The Art of Logic · Part 17 · Fallacies: the bridge to rhetoric · B2–C1
Fallacies of Thought I: Rules, Causes and Questions
Part 17 of The Art of Logic: some arguments go wrong in the thinking, not the words: a rule applied where it does not fit, a cause found where there is only a sequence, a question that assumes its own answer. Generalising carefully (always, as a rule, generally, tend to, except), with Philo, Sophia, Marcos and Demetria.
Tonight. Three more next week, and the appeals after that. People are inventive.
Accident: applying a general rule to a special case where it does not fit. Its reverse is hasty generalisation: drawing a general rule from too few or unusual cases. Logicians call it the converse fallacy of accident.
False cause: taking something for a cause when it is not, most often because it came first. The Latin name is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, “after this, therefore because of this”. Begging the question: assuming in a premise the very thing you are trying to prove, an argument in a circle.
The complex question: asking a question that contains a hidden assumption, so that any direct answer admits it. The classic example: “Have you stopped cheating at dice?” Yes or no, you admit you cheated.
Rules have exceptions; sequences are not causes; questions can hide claims.
Read the stories. Which fallacy does each one show?
Or try our free games and lessons.