Unit 4: Rhetorical Fallacies

is basically faulty reasoning leading to a conclusion the advertiser, author, or speaker wants you to make.

the evidence focuses on the person who supports a conclusion, not on the merits of the conclusion itself.

A certain political candidate is ahead in the polls.

This rhetorical fallacy focuses solely on the credentials or fame of the person recommending the product, without saying anything about the product itself.

This rhetorical fallacy turns to the other side of the coin and points out negative characteristics of the person who promotes an idea or action.

The conclusion must be correct because the author or speaker says it is and she can’t possibly be wrong.

This type of fallacy leaves out facts that a reader or listener would need in order to make a thorough assessment of the conclusion.

Charities often use this tactic when they ask for donations.

According to this rhetorical fallacy, if you eat at a fast-food takeout once, pretty soon you’ll never want to eat healthy, nourishing home-cooked meals again.

Here the speaker or author is trying to frighten you into agreeing with him.

Instead of addressing the key issues of an opposing argument, a red herring fallacy focuses attention on an insignificant or irrelevant factor.

The writer creates a straw man—something that’s easy to knock down and tear apart—as the opposing viewpoint.

One thing is compared with a second thing, but the comparison is exaggerated or misleading or unreasonable.

(also called Post hoc ergo propter hoc): This type of fallacy assumes that because one event happened shortly before another, the first event must have caused the second.

In this rhetorical fallacy, an assumption which is not proven is used as evidence that the conclusion is correct.

This fallacy says essentially the same thing in both the conclusion and in the evidence that allegedly supports it.

The author offers evidence that supports a conclusion—it’s just not the same conclusion that the author reaches.

This Latin term means, “it doesn’t follow.”

This rhetorical fallacy assumes a black-and-white world in which there is no middle ground, no other alternative.

Here the author or speaker assumes that a limited experience foreshadows the entire experience.

In this rhetorical fallacy, anything that has not been proven false is assumed to be true; the author doesn’t need to prove it’s true.