Rhetorical Fallacy

Types of Rhetorical Fallacies

There are three basic types of rhetorical fallacies, which are based on the three major rhetorical appeals.

Aristotle outlined the basic rhetorical modes that we still use and understand today.

These three types of rhetorical fallacies are not mutually exclusive and can overlap in some instances.

Emotional Fallacies

Emotional fallacies are a type of rhetorical fallacy that unfairly appeal to or involve the audience’s emotions. In emotional fallacies, facts can be distorted or exaggerated to have a greater impact on the audience’s emotional response to the topic.

Emotional fallacies are manipulative in nature, and are often connected to a call to action. For example, think of an argument you might hear in a discussion about eating a vegetarian diet versus a diet of animal meat. You might hear someone arguing for vegetarianism by saying something like, “If every person in the world swapped one meal per week for a vegetarian one, think of the millions of innocent animal lives we could save!”

Logical Fallacies

We tend to lump many rhetorical fallacies under the category of logical fallacies because the error in someone’s argument is typically a logical one. Because people typically build solid arguments on logic, someone who wishes to create a solid-looking argument will likely use a tactic that appears logical.

A logical fallacy is a statement that appears true until you apply the rules of logic, and then it can be disproved.

Ethical Fallacies

Ethical fallacies are when the arguer tries to convince the audience of their argument by inflating their authority and character. Someone might do this to seem more important or trustworthy. Think of cult leaders, for example; they try to coerce their followers into believing they are worthy of allegiance by overstating (or flat-out lying about) their abilities, knowledge, or insight.

What is the Most Common Rhetorical Fallacy?

There are hundreds of different types of rhetorical fallacies. While there isn’t necessarily one that is used more often than others, many rhetorical fallacies are logical fallacies. Logic is an effective way to lead someone to agreeing with you about something, and so people frequently misuse logic in their arguments.

Generally, rhetorical fallacies function in the following ways:

1. Emphasizing the person (Ethical fallacy)

2. Presenting part of the truth (Logical fallacy)

3. Arousing fear (Emotional fallacy)

4. Weakening opposing argument (Logical fallacy)

5. Inaccurate connections (Logical fallacy)

6. Twisting language around (Logical fallacy)

7. Evidence and conclusion mismatch (Logical fallacy)

8. Unstated assumptions (Logical fallacy)

Common Rhetorical Fallacies Examples

Below are examples of how some of the more common emotional fallacies function in discourse, as well as an example of each.

Emotional Fallacy Examples

Remember, emotional fallacies take advantage of the listener’s emotions, typically as a replacement for a logical argument and as a distraction.

Sentimental appeals

Sentimental appeals use emotions to distract from the facts at hand.

This argument brings up an unpleasant image that makes the audience cringe to think about (i.e., torturing kittens for fun). This emotional response is not a substitute for an objective line of reasoning to support the claim that there are universal morals.

Scare tactics

Scare tactics use the audience’s fear through threats of unrealistic predictions to bully them into agreeing with the speaker’s position.

The outcome of obesity and diabetes in children is not necessarily related to the argument that schools need to serve healthier breakfasts. There may be a correlation among these things, but the arguer is using the audience’s fear of sick and unhealthy children to make the audience agree with their specific point.

Bandwagon appeals

A bandwagon argument encourages the audience to agree with the argument—or some aspect of the argument—because everyone else is doing so.

This argument attempts to use the listener’s desire to fit in to get them to eat organic produce. Surely, there are other logical reasons to persuade someone of this argument, but the bandwagon appeal isn’t one of them.

Logical Fallacy Examples

We often refer to rhetorical fallacies as logical fallacies because of how commonly used they are in argument and debate. A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that results in a faulty argument.

People hide behind logical fallacies to cover up their weak argument.

Red herrings

A Red herring offers misleading or unrelated information, typically to misdirect the conversation to a subject the speaker is more confident they can argue.

The arguer introduces a new topic to try to distract from the original conversation about students organizing a protest about the environment. This rhetorical fallacy makes you want to yell, “Don’t change the subject!”

Slippery slope

A slippery slope occurs when a relatively insignificant event supposedly leads to a more significant event, and it continues to snowball until it reaches an ultimate outcome. With each step, the outcome becomes further and further removed from the original event.

This argument escalated quickly, didn’t it? Learning a foreign language has little to nothing to do with a profession in academia (unless the goal is to teach a foreign language).

False dilemma (either/or choices)

When someone offers two options as the only choices, when in reality the subject is more nuanced, that's a false dilemma. Characterized by “this or that” language, this rhetorical fallacy allows the speaker to corner the audience into believing there are only two choices; one being the arguer’s perspective and the other is usually something egregious.

This is of course a much more nuanced situation because someone might not support Hilary Clinton as a politician, but still believe in women’s rights.

Hasty generalization

A hasty generalization draws a conclusion from a relatively small sample size rather than considering a larger pool of data that may be more in line with reality.

The person reading the book is making a hasty generalization in saying that it will be terrible because they don’t have all the information yet (i.e., they haven’t read a large enough sample of the book).

Post hoc

Post hoc arguments claim that because outcome Y followed event X, event X caused outcome Y without establishing a true causality.

Although font choice could be affecting this student’s grade, it’s extremely unlikely and the argument doesn’t illustrate how exactly that might be causing a reduction in grade.

Non-sequitur

Non sequitur literally means “It does not follow.” This is when the conclusion does not logically follow the evidence given to support it.

In Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible (1953), Mrs. Putnam believes the midwife, Goody Osburn, is a witch because she helped deliver three stillborn babies.

There is no evidence to support the notion that the midwife had anything to do with the outcome of the births. A different midwife could have been there and still yielded the same result.

Equivocation

Equivocation uses an ambiguous term in more than one sense, causing an argument to be misleading.

This example starts off with the word “evolution” meaning species evolving from one thing to another, and uses another definition for evolution (i.e., to grow) to support the claim about Darwin’s theory of evolution being true.

Ethical Fallacy Examples

Ethical fallacies are those that are based on the authority or character of the speaker as a mean to prove an argument is valid.

Rhetorical fallacies are often the result of the belief that one's perspective is the only correct way to view something, Pixabay.com

False authority

To use false authority is to make a claim and support it with evidence from an alleged authority which is not actually an authority on the subject.

In this example, the friend who is learning Spanish is hardly an authority figure in the Spanish-speaking community, so their opinion should not be used as evidence to support this argument.

Ad hominem (guilt by association)

When the source of an argument or information is viewed negatively because of its association with someone or something that is viewed negatively, that's an ad hominem argument.

In this example, the speaker is attacking the opposition by attaching them to Donald Trump on the subject of immigration, and then suggesting that that is a bad thing.

Dogmatism

The claim positions itself as above reproach, or the only possible way to view a subject. Dogmatism is the refusal to even acknowledge other perspectives as potentially or partially valid.

If you’ve ever read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel, you might recall Gatsby’s dogmatic devotion to pursuing happiness through material things. Gatsby foolishly believes money will get him the things he ultimately desires—love and friendship.

Moral equivalence

Moral equivalence tries to level the playing field by claiming that two sides of an argument are equal, when in fact they are not. Two actions or behaviors presented as equal, when neither one is better or worse than the other.

This fallacious statement exaggerates the degree of similarities between the two groups mentioned and entirely ignores important differences. So they can attack the Black Lives Matter movement, the speaker has put it on the same moral ground as the KKK.

Straw person

A straw person (or straw man) argument substitutes a person’s position for a more exaggerated, distorted version that misrepresents their argument to make it easier to attack.

Elizabeth’s debate opponent made her argument into a straw person—a caricature of her original argument that is an easier target to attack.