Jeanne explains: This is a misdirected appeal to authority. While Joe Montana is a respected ex-quarterback, he is not an authority on marriage, nor on the bible or legal definition of marriage.
David comments: This certainly could be an illegitimate appeal to authority, depending on the context. As it is here, however, without a context, it could also be just a verifiable statement. The question is whether the claim is being used as persuasion, and without something to make that clear ("Joe Montana is voting Yes on 22, so you should, too!"), we may not feel confident about its purpose.
Jeanne explains: This is an appeal to indirect consequences and an appeal to prejudice. Voting yes on 22 defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. If 22 does not pass, it does not have a direct effect that would cause an outcome of gay activists running America. Some people may think that by voting "No" on 22 you are allowing gay citizens to run America. This statement also appeals to the prejudices of those who are biased against gays, and who would not want gay activists running America.
David comments: This seems much more of an appeal to prejudice than an appeal to indirect consequences, because the latter usually takes the form, "If A then B, C, and D," where B, C, and D are a chain of effects, each more indirect than the previous one. Because there is no chain here, we can probably explain it better as a false dilemma ("Either 22 passes, or gays will seize control"), or a sweeping generalization ("If any one such measure passes, then gays will be in control").
Jeanne explains: This is an appeal to vanity. First it compliments the person, and then it suggests how he should vote.
David comments: A good example of an appeal to vanity. It's funny how, by telling people they are smart, we can sometimes get them to do not-so-smart things.
Jeanne explains: This is a loaded question. I may want to vote No on 22, but I do not want to spoil America. This type of statement or question may trick me into agreeing when I do not really want to.
David comments: This probably works as a loaded question, but usually the two parts of a loaded question have less to do with each other. Here there is the clear implication that voting No on 22 would spoil America. But is a loaded question like, "Are you happy that you've ruined my party?" there is no such obvious connected between happiness and a ruined party.
Jeanne explains: This is circular reasoning. The statement does not really give a reason for voting for 22, except that you should vote yes on 22.
David comments: A good example of circular reasoning.
Charmaine explains: Appeal to indirect consequences. It my be true that exceeding the speed limit may cause car accidents, but so does driving under the influence, and falling asleep at the wheel, just to name a few. The car accidents may or may not cause death, depending on how severe the accident is. Emotional turmoil may not even occur, considering the victim does not have any family or friends.
David comments: The first part of Charmaine's explanation is itself a fallacy: two wrongs make a right. Just because other things also cause accidents, does not mean that exceeding the speed limit does not. And I am uncomfortable with the idea that this is an example of appeal to indirect consequences, too, because the claim is only that exceeding the limit "increases the chance," which seems both probable and direct. Further, the chain of accidents to deaths to emotional turmoil is also very plausible, especially if we are only talking about an increase in the chance of this happening, rather than the purported certainty we get in most appeals to indirect consequences.
Still, this is a complicated issue. When they were considering raising the interstate speed limits to 65 or higher a few years back, I was persuaded by the argument that the higher the speed limit, the more fatalities would occur. The initial evidence once the speed limit was raised, however, was that the number of serious accidents was not significantly different for cars going 65 or less than it had been for cars going 55 or less. In both cases, however, there was plenty of evidence that cars exceeding the speed limit had more and more serious accidents. So, while I would say this example is not a fallacy at all, but rather a fairly accurate statement of probabilities, this should serve as a reminder that, once we get into an area where there is evidence and support on both sides, we should stop thinking "fallacy" and begin looking at the dispute itself.
Charmaine explains: Two wrongs make a right. This child believes that stealing Tom's bike is justifiable because Tom borrowed his Playstation without permission. He believes that his wrongful act is justified by Tom's wrongful act.
David comments: This is a good example, because of the implied escalation ("stole" vs. "borrowed") which so often occurs in "two wrongs."
Charmaine explains: Appeal to common practice. This teenager tries to persuade the mother to allow him or her to stay out late by stating that "everyone else is doing it."
David comments: Good. Notice, there might be a reason or justification for staying out until 2:00 am. If so, that needs to be judged on its own merits. But "everyone else doing it" is not such a reason.
Charmaine explains: Ad hominem. This is saying, How is a high school dropout credible to give advice about career advances, when that person could not even advance through school.
David comments: Of course, the high school dropout would hardly be considered an authority, and so his or her advice should carry no special weight. But if we are going to reject that advice, we need to do so on its own merits, and not because of something about the person who gave it.
Charmaine explains: Appeal to authority. Michael Jordan is not an expert on the best cotton made for underwear.
David comments: Notice the difference between this example and the first one: this one says explicitly that Hanes is the best brand because Michael Jordan wears them.
Angel explains: This would be an appeal to pity because it is an attempt to get the professor to feel sorry for the person making this statement so he/she would ignore the fact that the student cheated and go ahead and make an exception in this case. If this were to work, the professor would either allow a retest, simply give the person a passing grade.
David comments: Certainly, this is an appeal to pity (involving support of a child), but because the pity is pretty far removed from the deed (cheating), and the steps in between do not seem automatic or necessarily connected (flunking; not graduating (ever?); not getting a better job; not being able to support daughter) this seems to be an example of appeal to pity combined with appeal to indirect consequences.
Angel explains: This is an appeal to indirect consequences or "slippery slope." The person is trying to use the worse case scenario in order to get the person that they are talking to, to go to the doctor.
David comments: Okay, though this works better with "amputation" than "surgery" (because that seems a more likely consequent of not going to the doctor).
Angel explains: Michael Jackson is not a politician; therefore this is an appeal to authority. By using someone that is very famous an respected and loved by thousands of people, Al Gore would hope that people would support him because Michael Jackson, a man they respect is supporting him.
David comments: Isn't Michael Jackson entitled to his opinion? As long as they don't try to make more out of it than a celebrity endorsement, I can't see that there is an appeal here at all. But that would have to do with the way you imagine this endorsement being given.
Angel explains: This is an appeal to wishful thinking because the parent obviously has believes that this program is a miracle maker and can turn any child into a genius that can accomplish anything.
David comments: Maybe, but it sounds more like a post-hoc fallacy. ("Many geniuses have started off in the Baby Genius program, so if I put my child in there, she will be a genius, too.")
Angel explains: This is an appeal to prejudice (stereotype) because the person feels that he/she should have special treatment or that an exception should be made since he/she was born in this country and raised speaking English.
David comments: I don't really see an appeal to prejudice here (but then maybe I just don't think taking English courses is so terrible). This sounds more like a sweeping generalization (all those born in the US know English well) or a false dilemma (either you were born here, or you have to take special English classes). Some rhetoricians recognize a "this applies to everyone but me" special-treatment fallacy, but I tend to think those can be explained just as well another way.
Adam explains: This is a loaded question because it asks you if you enjoyed it and if you DID get me into trouble, at the same time.
David comments: This is not a question, but not all complex-statement and loaded-question fallacies are. But this does have the interesting problem of containing three claims: the two Adam identifies above, plus "I hope." But because this is in the form, "I hope X," it becomes a simple statement of verification (either I do or do not hope that), and not a fallacy. The fallacy would be, "Did you enjoy getting me into trouble?"
Adam explains: This is post hoc reasoning because it state that English 7 is an on-line class and since it is an on-line class that it must be difficult. But the class can be difficult because the contents of the course are difficult.
David comments: I'm afraid I can't follow Adam's reasoning here, and I think he may have misunderstood post hoc reasoning, which always involves two things, one earlier and one later, that are assumed to be a cause and effect. The way this is written, though, I don't see where being "on-line" and "difficult" are necessarily related in time. This sounds much more like a sweeping generalization (all on-line courses are difficult).
Adam explains: This is an example of circular reasoning because it restates the question.
David comments: Yes. And it still leaves us wondering, why does Tom suck?
Adam explains: This is an example of a sex appeal because it is focusing on that people think that Mama is hot and they want to meet her. Therefore they will buy the product.
David comments: I'm not sure that anyone thinks "Mama is hot," but even if they do, this does not seem to be in the form of a fallacious appeal to sex. It is a straightforward claim that buying a product on a certain date at a certain store will give you a chance to win a certain prize. (It might be difficult to give a purely verbal example of appeal to sex.)
Adam explains: This is an appeal to common practice because it states that since everyone takes the course that you have to also.
David comments: But appeal to common practice says, "Everyone else does, so I should be able to, too." This example says "Everyone else does, so you should do so, as well." It still might not be good advice, but it's not the fallacy of appeal to common practice. Also, note that in Adam's example it says "you should," but in his explanation it says, "you have to." These are very different things, and in analyzing persuasion and arguments, we need to be as precise as possible.
Rina explains: This example is an appeal to the questionable authority. Just because Michael Jordan eats that cereal, or says he does in an ad, does not mean the cereal tastes good.
David comments: Yes. Notice here that we understand an implied "because" between the two halves of that claim. If, for some reason, this causation is understood to be there, then the two parts are simply an evaluative and a verifiable claim, respectively, and perhaps not even parts of the same argument.
Rina explains: This fallacy is an example of an appeal to common practice. It is not OK to run the red signal light, even if everbody else does it.
David comments: Of course, part of the fallacy of appeal to common practice is the sweeping generalization that "everybody else does it." In the case of running a red light, certainly not everyone does it. Common practice is really just trying to excuse bad behavior, and not prove that all or even a majority of other people actually practice that same behavior.
Rina explains: This fallacy is an example of two wrong make a right. It is unacceptable to park in someone else’s parking place, even if other person parks in your parking space. I encounter this problem everyday: my neighbor lets her guests park their car in my spot. But it is not OK if I do the same.
David comments: But it's not "illegal," either, since parking spaces have to do with rental agreements, not laws. This is a good example of how a little critical thinking can help you out. First, are you sure the other car is a guest of your neighbor? Second, do you have any way to complain to the landlord, or can you take action, such as having the car towed? Third, is your neighbor's space open when a guest's car is in your space? If you can answer "yes" to all three questions, then tell your neighbor of the problem, and explain that, rather than complaining or having the car towed, you simply will be parking in the neighbor's space when this happens. If the neighbor agrees, inform the landlord of the agreement; if not, inform the landlord of the problem. Be careful, though: having a car towed will make you an enemy for a long time.
All of this is an example of how it is a fallacy to say doing this is "ok" just because the neighbor is doing it, but it might be a good idea to do it for other reasons.
Rina explains: This fallacy is an example of a sweeping generalization. There is no sufficient evidence to support the argument of all the people from a certain place are sloppy.
David comments: For the purposes of the class, you do not need to distinguish between a hasty and a sweeping generalization, but this is more properly an example of a hasty generalization, since the generalization is based on a single example, John.
Rina explains: This fallacy is an example of post hoc reasoning. There is no connection between a cat passing by and my having a bad day.
David comments: Well, there could be a psychological connection: you see a black cat, and think that means you will have a bad day, and with that as your attitude, you do have one. But that is not the sort of causation we look for in such superstitions. There is no physical way for the cat's appearance to affect your day, but the cat gets the blame because it arrived before the bad day and, reasoning fallaciously, if it came first it must have caused what happened later.