REASONING ABOUT Social Issues (MODR1760)

IN-CLASS TEST 3 (20%)

Total worth: 40 points

Student Name:

Student ID:

The test has two parts: part A (10 fallacies) and part B (5 arguments for argument analysis). Make sure to answer all the questions (scroll to the end). For your reference, the last page of the test includes the names of fallacies and criteria for argument analysis.

A) For each fallacy, do the following: (1) Represent the argument in the traditional form, (2) identify the fallacy and give its definition, (3) explain how the argument commits the fallacy and why the argument fails. (2 point each for a total of 20 points).

1. It is expected that we only do what is right. We have the right to eat as much as we want. Therefore, it is right to eat as much as you want.

2. Women in the United States are paid less than men. Therefore, my mom must make less money than my dad.

3. Biologically, fetus is human. Since all human beings have a right to life, fetus has a right to life.

4. Euthanasia is wrong because it involves helping someone to end his or her own life.

5. You ask how I can know that you’re struggling financially?  It’s simple: in a capitalist economy, you either win big or you lose big, and I know you’re not one of the big winners.

6. Dr. Khan was a member of the committee who authored the report. I doubt that we can accept anything he has to say in favour of it.

7. Geraldo says that students who cheat on exams should not be automatically expelled from the school. But its ridiculous to insist that students should never be punished for cheating.

8. Judges should not hand down anything but maximum sentences for all convicted criminals. If you start making exceptions, prosecutors will start asking for lighter sentences. Next thing you know, every criminal will be getting off with a mere warning

9. Men and women are clearly not equal. They differ in various attributes. Men are stronger; women more verbal. So how can one say that we ought to treat them equally?

10. You think that welfare mothers would actually prefer to have jobs? There is no evidence for that. They are lazy moochers.

B) Argument analysis. For each argument do the following: 1) Identify the type of argument (abductive, analogy, causal, or inductive generalization); (2) Apply the appropriate criteria to the argument; (3) evaluate the argument (very weak, weak, moderately strong, strong) (4 points each, 20 points total). Do all the steps for each argument before moving to the next argument.

1. The case before the court involves a search by the city police of homeless man’s carboard shelter. At issue is whether it was proper for the police to enter the man’s shelter without either a permission or a warrant in order to search the evidence of a crime. A similar case—a relevant precedent—involved a search by the RCMP of an equipment trailer in which a man was living. In that case, the court ruled that the RCMP had violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the section that says, ‘Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.’) Therefore, the court should also rule that the search by the city police of the homeless man’s shelter violated section 8 of the Charter.

2. The 12 of us went on a hike through the mountains. We all drunk bottled water except Lisa, who drunk from a stream. Later she got really sick. Some intestinal thing. But the rest of us were fine. We went on this hike many times, and each time those who drunk from the stream got sick. Those drinking from the bottled water were fine. Everything else was the same. The water from the stream these hikes caused the intestinal illness.

3. The woman had been displaying bizarre behaviour for years, but recently she seems worse than ever. Sometimes she suddenly begins screaming, saying that there are snakes crawling on the walls. She shakes uncontrollably at the slightest noise. And she has started to bleed from her palms. The priest says she’s is possessed by demons, and he is right.

4. A prominent sociologist wants to determine the sexual attitudes of women aged 25 to 45. The main question to be asked is weather heterosexual women in this category are satisfied with the sexual performance of their partners. The sociologist interviews 200 of her Facebook friends who belong to the target group. She also asks 200 of her female colleagues at the university to complete and return a survey asking the key question. She gets 78 completed surveys in the target group. She finds that 75% of all the interviewees say that they are not satisfied with their partner’s performance. She concludes that most heterosexual women aged 25 to 45 are not happy with the sexual performance of their partners.

5. School violence is caused mainly by teens playing violent video games. Incidents of violence in schools have increased as more teens are playing violent video games, as the video games themselves have become more graphically and realistically violent, and as the number and ariety of video games have expanded dramatically.

List of Fallacies of irrelevance:

Ad hominem; Tu quoque (Ad hominem hypocrisy/circumstance); Genetic Fallacy; Poisoning the Well; Appeal to force/threat; Appeal to popular sentiment; Appeal to common practice; Appeal to Tradition; Appeal to emotion; Straw man; Appeal to Ignorance (Reversed Burden of Proof); Equivocation; Red herring; Fallacy of Composition; Fallacy of Division.

List of Fallacies of Insufficient reason and Unacceptable Premises:

Slippery slope; False analogy (Apples/Oranges Fallacy); False dichotomy (False Dilemma); False Cause (Post Hoc) Begging the Question; Hasty Generalization; Loaded Presupposition; Self-evident Truth

Argument Types and Criteria:

1. Causal Argument Criteria: Temporal priority; 2. Spatial connection/reasonable mechanism; 3. Covariance/correlation; 4. Rival causes.

2. Inductive Generalization Criteria: 1. Number of observations; 2. Systematic/Anecdotal; 3. Sample/Population; 4. Representation; 5. Adequate Scope.

3. Arguments from Analogy: 1. Truth of Similarities; 2. Relevancy; 3. Number; 4. Variety; 5. Disanalogies.

4. Abductive Argument: 1. Truth of Initial Observations; 2. Testability; 3. Fruitfulness/scope; 4. Simplicity; 5. Conservatism. 6. Comparison to alternatives.

“Reasoning About Social Issues”

Petrenko Anton, PhD
Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30)
E-Mail: petrenko@yorku.ca
AP/MODR1730 D

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
With each question, do the following steps. These steps will help you to understand the problem with the argument and allow you to detect the fallacy correctly. It is very important to write down premises and conclusion and see how the premises are supposed to support the conclusion (answers are at the back):
1. Summarize the argument where it occurs
2. Name the fallacy
3. Give the criteria for committing the fallacy
4. Explain how the fallacy happens in the argument
5. Challenge the fallacy
Either you like hokey, or you are gay
You don’t like hokey
You are gay
False Dichotomy
False Dichotomy is committed when options are artificially limited (others are ignored)
Only two options are given: a) gay or b) like hokey
Not exclusive: one can be gay and like hokey or not gay and like hokey (maybe the person finds it dull or too violent)

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
Are you sure that you oppose the proposal to amalgamate with the Canadian Chiropractic College? After all, both the president and the dean are strongly in favour, and you haven’t gotten tenure yet.
It is hard for me to see how my neighbours and I can be blamed for discrimination when it comes to deciding who is to live in our condominium building. We make discriminations all through life. If people are not allowed to discriminate, how can they make decisions between right and wrong? Indeed, how can they even act responsibly if they must be indiscriminate in their choices?

When it comes to race relations, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Appeal to force
False Dichotomy
Equivocation
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
Capital punishment for murderers and rapists is quite justified; there are a number of good reasons for putting to death people who commit such crimes.
The university shouldn’t teach Critical Thinking, because Critical Thinking teaches people to argue, and arguments create conflict and dissent between people.

If you took a lecture course with Professor Smith, you would know that lectures are a lousy way of learning.
Hasty Generalization
Equivocation
Begging the Question
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
Blacks must be happy with their situation these days. There haven’t been any protest marches or loud voices of dissent for some time now.
Asked to explain why a payroll cheque bounced, the owner of a professional basketball team replied, “Obviously, we didn’t have enough money in the bank.”
A good Christian should not dance because dancing was originally used in pagan mystery cults as a way of worshipping pagan gods.
The evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. But this couldn’t be true. Apes and men don’t look at all alike.

Appeal to Ignorance
Begging the question
Genetic Fallacy
Straw Man Fallacy
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
“We think our proposal is a good one and should be implemented. You need to give us compelling reasons why it isn’t.”
Aristotle’s comments on women can safely be ignored, for they simply reflect the patriarchal society of the 5th century B.C.E.
Professor to student: “How often have you plagiarized before this and not gotten caught?”

Anyone who challenges M. Bouchard, a leading separatist, is not a true Quebecker.

Loaded Presupposition
Appeal to Ignorance (Reversed Burden of Proof)
Poisoning the well
Genetic Fallacy
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
Students have to be taught respect for authority. Everyone agrees that the time has come to reintroduce the lash into the public school system.
Parent to teenager: “If I let you have the car to go to the dance on Saturday, then pretty soon, you’ll be wanting it to go to school, and I won’t have any way of getting to work. No. You’re not getting the car.”
From a recent survey of a large number of representatively selected people in Toronto, it was discovered that less than two percent of Canadians engage in hunting for sport. Therefore, most Canadians are not hunters.

Hasty Generalization
Appeal to Popular Sentiment
Slippery Slope
I will not commit this act because it is unjust. I know it is unjust because my conscience tells me so, and my conscience tells me so because the act is unjust.

Begging the Question
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies
All three sex offenders arrested this month by municipal authorities have previous records for the same crime. It seems that once a sex offender, always a sex offender.
Because human bodies become less active as they grow older and because they eventually die, it is reasonable to expect that political bodies will become less and less active the longer they are in existence, and they, too, will eventually die.
Nobody sticks to the one hundred kilometres per hour speed limit. Almost everybody drives one-twenty. The speed limit really ought to be raised twenty kilometres an hour.

Hasty Generalization
Appeal to Common Practice
False Analogy
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

Solar energy can’t meet all of our energy needs now, nor will it ever be able to. We must abandon the notion that it will and continue investing in nuclear energy.
The late eighteenth-century/early nineteenth-century social reformer Thomas Malthus, noting that sober and industrious farmers owned at least one cow, while those who had none were usually lazy and drunken, proposed that the government give a cow to farmers who had none in order to make them sober and industrious.
It’s no wonder you think that promiscuity is all right. You’ve never had a good relationship with a man. So it’s not strange that you’d resort to recreational sex.

Ad hominem
False Cause/Post Hoc
False Dichotomy
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

Said to a white middle-aged male teaching a course on race and gender: You can’t teach about women, race, and discrimination. You are a white, middle-aged, privileged male. What can you know?

We should impeach the Solicitor General. There have been many allegations of unethical conduct on her part. However, she has done nothing to demonstrate her innocence.
Senator Biddle has argued that we should outlaw violent pornography. The senator obviously favours complete governmental censorship of books, magazines and films. I am shocked that such a view should be expressed on the floor of the Senate. It runs counter to everything that this nation stands for.

Genetic fallacy
Straw man fallacy
Appeal to ignorance (reversed burden of proof)
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

My opponent is a dentist, so, of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since it will mean that he would lose business.
The head of the Skeptics organization, a known atheist, says that talking with the dead is impossible. I don’t think we need to consider his so-called “evidence”.

Poisoning the well
Ad Hominem (circumstances)
Ms Norman argues that a woman has a right to decide what happens inside of her own body, and that the state has no right interfering with that right. I say that we cannot stand by and simply allow pregnant teenagers to use abortion as a morning after form of birth control, and Ms Norman is wrong when she demands that right.

Straw Man
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

In a case in Alberta, the prosecution established that the defendant, previously a model young man, had been smoking marijuana. He became inflamed — nay possessed – by overwhelming lust and slew a rival for his girlfriend’s affections. This is not the only case like this. In New York, several young children were smoking marijuana. They went on a rampage, smashing everything in their apartment. In San Francisco, an arsonist torched several buildings — this after he became a regular marijuana user. Marijuana obviously leads to violent behaviour.

Allowing voluntary euthanasia would inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia. And it is morally repugnant to kill people against their will, simply because they are old or disabled or we don’t want them. We must stop all attempts at implementing voluntary euthanasia.
I see nothing morally wrong with paying bribes to elected officials in other countries to obtain business favours. That is the way business is done in many parts of the world.

False Cause (Post Hoc)
Appeal to common practice
Slippery Slope
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

God must exist. Most people believe in him (her).
I see nothing morally wrong with paying bribes to elected officials in other countries to obtain business favours. That is the way business is done in many parts of the world.

Appeal to common practice
Appeal to popular sentiment
You’re not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don’t you know that wedding rings originally symbolized the ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I wouldn’t have thought you would be party to such a sexist practice.

Genetic Fallacy
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

We should be suspicious of the Honourable Member’s argument for not closing the naval base in Esquimalt, B.C., because he is from British Columbia and closing the base will have adverse effects on the B.C. economy.
Genetic fallacy

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

Places with a higher percentage of people who listen to music have higher suicide rates. Obviously country music drives people to suicide.

The recent Supreme Court decision outlawing a moment of silence for prayer in public schools is scandalous. Evidently, the American Civil Liberties Union and the other radical groups will not be satisfied until every last man, women, and child in the country is an atheist. I’m fed up.
How can you argue that gambling should be banned? Gambling is something we can’t avoid – an integral part of human experience. People gamble every time they get in their cars or decide to get married.

False Cause (Post Hoc)
Equivocation
Straw Man
1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong.

*

“Reasoning About Social Issues”

Petrenko Anton, PhD
Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30)
E-Mail: petrenko@yorku.ca
AP/MODR1730 D

*

This lecture will introduce students to fallacies in argumentation. This lecture will focus on fallacies with insufficient or unacceptible premises.
Lecture Objectives
Slippery slope
False analogy
False dichotomy (False Dilemma)
False Cause (Post Hoc)
Begging the Question
Hasty Generalization
Loaded Presupposition
Self-evident Truth

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Hasty Generalization
The fallacy of hasty generalization is committed when we draw the conclusion about the whole group (population) based on inadequate (small or unrepresentative) observation of the part of the sample of the group.
The French are snobby and rude. Remember those two high-and-mighty guys with really bad manners. They are French. I rest my case.
You should buy a Dell computer. They are great. I bought one last year, and it has given me nothing but flawless performance.
In Hasty Generalizations, the premises are relevant to the conclusion, but they are insufficient (also unacceptable because insufficient).
The sample is either too small or unrepresentative of the population.

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Begging the Question
The fallacy of begging the question (arguing in a circle) is committed when one attempts to establish a conclusion in an argument by using the conclusion as a premise (instead of proving the conclusion, one assumes it).
God exists. We know it because the Bible says so, and we should believe the Bible because God says so.
The Bible says so.
Therefore, God exists
The Bible is to be believed because God wrote it.
Premise 2 can only be true if we already know that God exists. But this is only established in the conclusion.
To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty, perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments.
Here, the premise is just the conclusion restated in a different form (p, therefore p).

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: False cause
The fallacy of false cause is committed when one infers causal connection without having established the all the conditions of a causal connection.
Ever since the capital punishment was abolished, the crime rate has been increasing. The abolishment of capital punishment is the reason for there is more crime.
This is an example of a Post Hoc fallacy (‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ or after this, therefore because of this). One thing happening after another does not mean that one caused the other—post hoc fallacy makes this mistake.
A newspaper report of a scientific research study: Psychologists have discovered that most male scientists make their major discoveries in their late twenties and thirties, which is also the period when their sexual interest is at its peak. Therefore, the psychologists concluded, male scientists strive to achieve to attract the attention of women. Scientific inquiry is driven by sexual desire.
This is an example of a correlation without covariance. There could be a third factor as a cause responsible for both discoveries and sexual interest—age.

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: False dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy (or false dilemma) when one presents two alternatives (as if there are only two possible) and forces a choice between the two (as if they are mutually exclusive).
Either you are in favor of state support for the arts, or you are an uncultured tug. You are not in favor of the state support for the arts. Therefore, you are an uncultured thug.
Here, one reaches the conclusion (by elimination) by forcing a choice between only two options. But this works only if not other options are possible. But it is possible to be both cultured, and not in favor of state support because you think money can be better spend elsewhere. The argument fails because it does not consider other options.
Either those lights you saw were alien spacecraft (UFO), or you were hallucinating. You were not hallucinating. Therefore, those lights were alien spacecraft.
…or it could be a weather balloon, a meteor, a lightening, a commercial airliner…

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: False analogy
The fallacy of false analogy is committed when a person draws a conclusion on the basis of an inappropriate comparison between two things.
Dogs are warm-blooded, nurse their young, and give birth to puppies. Humans are warm-blooded, and nurse their young. Therefore, humans give birth to puppies. (David Hume, illustrating why Paley’s watch argument is a faulty analogy)
Nature is a book open to everyone to read. If we do not understand it, it is simply
because we have not read it carefully enough. And like a book, nature requires an
author. Its author is God.
One commits the fallacy either when the similar properties are irrelevant to the conclusion (the inferred property) or when they are too few when compared to dissimilarities.
This analogy fails because the books and nature are not similar in relevant respects: books are messages, which require authors; natural laws are not messages—they don’t require authors.

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Slippery slope
The fallacy of slippery slope is committed when a person argues, without good reason, that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to further (undesirable) steps.
All Canadians should oppose gay marriage. Because if gay marriage is allowed, then before you know it, anything goes—polygamy, incest, marrying animals… who knows….
These type of arguments are fallacious not only because the consequences are not certain, but also because there is no good reason to believe that they will occur.
Americans must not lose war in Vietnam. If South Vietnam falls to the communists, then Thailand will fall to them. If Thailand falls, then South Korea will fall to them. Before you know it, all of South Asia will be under communists.
The argument is fallacious because it gives no relevant evidence that effects will occur. There are many things that intervene between Vietnam and the other countries mentioned. Americans lost, but dominos did not fall as predicted.

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Self-evident Truth
The fallacy of self-evident truth is committed when one presents a contentious position, which is in need of defense, as a self-evident truth that does not need a defense.
Surely, one can’t doubt that men have better self-control than women. This means that a men is better suited for positions requiring cool head under stress.
By presenting a contentious (or one not well established) premise as self-evident, the person attempts to avoid the requirement to justify it.
Surely…
It is obvious that…
No doubt…
No one can deny
It is important to keep in mind that such claims commit the fallacy only if no evidence is being provided to substantiate the claim, and the claim is not well established as one attempts to imply.

*

Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Loaded Presupposition
The fallacy of loaded presupposition is committed when a person makes a statement or a question (aka complex or leading question), which can’t be answered without granting the truth of the statement it presupposes.
Have you stopped drinking vodka in the morning?
Accepting the claim or answering the leading question commits one to accepting the undefended presupposition within it.
Are you still gambling on Sundays?
Will you be taking 8:40 or 9: 10 train?
Why are children of divorced parents are less emotionally stable than those raised in unbroken homes?
The opposition’s treacherous policy must be rejected. It will lead us into a fiscal crisis.

*

Neutralizing Fallacies

1. Summarize the argument where it occurs
2. Name the fallacy
3. Give the criteria for committing the fallacy
4. Explain how the fallacy happens in the argument
5. Challenge the fallacy
Either you like hokey, or you are gay
You don’t like hokey
You are gay
False Dichotomy
False Dichotomy is committed when options are artificially limited (others are ignored)
Only two options are given: a) gay or b) like hokey
Not exclusive: one can be gay and like hokey or not gay and like hokey (maybe the person finds it dull or too violent)
Neutralizing fallacies allows to have a systematic approach to identifying and analyzing fallacious arguments: summarize the argument, name the fallacy and its criteria, and show how the argument fits them. Show why argument fails.

*

“Reasoning About Social Issues”

Petrenko Anton, PhD
Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30)
E-Mail: petrenko@yorku.ca
AP/MODR1730 D

*

My neighbour must have lost his job. He was home three days last week.
1. The initial observations, prompting the explanatory hypothesis are true (plausible)
2. Testability: The explanation allows to draw testable predictions
3. Scope and Fruitfulness: The explanation explains as many or more observed facts as alternatives, and it explains more diverse phenomena than the alternative
4. Simplicity: The explanation relies on fewer unproven claims or assumptions
5. Conservatism: The explanation fits with existing (confirmed) knowledge.
Abductive Argument
6. Compare an explanation to other possible explanations.

Incidents of violence among people twelve through twenty-one have been increasing over the past twenty years. During that same period, The Simpsons has become one of the most popular TV shows among people in that age group. By teaching a disrespect for authority, The Simpsons is clearly contributing to the rise in violence.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?
Causal Argument

We cannot blame men or women for sexual infidelity. Recent research has shown that animals cheat sexually all the time. Why should the situation be any different with humans? Female animals look for males who show signs of biological fitness, and will mate with such a male even if they are already bonded with another male. The same is also true of male animals. Just so it is with humans. As we should not blame animals for sexual infidelity, neither should we blame human beings for sexual infidelity.
1. Truth of the reasons: are the two things compared similar in the required way?
2. Are the known similar properties relevant to the property one is trying to infer?
3. How high is the number of similar characteristics (the higher, the stronger the analogy).
4. How varied are the shared characteristics (the greater variety of similar characteristics, the better)
5. Are there any significant disanalogies (or dissimilarities) that cast doubt on the conclusion?

Argument from Analogy

We cannot blame men or women for sexual infidelity. Recent research has shown that animals cheat sexually all the time. Why should the situation be any different with humans? Female animals look for males who show signs of biological fitness, and will mate with such a male even if they are already bonded with another male. The same is also true of male animals. Just so it is with humans. As we should not blame animals for sexual infidelity, neither should we blame human beings for sexual infidelity.
Truth of the reasons: are the two things compared similar in the required way?

Are the initial observation true? There is evidence that some animals are monogamous (e.g. some birds that mate for life), while other animals are polygamous, and some animals are monogamous temporarily. So, it is not true that all animals are polygamous. However, it is true that some animals will mate outside the relationship. It is true that some human beings do that as well. It is true that both can be attracted by signs of biological fitness.
2. Are the known similar properties relevant to the property one is trying to infer?
The similarity is that both humans and animals are biological species subject to evolutionary pressures. Is this relevant to the inference of moral blamelessness. It is somewhat relevant—if humans are predetermined by biology to cheat than one cannot hold it morally against them.
3. How high is the number of similar characteristics (the higher, the stronger the analogy).
Humans and other animals are biological species. They can engage in cheating. According to biology they are both subject to evolutionary pressures. Both look for signs of biological fitness. There are many similarities.
4. How varied are the shared characteristics (the greater variety of similar characteristics, the better)
The similar characteristics mostly have to do with the common basic biological nature that humans and animals share: bonding, mating, looking for biological fitness.
5. Are there any significant disanalogies (or dissimilarities) that cast doubt on the conclusion?
There are serious disanalogies that undermine the analogy. Human beings have intelligence that allows them to rise above biological impulses and reflect on their choices. They are capable of rational choice. Human beings also have moral norms about right and wrong that animals lack. Because human beings can be motivated by moral reasons and make moral choices they can be held responsible for their actions (unlike animals that are controlled by their biology)

Argument from Analogy

The theory of evolution was not widely taught in American schools until 1963, with the
introduction of new biology textbooks. Throughout the 1950s, there was little social upheaval and disorder in American society. Everyone knew the rules for a well-ordered society and followed them. Immediately after the widespread teaching of evolutionary theory, society disintegrated into chaos—crime rates rose; blacks, women, adolescents began challenging all authority and engaging in violent protests; pornography became rampant; abortion became legal; illegitimacy rates rose
dramatically. It is clear that teaching evolutionary theory destroys any sense of morality.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?

The theory of evolution was not widely taught in American schools until 1963, with the introduction of new biology textbooks. Throughout the 1950s, there was little social upheaval and disorder in American society. Everyone knew the rules for a well-ordered society and followed them. Immediately after the widespread teaching of evolutionary theory, society disintegrated into chaos—crime rates rose; blacks, women, adolescents began challenging all authority and engaging in violent protests; pornography became rampant; abortion became legal; illegitimacy rates rose dramatically. It is clear that teaching evolutionary theory destroys any sense of morality.
Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).

Temporal priority is not clearly established. It is not clear from the evidence when exactly the social upheavals began. There is reason to doubt that they started precisely after the introduction of evolutionary theory in textbooks—bitniks, mods, bikers in US were challenging authority before that date.
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
There is no evidence of covariation—only loose evidence of correlation. We do not have evidence that if evolutionary theory is remved from the books it restores moral values or eliminates social protest. We only have information that loosely at the same time as evolutionary theory was introduced, there were social upheavals and protests.
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
The author seems to suggest that lack of faith in God led to lack of believe in moral right and wrong. Theoretically, it is possible that in a society where the right and wrong is grounded in the believe in God, loss of faith might undermine confidence in moral values. Although it is conceivable, there are many atheistic societies who hold strong believes in right and wrong (communism, secular civil societies)
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?
There are no controls on other factors. The civil rights movement, antiwar protests, and challenges to the past social and moral arrangement could be due to the spread of post war liberal ideas, the growth of the younger, baby boomer generation with their own ideas about social justice, and growing US prosperity that enabled younger generations to be concerned moral and civil rights rather than just survival. Even bigger problem in the argument is the view that civil rights protests represent a collapse of morality, rather than its growth. Its likely the protesters were concerned with moral questions more than previous generations.

 The number of people killed or severely injured by guns and gun-related crimes has increased by ten percent in each of the past three years. We can look forward to another increase of ten percent this year.
1. It is based on evidence or observations of a number of cases.
2. The observations are systematic (not anecdotal)
3. The sample and the population are easily identified.
4. The sample is representative of the population (reflects variability and frequency)
5. The generalization does not over-generalize the sample in relation to the population—it has an adequate scope (sample is large enough for the scope).
Inductive Generalization (Statistical Syllogism)

1. It is based on evidence or observations of a number of cases.
2. The observations are systematic (not anecdotal)
3. The sample and the population are easily identified.
4. The sample is representative of the population (reflects variability and frequency)
5. The generalization does not over-generalize the sample in relation to the population—it has an adequate scope (sample is large enough for the scope).
Inductive Generalization
Four of the major leaders of modern evolutionary theory—Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene; Francis Crick and James Watson, who together won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA; and E. O. Wilson, founder of sociobiology—are not only atheists but argue that evolutionary theory shows that religion is not only unnecessary but harmful. It is clear both that evolutionary theory is atheistic and that biologists are atheists.

It is based on evidence or observations of a number of cases.

The generalization is based on a very small (sample) number of cases (relative to the population)—specifically, four authors.
2. The observations are systematic (not anecdotal)
The observation of the relevant property, that they are all atheists with strong view against religion, is anecdotal rather than systematic. No criteria is established to categorize authors into atheists and what qualifies as being against religion. The criteria are not specified and might be subject to personal interpretation.
3. The sample and the population are easily identified.
The sample are the four authors that are listed. The population is also somewhat clear—it is all (evolutionary) biologists.
4. The sample is representative of the population (reflects variability and frequency).
The sample is not representative of the population because the authors are not chosen randomly. They were chosen because of their fame, which might be a result of their critical views. Choosing on such basis introduces bias into the sample—thus sample fails to include variety present in the population of biologists by failing to include biologists who have less critical views (religious biologists). It also fails to represent their frequency in the population.
5. The generalization does not over-generalize the sample in relation to the population—it has an adequate scope (sample is large enough for the scope).
The sample also fails on being of adequate size. It consist only of four biologists but it generalizes to all biologists (likely numbering in thousands). This is an overgeneralization. The scope of the conclusion would be more adequate to the sample size if it clamed that “some biologists are atheists.”

Inductive Generalization
Four of the major leaders of modern evolutionary theory—Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene; Francis Crick and James Watson, who together won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA; and E. O. Wilson, founder of sociobiology—are not only atheists but argue that evolutionary theory shows that religion is not only unnecessary but harmful. It is clear both that evolutionary theory is atheistic and that biologists are atheists.

It is cruel to encourage the suffering of unwanted and abandoned puppies and kittens.
That is why we spay or neuter our pets. But surely people are more important than pets, and the suffering of an unwanted and abandoned child is far worse than the suffering of a dog or cat. If we sterilize our pets to prevent suffering, then we can surely do no less for the poor and homeless.
1. Truth of the reasons: are the two things compared similar in the required way?
2. Are the known similar properties relevant to the property one is trying to infer?
3. How high is the number of similar characteristics (the higher, the stronger the analogy).
4. How varied are the shared characteristics (the greater variety of similar characteristics, the better)
5. Are there any significant disanalogies (or dissimilarities) that cast doubt on the conclusion?

Argument from Analogy

There were three food-product recalls yesterday. I checked and found there has been an average of one a day for the past year. Ten years ago, there was an average of one every ten days. The average number of recalls has been increasing steadily over the past ten years, but they have particularly escalated in the past three years. It seems that our food system is far less safe than it was
ten years ago, despite increased regulation and monitoring.
1. The initial observations, prompting the explanatory hypothesis are true (plausible)
2. Testability: The explanation allows to draw testable predictions
3. Scope and Fruitfulness: The explanation explains as many or more observed facts as alternatives, and it explains more diverse phenomena than the alternative
4. Simplicity: The explanation relies on fewer unproven claims or assumptions
5. Conservatism: The explanation fits with existing (confirmed) knowledge.
Abductive Argument
6. Compare an explanation to other possible explanations.

There were three food-product recalls yesterday. I checked and found there has been an average of one a day for the past year. Ten years ago, there was an average of one every ten days. The average number of recalls has been increasing steadily over the past ten years, but they have particularly escalated in the past three years. It seems that our food system is far less safe than it was ten years ago, despite increased regulation and monitoring.
The initial observations, prompting the explanatory hypothesis are true (plausible)
There is no reason to doubt the truth of the initial observations in this case—these are given by the author and we have no way of checking it or scrutinize their truth. We can assume the person is not lying.
2. Testability: The explanation allows to draw testable predictions
Potentially it is possible to test this hypothesis. We could determine the amount of food produced in the past and now, establish criteria for safety, and examine if a greater % of food based on the same criteria is found to be unsafe now than in the past.
3. Scope and Fruitfulness: The explanation explains as many or more observed facts as alternatives, and it explains more diverse phenomena than the alternative
The explanation that food is becoming less safe can explain the increased recalls. However, it does not explain why the increase comes despite increased regulation. If regulation increases, the food should become safer. Scope is narrower than possible.
4. Simplicity: The explanation relies on fewer unproven claims or assumptions
The explanation assumes that food is becoming less safe to explain increased recalls. But it assumes it without explaining why it is becoming less safe—we have no independent explanation why it becomes less safe. So, the explanation is not as simple as it could be—it makes an assumption.
5. Conservatism: The explanation fits with existing (confirmed) knowledge.
The explanation fits with well confirmed knowledge—food production can in principle become less safe
Abductive Argument
6. Alternatives: It is possible that recalls are increased because the regulation have increased and so the standard of what counts as safe food have changed over time by becoming more demanding. This explanation is testable (check food criteria) It has wider scope (explains recalls and increased regulation), simpler (makes no unexplained assumptions about decreased food safety, and equally conservative (maybe more because since normally increased regulation improves food safety). Alternatively, it is possible that the amount of food produce overall has increased—recalls have increased due to greater food production but relative numbers of unsafe food might be falling.

Whenever I visit my sisters in Ontario and Quebec in the summer, my allergies go crazy. I never have any trouble in B.C. or Alberta. There must be something about the different plants in these provinces that provoke my allergies. I’ve got to stay away from Ontario and Quebec in the summer.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?

Society is a survival of the fittest. Just as in nature the weak do not and should not survive, so too in society. If the weak in society cannot survive without societal (government) support, then there is no obligation on the part of society to ensure their survival. If the poor, the disabled, the aged, cannot survive on their own, then there is no obligation on the part of society to ensure their survival.
1. Truth of the reasons: are the two things compared similar in the required way?
2. Are the known similar properties relevant to the property one is trying to infer?
3. How high is the number of similar characteristics (the higher, the stronger the analogy).
4. How varied are the shared characteristics (the greater variety of similar characteristics, the better)
5. Are there any significant disanalogies (or dissimilarities) that cast doubt on the conclusion?

Argument from Analogy

The incidence of syphilis has gone up in the past five years. At the same time, the teaching of sex education has moved from the upper grades to grades eight and nine. To stop the spread of syphilis, we have to stop teaching sex education.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?

Three times last semester, the university administration allowed both the Palestinian and Israeli student organizations to set up information tables in the Student Centre. Each time, there were outbreaks of violence. I don’t think we should allow them to have information tables in the Student Centre this term.
1. It is based on evidence or observations of a number of cases.
2. The observations are systematic (not anecdotal)
3. The sample and the population are easily identified.
4. The sample is representative of the population (reflects variability and frequency)
5. The generalization does not over-generalize the sample in relation to the population—it has an adequate scope (sample is large enough for the scope).
Inductive Generalization (Statistical Syllogism)

Fatima’s car was found unlocked and parked by the side of the road. The keys were in the ignition. Her purse and cell phone were untouched inside the car. Last week, two other people disappeared in the same area. Then two days later, they turned up and reported that they had been abducted by aliens. There have been two other such cases in the area in the past six months. Fatima was obviously abducted by aliens.
1. The initial observations, prompting the explanatory hypothesis are true (plausible)
2. Testability: The explanation allows to draw testable predictions
3. Scope and Fruitfulness: The explanation explains as many or more observed facts as alternatives, and it explains more diverse phenomena than the alternative
4. Simplicity: The explanation relies on fewer unproven claims or assumptions
5. Conservatism: The explanation fits with existing (confirmed) knowledge.
Abductive Argument
6. Compare an explanation to other possible explanations.

Green tea may help prevent cancer. A recent study of five thousand people, half of whom have been drinking at least three cups of green tea daily for twenty years or more compared to the other half, who drink coffee or black tea, has shown there is twenty percent less incidence of stomach and esophageal cancer in the green tea drinkers. Researchers have recently isolated a chemical in green tea that acts to inhibit the growth of cancer tumours in mice.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?

The national debt is like a metastasizing cancer that threatens to destroy our economy from within. We must take whatever measures are necessary to stop this cancer from threatening the life of society.
1. Truth of the reasons: are the two things compared similar in the required way?
2. Are the known similar properties relevant to the property one is trying to infer?
3. How high is the number of similar characteristics (the higher, the stronger the analogy).
4. How varied are the shared characteristics (the greater variety of similar characteristics, the better)
5. Are there any significant disanalogies (or dissimilarities) that cast doubt on the conclusion?

Argument from Analogy

After two years of disappointing performances and rained-out sessions, the last four
Montreal Jazz Festivals have been huge successes. Since the weather is supposed to be good this year, I expect that this year’s will also be a huge success.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?

My three best friends all took economics and got great jobs upon graduation. Even though I am not great at math, I had better take economics. It will lead to a great job.
1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect).
3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases).
Causal Argument
2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause).
4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)?

“Reasoning About Social Issues”

Petrenko Anton, PhD
Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30)
E-Mail: petrenko@yorku.ca
AP/MODR1730 D

*

This lecture will introduce students to fallacies in argumentation. This lecture will focus on fallacies (of irrelevance) with irrelevant premises.
Lecture Objectives
Ad hominem
Genetic Fallacy
Appeal to force/threat
Appeal to popular sentiment
Appeal to emotion
Straw man
Appeal to Ignorance
Equivocation
Red herring

*

Irrelevant Premises: Ad hominem
The fallacy of appeal to the person (ad hominem means ‘to the man’) is when one argues to reject the claim by criticizing the person who makes the claim rather than the claim itself.
Example:
You can’t believe anything Beachemin says about federalism because she is a known separatist.
…because she is gay, or feminist, or has socialist friends…
What Beachemin says about
federalism is not true
Beachemin is a separatist
Who or what a person is (their life choices or beliefs) are irrelevant to the strength or weakness of their arguments. Any person can make a strong argument.
This is a variety of fallacy against the person. It attacks the inconsistency or person’s relationship to the claim: “Ellen claims smoking is bad, but she smokes. So smoking is not bad.” (Whether she smokes is irrelevant to the conclusion that smoking is bad)
Tu quoque (hypocrisy/circumstance)

*

Irrelevant Premises: Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when one argues that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin. (It is close to ad hominem, but does not involve attacking the character or circumstances of the person)
Of course he would say don’t raise taxes. He is rich. So, his claims are untrue.
… (or he is a liberal, or conservative, or mason)
Helen is of a European descent
Helen’s views on Aboriginal rights are not true
Example:

Poisoning the well (discredit the source)
Another fallacy, called poisoning the well is similar to genetic fallacy. The person tries to undermine the point by discrediting the source even before the claim is made.

*

Irrelevant Premises: Appeal to force/threat
Fallacy of appeal to force is committed when some kind of force or (threat of) violence is used to bring about the acceptance of the view.
Say that you like me bossing you around, or…
If I was out of bounds, then I will take my ball and go home
I was not out of bounds
Example:
In appeal to force, the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.
For example: “Either I am right, or else you don’t get to use my car.” The question at issue is if the person is right or not, the threat use force is not relevant to that question (although can be influential).

*

Irrelevant Premises: Appeal to popular sentiment
The fallacy of appeal to popular sentiment is committed when one argues that the claim is true or acceptable because some group feels or thinks it is so.
Most people approve of the government’s decision not to pay for in vitro fertilization treatments.
So, this is the correct decision.
Example:
The opinion of the majority is not in itself a reason for the truth of the conclusion (e.g. “most people believe the earth is flat, so the earth is flat”). If the majority have a good reason to hold a view, one should appeal directly to that reason.
Appeal to tradition
Appeal to common practice
The same goes for a common practice or tradition:
“Everyone jumps off the bridge, so we should jump off the bridge”
“Its OK if I speed, everyone does it”
“Its traditional to burn witches, we should burn us some witches”

*

Irrelevant Premises: Appeal to emotion
The fallacy of appeal to emotion is made when one uses the arousal of emotion to persuade someone to accept a particular claim.
If the client is convicted, his children will be homeless.
His parents will be devastated.
The client is innocent
Example:
Our sewing machine is made in America, by Americans
Our sewing machine is well-made
Appeal to emotions (pity, fear, anger, indignation, feelings of patriotism and nationalism) are often effective, but they are not relevant to the truth of the claim. This can be similar to the fallacy of popular sentiment:
Doubting the rationale for war means hating America
There is no doubt about the reason for the war

*

Irrelevant Premises: Straw man
The straw man fallacy is committed when one distorts a position (argument or a view) so that it can be easily knocked down or refuted.
“David thinks gay relationships deserve special treatment .
He thinks gay lifestyle should be celebrated and promoted.
He wants to turn heterosexuals into a minority”
Dave’s view in favor of gay marriage is incorrect.
Let’s say David is in favor of gay marriage. Then one could construct this straw man argument against him.
Straw man fallacy involves making a caricature (reinterpreting or spinning) of someone’s argument to make it weaker:
“The opposition voted against the plan to increase defense spending for the Canadian military. Why does the opposition want to leave Canada defenseless? Opposition want to make Canada unable to defend its borders.”

*

Irrelevant Premises: Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to ignorance reverses the burden of proof: it asserts some claim, and then challenges you to disprove it. But in the absence of any evidence one should suspend judgement.
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance is committed when one argues that the absence of evidence for a claim must be counted as evidence for it. (or the other way around: absence of evidence is evidence against it)
Science has not proven that God does not exist.
Therefore, God exists
No one has successfully proven that God exists
Therefore, God does not exists
Lack of evidence against a claim does not give a reason to believe the claim.

*

Language and Meaning
Nothing is taller than the Empire State Building
Anything is taller than nothing.
Anything is taller than the Empire State Building
Remember this?
Can you paraphrase it and check validity with Venn and traditional method?

Illicit Inclusion
The word ‘nothing’ is used each time with different meaning. Premise 1: it is a quantifier; Premise 2: it is a term (part of the simple sentence. But when we read the sentences, we think the word is used in the same way (we equivocate!).
Things
T
Things taller than ESB
E
Things taller than nothing
N
No things are things taller than ESB
All things are things taller than nothing
All things are taller than ESB
No Ts are Es
All Ts are Ns
All Ts are E
E
A
A

*

Irrelevant Premises: Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses a word in two different senses in an argument to lead to a misleading conclusion.
The end of everything is perfection
The end of life is death
Therefore, death is the perfection of life
Here “end” means the last in a sequence.
Here “end” means the goal or purpose.
In categorical logic, they would be different sets, but because they sound the same you can make the mistake of treating them as one.
Laws can be only given by law-givers
There are many laws of nature
Therefore, there must be a law-giver: God
Only man is rational
No women is a man
Therefore, no women is rational

*

Irrelevant Premises: Red herring
The fallacy of red herring is committed when one brings up an irrelevant issue as a distraction to confuse or sidetrack the main issue.
Canada needs tougher immigration policy. I’ve got a neighbor who says we should let in more immigrants. The 60s… boy, what a great time it was for druggies and wakos! You should see the way the hippies dressed. I guess the guy does not get that the 60s are over.
The term red herring came from the practice of training hounds to follow the correct scent. Red herring was dragged in front of them to distract them from the smell of the fox.
Red herring is an irrelevant distraction in argumentation.

*

Irrelevant Premises: Composition/Division
The fallacy of composition is committed when one argues that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole.
The fallacy of division is committed is when one argues that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. It’s the flipside of composition.
Every part of the bike is lightweight
Therefore, the whole bike is lightweight
Example:
The error here is to think that the characteristics of the part are transferred to the whole. This is not always the case:
“Average small investor puts 2,000 $ in stock; average large investor puts 100,000$. Large investors on the whole invest more into the economy than small investors” (But there could be much more small investors than large ones)
“University students study every conceivable subject. So that university student over there also studies every conceivable subject.”
“This machine is heavy. So every part of it is heavy”

*