II. ACCEPTABILITY CRITERION
The Acceptability Criterion is the expectation that the assertions of an
argument will be acceptable to a reasonable person. Examples of acceptable
assertions are: personal knowledge of facts or events; a body of independent,
peer-reviewed research; adequately-defended claims in the same argument; and
conclusions of other good arguments. Examples of unacceptable assertions
are: claims that contradict other claims accepted, defended, or known to be
true; claims indistinguishable from or as questionable as the argument's
conclusion; claims based on usually unstated assumptions which are highly
questionable; and claims which contradict themselves, are linguistically
confusing, or which otherwise are not understandable.
|
|
A. Fallacies of Linguistic Confusion
Fallacies of linguistic confusion are errors of words and logic which
prevent the formulation of a clear, understandable assertion.
|
1. Equivocation
(Using a word with two distinctly different meanings as though it had
the same meaning throughout the argument)
|
"Logic teaches us how to construct sound arguments. But I don't like
getting into arguments."
"Logic teaches us how to construct sound arguments. But why argue
about sounds?"
|
2. Ambiguity
(Not providing enough information for a listener to know how to
correctly understand an assertion)
|
Syntactic [multi-word; grammar]: "I like logic better than you."
Semantic [single-word; meaning]: "He is on the right wing."
|
3. Improper Accent
(Distorting the meaning of an assertion by
stating only part of it, either through stressing only part of a true
statement, or by taking a statement out of its original context)
|
"Sure, you can do X."
"Medicare [is good, but it is administered by an inefficient,
central-planning bureaucracy which we think] should wither on the
vine."
|
4. Illicit Contrast
(Deliberately choosing an unintended meaning for an ambiguous
assertion)
|
"You said you lost your appeal. Therefore, instead of accepting your
conclusion about our legal system, I assume that you mean to say
you're ugly now."
|
5. Argument by Innuendo
(Making an assertion without actually stating it or evidence for it)
|
"No, it hasn't failed . . . yet."
"She's never hurt her children . . . that I know of."
|
6. Misuse of a Vague Expression
(Assertion based on asserting a
particular interpretation of a vague word or phrase)
|
"Only intolerant people oppose gay rights."
"These proposals from the other party are extreme, so we think
the American people will reject them."
|
7. Distinction Without a Difference
(Assertion which is just a prior argument presented in different words)
|
"I'm not a bad driver; I just ignore stop signs."
|
|
B. Begging-the-question Fallacies
Fallacies which are said to "beg the question" are those which ask the
listener to accept the truth of the overall question as expressed in one
assertion.
|
1. Arguing in a Circle
(Assertion which is asserted as a conclusion)
|
"X is Y, because X is [Y restated in a different form]."
"The Internet is obscene, because there's so much pornography on it."
|
2. Question-Begging Language
(Assertion which pre-states the conclusion for the listener)
|
"Obviously, X, so no need to consider that."
"But now let's consider the ridiculous notion that Y might be true."
|
3. Loaded or Complex Question
(Assertion in which an unstated
premise is assumed true and thus already "loaded" into the stated
assertion, or which forces a simple response to a question for which a
simple response is inadequate)
|
"When are you going to get married?"
"Come on, Senator, yes or no: You voted for gun control, expanded
parole, fewer jails, and shorter sentences, didn't you?"
|
4. Leading Question
(Assertion which forces the conclusion if that
assertion alone is accepted)
|
"You won't abandon your mother by marrying that girl, will you?"
"So, Mr. Johnson, when you borrowed that money from the cash register
you were going to return it, weren't you?"
|
5. Question-Begging Definition
(Assertion which defines the conclusion
so that any other conclusion is excluded)
|
"All X is Y, because anything not-Y is not-X."
"Loud music is good, because music you can't feel is boring."
|
|
C. Unwarranted Assumption Fallacies
Fallacies involving unwarranted assumptions rely on highly questionable
(though often popular) unstated assumptions, and so cannot be acceptable.
|
1. Fallacy of the Continuum
(Assertion which presumes that minor
differences in degree never produce a difference in kind--also called
the Fallacy of the Beard, from the question "How many hairs must one
have to have a beard?")
|
"X is no different from Y; it's just a matter of degree."
"If you can afford to give five dollars, you can afford to give
six."
"All liberals are socialists," "All conservatives are fascists,"
etc.
|
2. Fallacy of Composition
(Assertion that the whole is no more or less than the sum of the parts)
|
"Come on, working sixteen hours is only like working two eight-hour
days together."
"Aaron and Zoe are both really nice people; they'll make a perfect
couple."
|
3. Fallacy of Division
(Assertion that the separate parts of a whole are just like the whole)
|
"Humans are conscious, so every part of a human must have just a
little bit of consciousness."
"NATO can defend Europe, therefore Belgium, a NATO member, can
defend Europe."
|
4. False Alternatives
(Assertion based on forcing listener to accept the desired conclusion
because the only other alternative, provided through oversimplified
analysis, is considered unacceptable)
|
"This water is not scalding, so it must be freezing."
"You didn't vote for the Republican candidate, so you must be a
Democrat."
"Why are you against spending federal money to hire more teachers? Do
you want our children to grow up uneducated?"
|
5. Is-Ought Fallacy
(Assertion based on assuming that the
existence of a thing or process is sufficient justification for its
continued existence)
|
"Whether we like it or not, America is the world's cop. We ought to
accept that and decide to do it well."
"We've always done this; that's a good enough reason to keep doing
it."
|
6. Wishful Thinking
(Assertion based on confusing wishes and beliefs with objective
reality)
|
"There's someone for everyone."
"America is the only remaining superpower; no one is going to
challenge us, so we should drastically reduce defense spending."
|
7. Misuse of a General Principle
(Allowing for no exceptions to
the letter of a principle, or denying a principle because of some
exceptions)
|
"Our policy is that no one under 18 will be admitted, therefore you
can't bring your infant child into the theater."
"Our government does some stupid things, so we shouldn't have any
government."
|
8. Fallacy of the Golden Mean
(Thinking a middle ground between
two positions must be the best simply because it's in the middle)
|
"Conservatives and liberals can't both be right, so I'll just cast
half my votes for Republicans and half for Democrats."
"Conservatives and liberals can't both be right, so I'll only vote
for people who call themselves moderates."
"I think that mirror is worth $50, but she wants $10,000 for it,
so we'll compromise by my giving her $5,025 for it."
|
9. Faulty Analogy
(Assertion based on inappropriately treating
substantively different things or processes as equivalent)
|
"Birds use feathers to fly, so if we want to fly, we need to build
things with feathers."
"As Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states, the act of observing a
thing alters the behavior of the thing being observed. So all
opinion polls are worthless."
"Variety in life is a good thing. But being married to only one
person offers no variety. So marriage must be a bad thing."
|
10. Fallacy of Novelty
(Assertion based on belief that "new" equals "better")
|
"The 49ers have a new head coach so I'm sure they'll win the Super
Bowl this year."
"I voted for X because he promised to make a change in Washington."
|