Fallacious Arguments
For those who plan to tune in to the presidential debate this Friday, here is a cheat sheet on some common logical fallacies. One can only hope these two fine candidates will steer clear of such foibles, but I, for one, am not holding my breath.
Slippery Slope
The “slippery slope” argument falsely assumes that once you take a moderate first step in a particular direction, a catastrophic chain of events will follow. In many cases, a better metaphor would be a staircase with many safe steps along the way.
For instance, one candidate told a radio show that choosing a vice president based on certain non-negotiable positions would send him down a “slippery slope.”
On the other hand, sometimes the slippery slope does exist and can be a legitimate basis for an argument. When you hear language like “opening the floodgates” and “slippery slope” your job is to make certain that the argument is true.
Compound Question
A question like, “Isn’t America tired of Democrats wanting to raise taxes?” is a compound question because it actually involves two or more issues that cannot be accurately answered with a single response. It assumes that Democrats have always wanted to raise taxes and also that you may have a position on the issue. The best response to a compound question is to point out that the questioner has made a false or unwarranted assumption.
False Dilemma
Closely related to the compound question is the fallacy of the false dilemma. The false dilemma wrongly suggests that there are only two alternatives when there could actually be more. Situations are often more complex than the premise an advocate may use to try to box in an opponent. Make sure that these are the only choices available; otherwise, your opponent might be hoisted on his own petard, as they say.
Composition
The fallacy of composition assumes that what is true of the separate parts is necessarily true of the collective whole. The fallacy of division is the mirror image: it assumes that what is true of the whole is true of the separate parts. Both candidates use these arguments to support their positions within their party and to discuss their party as a whole (think of One Nation and Country First).
Non Sequitur
Finally, the term “non sequitur” means “does not follow” and refers to a claim that does not logically follow from the stated premise. A non sequitur may seem to be the most obvious to spot, but be on your guard; in political rhetoric this fallacy is perhaps the most common of all.
Fallacious arguments, when applied in the courtroom, are the product of careless advocacy and should be identified whenever they arise. Being prepared to spot fallacies in your opponents’ arguments requires diligence and a keen antenna for bad logic. To keep that antenna in working order this month and next, watch the candidates closely. (Not to mention the commentators and “analysts” on television.
