitable. An example:
Argument: "If we allow students to use calculators in elementary school math classes, they will become overly dependent on them. By the time they reach high school, they will have forgotten basic math skills. This will then result in an entire generation of engineers and scientists incapable of doing simple arithmetic."
In this argument, the writer is asserting that a relatively small first step (allowing the use of calculators in elementary school) inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact (an entire generation of engineers and scientists incapable of doing simple arithmetic). This is a classic example of a slippery slope fallacy, as it assumes without sufficient evidence that one action will inevitably lead to a certain negative outcome.
Red herring
Here, the writer moves attention away from the main problem by focusing on irrelevant information. This is a distraction that confuses the reader. Note that some writers or debaters use this fallacy intentionally as well. An example:
Argument: "Research has shown a significant correlation between excessive screen time and poor sleep patterns. We should encourage policies that limit screen time for children."
Counterargument: "It's important to note that many successful entrepreneurs and tech leaders, like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, have spent countless hours in front of screens and have become very successful."
In this case, the counterargument presents a red herring. The success of tech leaders who spent a lot of time in front of screens doesn't address the original argument about the correlation between excessive screen time and poor sleep patterns in children. Their success, while potentially true, is not relevant to the discussion on the potential health impact of screen time on children.
Hasty generalization
More often than not, academic writers tend to hastily generalize a fact and come to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. This leads to a logical fallacy because one tends to predict a trend based on a negligible point. An example:
Argument: "In my survey of 50 students at University X, 70% said they preferred online classes to in-person classes. Therefore, most students in all universities prefer online classes."
In this example, the writer is making a generalization. They're basing their conclusion about "most students in all universities" on a small sample from just one university. This sample may not accurately represent the preferences of all university students, making it a fallacious generalization.
Begging the question
This is a logical fallacy that is a type of circular reasoning. Here, the writer assumes the conclusion is true, and therefore it must be. In other words, this is when you assume that the premise of your claim provides that the claim is true. An example:
Argument: "Social media is harmful because it has damaging effects on people."
In this example, the writer is assuming what they are supposed to be proving. The premise "social media has damaging effects on people" is not backed by any evidence but is just a reiteration of the conclusion "social media is harmful." This is a clear case of begging the question – where the argument is circular, and the initial assumption requires proof.
False analogy
In this fallacy, you may be comparing two situations that are not actually analogous to one another. This is common when the writer misunderstands one (or both) of the situations. An example:
Argument: "Reading a book is just like watching a movie on the TV. Both tell stories and have characters, settings, and plots. Therefore, if you've read the book, there's no need to watch the movie."
In this case, the writer is making a false analogy between reading a book and watching a movie. While it's true that both mediums can tell stories and have characters, settings, and plots, the experience of reading a book is fundamentally different from watching a movie. Books allow for a deeper dive into characters' internal thoughts and offer more room for interpretation, while movies can provide a visual and auditory experience that books cannot. It's also extremely common for filmmakers to incorporate plot and character changes when making a movie adaptation of a book. Therefore, the conclusion—that if you've read the book, there's no need to watch the movie—is based on a flawed comparison, making it a false analogy.
Moral equivalence
This logical fallacy is where a writer would give two situations the same moral significance even if they are vastly different. An example:
Argument: "Lying about one's age to get a senior discount is no different than a company evading taxes. Therefore, if we prosecute companies for tax evasion, we should also prosecute individuals who lie about their age for discounts."
In this argument, the writer is making a false moral equivalence between an individual lying about their age to get a discount and a company evading taxes. While both actions involve dishonesty, the scale, impact, and legal implications are significantly different. Tax evasion by a company is a major crime that can affect the economy and public services, whereas lying about one's age for a discount is unethical but has a far lesser impact. The writer's claim that these two situations are morally equivalent is fallacious.
False dilemma
This is a common fallacy that debaters and writers fall into, whereby they reduce an issue into an oversimplified black-and-white choice. In reality, most issues are complex and reducing them to an either/or dilemma is not productive. An example:
Argument: "We must either invest in fossil fuels to keep our economy running, or we must face economic collapse. Therefore, despite the environmental impact, we should continue investing in fossil fuels."
In this argument, the writer presents the situation as having only two options: investing in fossil fuels or facing economic collapse. This is a false dilemma, as it disregards other potential options such as investing in renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, or developing new economic models that aren't as dependent on fossil fuels. This fallacy oversimplifies a complex issue into a binary choice, when in reality, there may be other viable solutions.
Ad hominem
In this logical fallacy, the argument is made by attacking the opponent and not their views. Basically, this is name-calling when you don't have a good counterargument. Many politicians tend to use this tactic, but it does not always work. An example:
Argument: "Why should we believe Dr. Smith's findings on the effects of caffeine? He drinks five cups of coffee a day himself, so his research is obviously biased."
In this argument, the writer is attacking Dr. Smith's personal habits instead of addressing the research findings he has presented. This is an ad hominem fallacy, as it diverts the focus from the actual argument — the research on caffeine — to the person making the argument. The validity of Dr. Smith's research should be assessed based on its methodology, data, and interpretation, not his personal coffee-drinking habits.
Appeal to ignorance
This common logical fallacy bases part of the argument on claims that cannot be proven wrong because they are untested or cannot be tested. An example:
Argument: "There is no empirical evidence that proves the existence of extraterrestrial life. Therefore, extraterrestrial life does not exist."
In this argument, the writer is asserting that because something has not been proven to be true (the existence of extraterrestrial life), it must be false. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that extraterrestrial life does not exist; it may simply mean that we have not yet discovered it or have the means to prove it. The conclusion is not supported by the premise, making it a flawed argument.
Strawman
In this type of fallacy, a counter argument is characterized by oversimplifying or misrepresenting in order to attack the absurd characterization rather than attack the argument. In other words, instead of directly arguing against your opponents claim, you are calling them names or otherwise mocking them. An example:
Argument: "We should put more funding into arts education in schools. Studies have shown that exposure to art can help students improve their critical thinking skills."
Strawman Argument: "My opponent believes we should divert all our educational funding into the arts. But what about critical subjects like math and science? We can't neglect these core areas of our students' education."
In this case, the person constructing the strawman argument is misrepresenting the original argument. The original argument suggested increasing funding for arts education, not diverting all educational funding into the arts at the expense of other subjects. By misrepresenting the original argument, the person using the strawman fallacy makes it easier to counter and dismiss.
Appeal to irrelevant authority
While it is always a good idea to follow the advice of an expert on any subject, some people mistakenly think that authority figures in one field are capable of understanding other fields. A logical fallacy of irrelevant authority is when you argue for or against a topic based on information from someone who isn't an expert. An example:
Argument: "Albert Einstein once said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Therefore, our education system should focus more on encouraging creativity and imagination rather than the acquisition of knowledge."
In this argument, the writer cites Albert Einstein, a renowned physicist, to support a claim about educational policy. While Einstein was an expert in physics, he wasn't an expert in education policy. Thus, using his quote as the primary support for a claim about educational policy is an appeal to irrelevant authority. His authority and expertise in one field do not make him an authoritative source on all subjects.
Appeal to authority
Finally, this logical fallacy is an argument that is presented as true simply because an authority figure (or someone who is perceived as one) supports it. The authority figure often does not have relevant knowledge or expertise related to the argument. An example:
Argument: "World-renowned novelist John Smith believes that climate change is a hoax. Given his stature and influence, we should seriously consider his perspective."
In this argument, the writer is appealing to the authority of John Smith, a novelist, on a topic outside of his area of expertise: climate change. While Smith might be an authority in the field of literature, he is not a climate scientist or an expert in related fields. Using his opinion as a significant piece of evidence in an argument about climate change is an appeal to authority fallacy. His expertise in literature does not automatically make him a credible source on all subjects, including climate science.
How to stop using logical fallacies
In order to for your argument to stand up to challenge, you should steer clear of logical fallacies. Here are two steps you can follow to stop using logical fallacies in your arguments:
Understand the structure of an argument
Any solid argument is structured into three parts:
- Claim: This is the point you are trying get across, or the claim you are trying to make. You can also consider this the conclusion that the reader draws from your writing.
- Support: The minor premise of your claim is what proof you are using as evidence to support your claim.
- Warrant: The major premise is an underlying claim that the reader and writer supposedly agree on.
If you think of your arguments in this way, you should be able to move on to identifying fallacies in your argumentative writing.
Identify logical fallacies in your writing
By familiarizing yourself with the common logical fallacies mentioned above, you should be able to spot any mistakes you might make. Before you write any content, consider writing an outline so that you are sure that your argument is solid and does not fall apart easily.
Writing an outline will also allow you to brainstorm ideas related to your argument and enable you to spot any errors in logic and change them before you do the bulk of your writing.
Once you are able to identify fallacies in your arguments, you can work toward changing the argument to ensure that it doesn't rely on the logical fallacy and won't fall apart upon closer inspection.
Final thoughts
The use of logical fallacies can negatively your ability to make sound arguments that will stand up to scrutiny. By following the tips I've mentioned above and watching out for the common fallacies that writers tend to make, you will be able to significantly improve your argumentative writing.
Header image by Ijeab.