The weak analogy fallacy (also “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough. It is also known as a faulty analogy, weak analogy, wrongful comparison , metaphor as argument, and analogical fallacy. The more you practice trying to apply the recipes the better you will get. Then the AA must contain some discussion of a possible third alternative to show that the A or B statement is not true or at least very questionable. I’ll bet I can get $5,000 from Burger King for these dead roaches I just found in my Whopper!”. Key point: creative analogies can help us understand arguments, but they are not direct evidence that the conclusion is true. . Def. He supported some very powerful military weapons. The Questionable Cause Fallacy is actually a general type of fallacy. For a humorous use of SS in advertising see the Direct TV ads. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. But the listing of the fact or facts does not show that the premise is false as it would with SP. Think of the bamboo plant. They also point out that many gays have been kicked out of the military that have had valuable skills, such as the ability to speak Arabic and Farsi. I must be causing the sun to rise. Those who support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy claim that it has not been perfect but it has worked, and it is not the time to have a social experiment in the military as we attempt to fight two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). . A questionable analogy occurs in the premise and hence we should not presume evidence has been offered for the conclusion just because a creative analogy has been used to get our attention. The fallacy of questionable analogy refers, not surprisingly, to an analogy that fails to justify its conclusion. Don't just identify a label thinking that will be good enough for exam preparation. Additionally, what is an example of oversimplification? If it does become known that they are gay, they will be discharged from the military. If an analogy were to be spelled out completely (which they rarely are), it would take a form such as this: * Premise 1: A and B are similar in certain relevant respects. True premise and having fluoride containing toothpaste is a good reason to buy it since the fluoride will help prevent cavities. Questionable Dilemma Any causal fallacy that involves an error in a reasoning due to a failure to adequately investigate the suspected cause is a fallacy of this type. So, evolution exists. In the AA, almost everything can be copied from the recipe except we must make some attempt to describe other possible causes, other possible events happening at the same time. The fallacy of questionable analogy refers, not surprisingly, to an analogy that fails to justify its conclusion. No. However, the attempted description will be false or at least very questionable, being an exaggeration or distortion of the person's or group's true position. But conservative media news reports at the time quoted Obama directly (and of course selectively and out of context), " If you've got a business - you didn't build that. " There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Hence a valid argument and the focus again should be on questionable premise. We have had two other wars recently (Afghanistan and Iraq). Just think what the U.S. would do if there were some group just over the border in Canada firing rockets into this country.”, “You can see it coming already. “Look at Jones and his stats compared to Smith. Showing then that the statement was selected out of context would best fit Suppressed Evidence. 3. An argument by analogy refers to an argument that makes inferences based on an analogy, or comparison, between two situations or objects. Again, the burden is on us to be informed that the premise or premises is an exaggeration or distortion of the person's true position. We not only point out that we should not presume any evidence has been offered yet, but argue that the analogy is questionable - that there are differences in the two things being compared. The fallacy can be found in the content of the argument. For the example above, this note was on the exam: "Note: The policy, in effect since the early 1990s, essentially says that gays can serve in the military provided that they not advertise their sexual orientation. Assessing the strength of an analogy is a matter of determining how similar the cases are in the relevant respects. To make a case that this is a SS fallacy, we need to not only point out that no evidence is presented for the controversial premise but also argue that the causal links predicted are unlikely. Questionable Analogy Students need to be careful using this fallacy. We need more than logic. Put this way, it is true Obama made that exact statement. McDonald’s and Burger King certainly are similar in a lot of ways, but if it turns out that one of them has a corporate policy of quickly paying off claims like this, and the other has a corporate policy of aggressively defending against such claims (and a history of winning when they do), then that could be a relevant difference between the cases. Straw Person False Analogy False Analogy - when a comparison is made between two ideas or objects that seemingly have similar characteristics, but the comparison does not hold up. (Notice the Daily Show treatment of this example linked above seems to focus on SP.) Key word here being “relevant.” The cases don’t have to be similar in all respects, nor even in all “important” respects. Students will ask, "What if this one was on the exam and I did not know this information!?" II, #8, in Chapter 5. Instead we point out a simple omitted fact - other brands of toothpaste also contained fluoride. As is generally the case with the different fallacy categories, it’s not so much that an argument either is or isn’t a fallacy-it’s not black and white like that. From the recipe and examples in the textbook, notice the highlights. The example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but is arguably an example of a weak analogy. Plus, notice in the exercises for both C4 and C5 some of the fallacies have accompanying notes to help you with background information. Notice the highlights from the recipe. Isn't it true that he was referring to the infrastructure (roads and bridges) that businesses need to thrive? One gay parental example generalizing to all gay parents. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. II, #8, in Chapter 5. Examples of False Analogy: Questionable Analogy, 6. Identify premise(s) and conclusion = 10pts. On the way home that day, she has a … No excuse. Will our troops understand the culture and language? FALSE CAUSE (questionable cause): arguing that one event caused another without sufficient evidence of a causal relationship. Since Joan is a teacher, Mary must also be a teacher. As the first video for Chapter 5 shows, notice the difference with fallacies of relevance - reasoning is weak and premise(s) is NOT relevant to the conclusion. ", "Invading Iraq to establish democracy is like trying to fix a broken plane during takeoff.". The opposite of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy (also, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given person, place, thing or idea under consideration is "sui generis" i.e., different and unique, in a class unto itself. Example: The book Investing for Dummies really … One should know the possible dangers of having our country invade another country. But QC always has the causal claim in the conclusion and not in the premise. In each instance, you need to examine if the cases are similar enough in relevant respects to conclude that what’s true of one likely is also true of the other. The term comes from the Latin word fallacia, meaning "deception, deceit, trick, or artifice". When this suppressed fact is known we see that we really have not been given sufficient reason to buy Crest rather than another brand. This fails to account for natural fluctuations. An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. Critical Thinking: What is the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority? An analogy is an argument where two things are compared and a conclusion is drawn that what is true of one is true of the other. (also known as: bad analogy, false analogy, faulty analogy, questionable analogy, argument from spurious similarity, false metaphor) Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument. SS is a questionable premise fallacy so we do not focus on the reasoning in the AA as being weak. So we don't argue that the premise is false or questionable and we don't argue that the reasoning is weak. Critical Thinking: What is the Fallacy of Popularity. If this was the explanation in the AA, the SP would be better. For the AA in SE we must be able to list a specific fact or facts of crucial omitted information that changes the perspective on the persuasiveness of the original argument. Technically the book classifies this argument as fallacy of presumption - a type of questionable premise. Technically the book classifies this argument as fallacy of presumption - a type of questionable premise. Fallacy of the Weak Analogy Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. The problem and focus should be on the key slippery slope premise - If A happens, then B happens, which will make C happen and then D happen. "Saying that women should be free to choose to have an abortion or not is just like saying one should be free to rob a bank"   Robbing a bank is bad, so pro-choice on abortion is wrong. The fallacy of questionable analogy often is concealed in reasoning that appears to be legitimate. If, for instance, the speaker has been convicted of fraud in the past for faking similar incidents and suing, whereas Otis had no such history, that would seriously weaken the analogy because one would expect a company to be a lot more reluctant to pay up in the former case. Questionable Cause, 5. ", "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. Too often some think it applies to just about every weak argument. Study the recipe. Did our political leaders understand the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and their history of religious disagreement and violence against each other before invading Iraq? Those who support repealing the policy claim that discrimination in the military against gays serves no useful purpose. It may not be within this generation but definitely in the next two. The argument form shown in the recipe is a valid deductive argument. Yes and No. Suppressed Evidence. It may be that Otis is a midget and the speaker is not, or Otis had an unhappy childhood and the speaker did not, or Otis plays the violin in a symphony orchestra and the speaker does not, or Otis gives thousands of dollars a year to charity and the speaker does not, but even though in their way these are all quite important differences between these two individuals, they (probably) have no relevance to the specific issue at hand. Again due to time constraints, we will focus on only a sample of the fallacies in Chapter 5. A questionable analogy occurs in the premise and hence we should not presume evidence has been offered for the conclusion just because a creative analogy has been used to get our attention. Notice the editing at the beginning to include no reference to government supported infrastructure. The weak analogy fallacy focuses on properties that are not central to the argument while minimizing differences that are important. Students will complain about #1, Ex. Use the Laulima Discussion Forum to post fallacy analysis attempts for feedback. This is flawed reasoning! But, again, the differences have to be relevant. “When Otis found a dead mouse in his Big Mac, McDonald’s paid him $5,000 not to sue. The fallacy , or false analogy, is an argument based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons. Example. This analogy is often used in science to help people understand the concept of evolution, but what should convince us that evolution is true is a vast amount of anatomical, fossil, geological, and genetic evidence showing that the past branches really occurred. Questionable Analogy. Isn't the premise false that Obama said if you built a business in this country you did not build it, the government did? Bottom line. Stop looking at me as if I started a war." Key word here being “relevant.”. "Legalizing gay marriage will be very bad for children. 1. The Bush example in the SE section of Chapter 5 shows that politicians are very good at spinning the facts and using suppressed evidence. They are crystal meth addicts and often do not even take six-year old Madison to school or feed her regularly.". Questionable Cause This fallacy occurs when a causal connection is assumed without proof. An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The problem is that the items in the analogy are too dissimilar. Once Dakota Fanning gets a little older, she’s going to fall apart spectacularly and publicly like Brittany Spears and Lindsey Lohan.”, “But you let Raven stay out until midnight when she was 17! That usually requires some critical thinking and information. Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby An analogical argument is an argument with an analogical premiss, which is a premiss that draws an analogy, that is, claims that one thing is like another. The fallacy occurs when temporal order is the only (or by far the strongest) evidence provided. Although a bush grows, the branches exist all at once, visible at the same time; the branches of evolution do not exist all at once. Here are the Exercise II exercises for the above labels to try fallacy analysis: 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 18-25, 29-32, 35. Well who did? Again, see the Dukakis example, Ex. Next is the “False Analogy” occurs when the writer assumes that two concepts are similar in some ways and also similar in other ways. One example is "some" evidence and so unlike a fallacy of relevance this one example is relevant to the conclusion. So, fallacies of weak induction (HC and QC) provide some evidence for their conclusions but the argument in the AA will be that the evidence provided is very weak. In the brief description, be sure to copy correctly: causal connection in the conclusion, not a casual connection! For example: "Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down. False Charge of Fallacy. The regression (or regressive) fallacy is an informal fallacy. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. Sample is too small to be indicative of the population about which you are trying to make an inference. As the name suggests, it occurs when comparing two similar things. Then, it shoots up in the air, growing 15 to 20 feet tall in one year. Hasty Conclusion. It states that since Item A and Item B both have Quality X in common, they must also have Quality Y in common. Critical Thinking: What is the Fallacy of Two Wrongs Make a Right? The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. But what about the Obama example above? Will the local people support us or resent us being there? Jasmine and Mikayla are horrible parents to their daughter Madison. Since Weak Analogy is not a formal fallacy, but an informal one, there is nothing logically wrong with the form. Thus, fallacies like Post Hoc and Confusing Cause and Effect are specific examples of the general Questionable Cause Fallacy. In life if you are not well-informed, you will be taken advantage of with any fallacy of questionable premise. It will make the military less unified and effective. Smith is in the Hall of Fame, so Jones deserves to be in the Hall too.”, “Israel has the right to cross into Lebanon and deal militarily with the people shooting rockets into its territory. Content ©2014. There are many varieties of this fallacy (you don't need to know the following by their particular names, just recognize them all as examples of Questionable Cause): If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. Canada, Britain, and Israel allow gays to openly serve in their militaries, but no it has not weakened their militaries. Why won’t you let me!”, “Teaching Creationism as an alternative to evolution is no more justified than teaching the Stork theory as an alternative to biological theories of human reproduction.”. All too often claims to a causal connection are based on a mere correlation. Hence, unlike QC (see below), the problem with SS is that no evidence for the SS premise is given and that should then be the focus for the AA. Have other countries allowed gays to serve openly in their militaries? Remember that the premise in SP is false, but the premise in SE is true. . For example, "Evolution of life on Earth is just like a huge bush of developing branches of life." A It assumes that something has returned to normal because of corrective actions taken while it was abnormal. The weaker it is, the more we can say it commits the questionable analogy fallacy. The characteristics of the two things actually differ in the area that is being compared. If yes, have bad things happened? It’s a matter of the degree of strength of the argument, of the analogy. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. Information is power. See also Faulty Comparison. For me, this is a logical fallacy of false analogy because it is comparing the “pusong mamon” with the literal mamon. The military will not ask and gays should not tell or advertise their sexual orientation. A weak analogy fallacy is a part of informal logic. Created with SoftChalk; The analogy is always in a premise, X is like Y. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. But unlike Ad Hominem, the premise is relevant to the conclusion - there will be an attempt to describe the person's or group's position on an issue. Again, we need more than logic. If nothing jumps out, then at least identify the premise and conclusion. Weak Analogy (Also known as faulty analogy, questionable analogy) While arguments from analogy will be covered in more detail later in this work, it is worth covering the fallacy of weak analogies right now. Going back to our example, how much support does the point about the dead mouse provide for the conclusion that the speaker will be able to get $5,000 from Burger King? Hasty Conclusion At least after studying the trick behind this fallacy, one would be wise to be cautious when anyone is describing a position of someone else you know the person disagrees with, as when a Democrat describes what a Republican believes or a Republican describe what a Democrat believes. The argument is valid, but at the time no evidence was presented that these events will occur or that they were even probable. The premise is true and appears to offer a good reason for the conclusion. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.". Plus, Canada, Britain, and Israel allow gays to serve openly and this service has not weakened their militaries, and the armed forces need every qualified person.". Somebody else made that happen. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The occurrence of one event after the other or the occurrence of events simultaneously is not proof of a causal connection. Or, as I say, there may be other unmentioned aspects of the incidents themselves that are relevantly dissimilar. Then follow the recipe to see if the label works. Sarah ignores an email that says she should forward it or she will be unlucky. If you were not even born yet when our military was in Vietnam, how can you be expected to know all the events happening at the same time as the college demonstrations? * Conclusion: B (probably) has x as well. Information is power. It will just be a matter of time before we have an explosion of homosexual assaults in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators. Another premise will say or imply that one of these options is bad, and then the conclusion will be that the other option is good. Critical Thinking: What Are the Fallacies of Questionable Premise and Non Sequitur? I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. To get 17-20, B+ to A+, you have to do some creative critical thinking as directed by each AA recipe -- why are the links predicted in SS unlikely, what are other possible causes for QC, what is the person's real position for SP, and so on. False analogy , like the name suggests, is a logical fallacy in which someone argues on the basis of a faulty or weak analogy. In this case, IF the premises were true, the argument would appear to support the conclusion well. Notice the generalization. Note that the key SS premise is an assertion of a causal chain of events - A will cause B, B will cause C, C will cause D.   The first video for C5 notes that students will often confuse this fallacy with Questionable Cause due to the causal chain in the premise of SS. (Also known as faulty analogy, questionable analogy) While arguments from analogy will be covered in more detail later in this work, it is worth covering the fallacy of weak analogies right now. When I wake up in the morning, the sun comes up. Notice the prediction of all the bad things that will allegedly happen if the policy on same sex orientation in the military is changed. "Buy Crest toothpaste for your children, because it has fluoride.". * Premise 2: A has some further feature x. Remember the simple Crest toothpaste advertisement of the 1950's. See this video. The government? To do well on the exam, you have to "jump in" and try some fallacy analyses. The label identification is only worth a few points. Infamous Bush administration appeal in 2003: "Either we fight terrorism in Iraq or we will have to fight them in the United States.". Here is an example from the 2012 presidential election. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. But you should at least now see the underlying form of SS in the above argument and if this issue was important to you, you would have a focus to do some research. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough. Key point: creative analogies can help us understand arguments, but they are not direct evidence that the conclusion is true. Find the conclusion, identify the premises, then try to match with a label. Fact - Massachusetts did lose 26,000 jobs while Dukakis was governor. The implication is that all of these occurrences are very bad things, especially D.   Because we don't want D to happen, we conclude that we should not do A. A false analogy is a type of informal fallacy. See the Dukakis example, Ex. (See below.) "Establishing democracy in Iraq will work. When an analogical argument is weak because its analogical premiss begs the question, then the argument commits the fallacy of Question-Begging Analogy, which is a type of Weak Analogy … Not the only choices, but notice one would have to be informed that the Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and that there were many different views on how best to fight terrorism, including non-military intervention and smaller militrary covert options. Questionable Statistics, 6.1 Slanted Statistics, 7. Again, it should be easy to cut and paste from the textbook the example set and the recipe for each above. Critical Thinking: What is the Fallacy of Questionable Cause? 2. When someone uses an analogy to prove or disprove an argument or position by using an analogy that is too dissimilar to be effective. That would mean Otis got $5,000 for a much stronger, more easily provable, case, and would render it less likely the speaker could get the same amount for his rather suspect case. Questionable Analogy. But these were old manufacturing jobs and the state gained over 250,000 new high tech jobs during this time. More so, when drawing a conclusion from a comparison of objects that share a similarity. All Rights Reserved. Example from a previous exam: (Argument by a U.S. senator in 2010), "We should not repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for gay service men and women in our military. Note the highlights - a "before and after" time sequence in the premises (A happened, then B happened) and always an "A caused B" in the conclusion. Some will help you with information related to a questionable premise such as SS, and some will help you identify suppressed evidence (see below). If a fallacy jumps out at you, go to the recipe for that label and try to get it to work. If the seeds of democracy can be planted and then the tree can be allowed to grow, democracy will be able to reign. fallacies can make illogical arguments seem logical, tricksters use them to persuade their audiences to ... False analogy "All I did was take a candy bar. Students will often confuse Suppressed Evidence with Straw Person. Faulty statistics This involves manipulating numbers or quoting statistics from questionable Similar to Ad Hominem circumstantial, a person or group is attacked in the conclusion as being wrong about a position on an issue. The questionable cause—also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa ("non-causefor cause" in Latin)—is a category of informal fallacies in which a causeis incorrectly identified. Always use the recipes as a guide. Patience is what Iraq needs. To understand this fallacy and its cousin, so to speak, Questionable Cause, we need to remember the concept of a weak inductive argument from Chapter 3. But they do have to be similar in the respects that are relevant to the specific claim being made. For the above evolution example, a bush is something we see; we know it exists. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. : Any reasoning based on the assumption that two or more things that are alike in one respect must be alike in other respects when there are independent grounds for doubting this. Although the argument is valid, the premise is unfair, questionable, and probably (with a little argument) false. ; B has property P.; Therefore, A also has property P. The argument is fallacious because A and B could be different in a way that is relevant to whether A has property P. Another questionable premise fallacy. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy … False Alternatives (The "Either-Or" Fallacy) Hasty Generalization (small sample size) Biased Sampling (in a large sample) Weak Analogy (Apples & Oranges) Questionable Cause; Slippery Slope (Weak Inductive Prediction of Dire Consequences) Loaded Question (really more of a language issue than a fallacy) Inconsistency If we do, it will lead to a decadent atmosphere brimming with alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art. That many gays face death daily and are rewarded with the fear that they could be kicked out of the military if anyone finds out they are gay. Whereas the speaker got his Whopper to go, took it home, and then returned to the restaurant an hour later waving it around angrily and showing people the dead roaches in it. The flowers must cause the birds to sing. Notice the recipe requires that we argue against the analogy. A weak analogy, also called a false analogy, faulty analogy, and questionable analogy, is an informal logical fallacy that is based on faulty use of an analogy.The fallacy takes the following form: A is like B in some way. Drawing conclusion from evidence rather quickly, when there is insufficient evidence. Questionable Cause = any weak inference from observed evidence to a supposed causal connection, or an argument based on a weak causal assumption. FALSE ANALOGY (questionable analogy, wrongful comparison, imperfect analogy): drawing a conclusion based on an analogy when the items being compared are not similar enough to sustain the analogy. Notice the general highlights for both fallacies: reasoning is weak, but premise is relevant to the conclusion. If Y is good, the conclusion will be that X is good; if Y is bad, the conclusion will be that X is bad. Instead, what makes an analogical argument strong or weak is the strength or weakness, the relevance or irrelevance, of the analogy in its premisses. -- Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. Let’s say Otis, for instance, discovered the dead mouse when he opened up his Big Mac at the counter in full view of a dozen witnesses. There must be an "Either A or B" statement in a premise. When someone uses an analogy to prove or disprove an argument or position by using an analogy that is too dissimilar to be effective. A single Trident II submarine has enough nuclear weapons on it to destroy about 200 cities. This information could be relevant to any of the fallacies. Assessing the strength of an analogy is a matter of determining how similar the cases are in the relevant respects. For example, say Joan and Mary both drive pickup trucks. When reasoning by analogy, the fallacy occurs when the analogy is irrelevant or very weak or when there is a more relevant disanalogy. Irving Copi’s 1961 Introduction to Logic gives a briefexplanation of eighteen informal Won't a local insurgency have a huge advantage?