Logical Fallacy Explained: The Minefield of Arguments

He Said; She Said

Any writer worth their salt knows that conflict adds spice to a story. Who would listen to a tale where nothing noteworthy happens? Arguments and debates give us the chance to reflect on the way forward and grow as individuals. That all goes for a toss when logical fallacy enters the fray, though. We’ve all been in sticky situations where we feel we’re about to burst a vein and rant till the cows come home. Succumbing to that voice is easy. The true hallmark of integrity and character is standing your ground and addressing the topic from a rational perspective. In the sea of progress, logical fallacies are the rogue waves that threaten to capsize the ship of reason. Before we get into the nature of these rogue waves, let’s back up a bit.

What Is A Logical Fallacy?

In layman’s terms, a logical fallacy is an umbrella term for errors in logic that throw rational arguments out of gear. It’s a lot simpler than it sounds, to be honest. Trying to change the subject in a debate? That’s a logical fallacy. Want to throw the chair at someone for daring to ask a valid yet sensitive question? Yes, that too. The rule of thumb is, anything that detracts from the productive flow of a discussion and goes off on a tangent is a fault. Chances are you’re thinking, so what? Every argument needn’t be as sterile as a courtroom session, right?

When we think of arguments, the mind is quick to picture their negative connotations. You can admire something while also wanting it to be better. Rational discussion is the conduit that lights the road ahead for progress. Logical deliberation facilitates concise action. Without it, things would fall into an echo chamber of toxic positivity, which is worse than constant conflict in my opinion. To sum up, debate and argument are necessary for progress, and logic is crucial for discussions to bear fruit. With that in mind, let’s go over some of the most common errors in logic notorious for derailing arguments left, right, and center. Who knows, you may even recognize some of these from your everyday conversations!

The Big Picture

We’ve established that logical fallacy is an umbrella term, so let’s zero in on some specifics. There are three parts to any logical argument:

• The Premise: The statement that establishes the parameters of your argument.
• The Conclusion: The reasoning you arrive at that is based on the established premise.
• The Path: The route you take to arrive at that reasoning.

When there’s a disconnect between any of these elements, errors occur. Depending on the nature of the error, it’s possible to classify the fallacies from a broad perspective. Bear in mind, though, that most logic errors don’t fit into one bracket alone; the grouping is geared more towards understanding the concepts than putting them in boxes.

• Ambiguity Errors: These errors involve twisting facts and molding language to push a flawed point across.
• Relevance Errors: You’ll find these errors when there’s no link between the premise and the conclusion. In other words, the path taken to prove the point veers way off course.
• Presumption Errors: When the premise you begin with is false, chances are you’re making a presumption error.

I’m sure you don’t want to be here all day (though I wouldn’t complain!), so we’ll go over a few popular ones. Let’s get right to knowing the wrongs!

A Bumpy Ride Of Presumption

I have a headache, and the doctor told me to take these pills for two weeks. If I take them for that long and stop abruptly, I will get withdrawal symptoms. Therefore, I shouldn't take these pills.

You wouldn’t have to look far to find this fallacy in the wild. All you have to do is turn on your TV and watch the latest prime time debate! Chances are some random bloke will increase their volume and bellow their opinion above everyone else. What takes the cake is, they’ll start their tirade at Point A and end at a Point Z that you never even knew existed, without any relevance to the argument. Congratulations, you’ve just careened down a slippery slope, and the one responsible for it has achieved their goal: creating a mountain out of a molehill.

A Presumed Link

I woke up late and didn't have my morning coffee, which led to an accident on the way to work.

Don’t be phased by the Latin name, this error is a simple concept. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” means “after this, therefore because of this”. In modern times, we call it the flaw of assuming correlation implies causation. If that sounds confusing, think of every superstition you’ve ever heard. Post hoc fallacies assume that two events are connected just because they happened one after the other. It’s easy to presume, but what if it was a mere coincidence? Without further evidence to support the conclusion, linking two events based on succession in a timeframe is a shaky claim.

Ambiguous Arguments

A: These deadlines can't be met within the timeframe, we need a few more days.
B: So you're questioning the Management's discretion and authority? 

The strawman is far more commonplace than you may think, yet he always slips under the radar in most arguments. Like my grandfather used to say, a good offense is the best form of defense, and the strawman is a lethal enforcer. When people twist your words and misinterpret/oversimplify them to push their points, they’re setting up a strawman. Watch out, because they’ll shift gears into attack mode next by bashing the strawman and acting like they’ve refuted your point for good. This bait-and-switch is a classic trap, don’t fall for it. Shut it down right then and there!

A Whole Story Apart

These employees are the best in their respective departments, so they must make an excellent team if they work together.

Like most logical fallacies, it’s easy to arrive at this ambiguous assumption when all the signals are green. What we often fail to see is that there are more spinning rims to a process than we might spot at first glance. In other terms, just because the stats look stellar on paper, this alone doesn’t guarantee you a rousing success. Composition fallacies are based on faulty associations (and often poor wording) that fail to see beyond the surface. All parts being exemplary don’t always make the whole excellent, and no amount of ambiguity can gloss over that.

Ideas Over Source

My brother says I have a good singing voice, but he doesn't sing, so what does he know?

Contrary to the name, genetic fallacies have nothing to do with DNA. Sorry about that. When you refute a claim based solely on its source rather than the claim’s merit, you’re committing a genetic fallacy. To be fair, however, the source does matter when it comes to firsthand information. That being said, it should never be the only basis of your conclusion. Do your own research and approach the premise from an objective standpoint instead of committing a logical fallacy. You don’t have to be a mechanic to know your car isn’t working!

Logical Fallacy Circles

This WhatsApp forward message is legitimate because it has a green tick emoji and says that it is from an authentic source. Therefore, the forward message is legitimate.

I know, it sounds ridiculous under scrutiny. However, circular arguments are the go-to tactic for people who have no leg to stand on in their arguments. They try to sound genuine by presenting the premise in a different light, but the fact remains that they’re just being a broken record. You can’t come to a conclusion without venturing beyond the basic statements of the core premise, can you? Talking in circles and beating around the bush isn’t fun for anyone. The conclusions you come to should add value to the discussion instead of harping on the same point over and over again.

Logical Fallacy Of Identity

He prefers tea over filter coffee in the morning.
No true Tamizhan would forego filter coffee in the morning.
Therefore, he is not a true Tamizhan.

You might have heard this logical fallacy when chest-thumping patriotism/nationalism announces its entrance in a conversation. The idea behind it is to discredit any counter-arguments to a statement by making a broad generalization that loops back to the premise. It uses a pre-set belief to quash any exceptions to the argument, often presenting that generalization as the absolute truth. I don’t have to tell you why this angle can be toxic. If you’ve come across it, you know.

Make No Mistake

Logical fallacies come in all shapes and sizes. They somehow crawl into most arguments, upsetting the applecart in the process. Constructive arguments are an excellent means of discussion and subsequent development. Annoying as they may be, fallacies are part and parcel of debate. Knowing them is key to outgrowing them. Most of them can be avoided if you remember that being constructive in a situation is always a conscious choice.

Interested in more philosophy-based content? Write to me through the link below! Until next time!