Find the Flaw in a Politician’s Argument With This Guide to Logical Fallacies
People are biased. We remember what confirms our beliefs more than what does not. And every day we are presented with new information and arguments that we must analyze, especially from politicians.
Our political beliefs also distort our perceptions , but to counter this it is helpful to know common misconceptions in arguments so you can make smarter and more rational decisions about what to believe. (Of course, some arguments may simply be based on lies. We also have a guide to testing them.) Below are common logical fallacies that many politicians use in their arguments, with tips on how to spot them.
Ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition)
Not every tradition is good. An ad antiquitatem fallacy is when an argument relies on tradition to support it. For example, in opposing same-sex marriage, many people cited tradition as a reason to oppose it. Former Indiana Congressman Mark Sauder said on his website , “I am committed to maintaining a traditional marriage of one man and one woman.” Likewise, people may argue that something is “unnatural” by opposing it, but it’s not clear what it means to be “natural,” and natural does not always mean good.
Ad hominem (personal attack)
Ad homninem attacks are attacks on a person, not arguments. During the 2016 elections, Donald Trump made frequent ad hominem attacks, including against Mitt Romney. He mocked Romney for walking like a penguin . He also repeatedly called Jeb Bush underpowered. Sad!
However, ad hominem attacks can sometimes help strengthen arguments, such as pointing out when a person’s credibility is questionable or they have an incentive to lie about a problem.
Ad ignorantiam (call to ignorance)
Just because something has not been proven false does not mean it is true. According to The Atlantic , 4 percent of Americans believe lizard people are in control of politics. While there is no definitive proof of this, it hasn’t turned out to be false either. But this is not a good argument for the existence of lizard people, as the burden of proof usually falls on those who claim that lizard people control politics.
Ad misericordiam (call to pity)
One of the most common appeals for compassion is anecdotes. In this year was the viral video of the Republicans, who all his life has been against of Obamacare, is not yet saved his life. But this anecdote doesn’t really tell us what Obamacare is doing, nor does it consider the possible consequences of Obamacare. There are statistics for that that can help you make rational arguments for or against Obamacare, such as the number of people who would lose their health care without it.
Ad misericordiam’s arguments help make the arguments more compelling, but it’s important to note that these anecdotes do not necessarily reflect other circumstances and scenarios.
To nausea (repetition)
Some arguments are simply repeated over and over. For example, many politicians run campaign ads during the election season. And many claims are made repeatedly, but this does not necessarily mean that they are correct.
Ad numerum / ad populum (referring to numbers)
An ad numerum or ad populum error is when an argument tries to convince people to believe something is true just because a large number of people think it is. Using Donald Trump as an example again, Trump cites (biased) poll results showing that people think he is a strong leader to prove his point that he is a strong leader. But the fact that many people think so does not mean that it is true.
Ad verecundiam (appeal to the authorities)
Often, politicians refer to authority figures to support their views. This strengthens their arguments, but only when the expert is an expert in the field from which the data is obtained. Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying that segregation is a ” disease of white people, ” but Einstein is not a political philosopher, so his views on politics are not as widespread as his views on physics. Likewise, even if an expert is quoted, it is important to be skeptical about him. For example, in persuading people to vote for Hillary Clinton, some noted that none of the living former US presidents supported Donald Trump.
False dichotomy
A false dichotomy is when someone presents an argument as if there were only two solutions. Sometimes people can twist their opposite argument and make their opposite argument stupid. For example, during the arms control debate, Trump said , “Hillary Clinton wants to take your gun and she wants to repeal the Second Amendment.” In this example, Trump creates a false dichotomy between permitting and banning weapons altogether when there are many other points of view between the two extremes.
Cherry picking
Cherry picking is also extremely common in politics. Many politicians use data that makes them look better, like improving the economy or increasing trade. This is a highlight when the data does not show the full picture, for example, if a politician has changed the start and end dates to eliminate awkward data points, or if they miss important context. In the 2004 elections, George W. Bush said that “the Kerry plan will raise taxes by at least $ 900 billion in its first hundred days.” While people found Kerry’s health insurance plan would be worth $ 895 billion, they also found that, when adjusted for cost-cutting measures, it would actually cost $ 653 billion. When listening to statistics from politicians, look for the context of the data.
Circular argument
Circular arguments are when someone uses their argument to prove their argument. For example, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said marijuana cannot be legalized because it is socially unacceptable.
“If I’m here for a wedding reception and someone drinks or two, most people won’t say they’re wasted,” Walker said, according to The Capital Times . “Most people who use marijuana wouldn’t sit at a wedding reception and smoke marijuana.”
People don’t smoke marijuana openly because marijuana is illegal. This reasoning is similar to the assertion that weed should not be legal because it is illegal. While circular arguments are not always as obvious as this example, circular arguments often appear in political debates.
Correlation is not causation
Politicians often claim that one thing causes the other, when in reality it is just a correlation . Some things are related, not because they cause each other, but because of coincidence, or because they can be caused by a third factor. One example is that many people argue that Bill Clinton helped the economy, but the economy has also improved due to things outside of Clinton’s control, such as the dot-com boom .
Dicto simpliciter (generalization)
Generalization is common in politics, especially when it comes to stereotypes. You should get tired when politicians speak in absolute terms (all, none), because one example is enough to refute their arguments. After the 2016 elections, politics became increasingly divided, leading to more generalizations about both parties, such as that Democrats are gay and Republicans are rich . These stereotypes are not as valid as we think. Instead, the next time you hear a generalization, look at where people are getting these beliefs from and try to back them up with statistics.
Ignoratio elenchi (misses the point)
Often politicians respond to attacks with something unrelated. For example, during the second presidential debate, Trump asked Clinton about her “33,000” deleted emails, but Clinton replies by correcting it rather than addressing the deleted emails: “No – well, we turned over 35,000 emails, so …” point and doesn’t actually answer his question.
Likewise, there is a distracting error that distracts from the underlying problem. When asked about his comments Trump made on the tapes with Billy Bush, Trump replied, “These are locker room conversations, and this is one of those things. I will beat ISIS to hell. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS emerged several years ago in a vacuum created by misjudgment. And I will tell you that I will take care of ISIS. ” Rather than referring to his comments, he changes the subject to ISIS.
Slippery slope
The slippery slope argument is when s0meone argues that one little thing can lead to a chain of other consequences. Sometimes the consequences are logical, but sometimes they are greatly exaggerated and simply do not correspond to reality. In apolitical ad against Clinton, Trump presents a dark image of America if Clinton is elected with “a flood of Syrian refugees, illegal immigrants convicted of crimes that will remain.” To avoid slippery slopes, consider how likely the scenario is and whether it can be supported by facts and statistics.