29 ways to lose (and win) any argument - by understanding how logical fallacies work

29WAYS TO LOSE (AND WIN) ANY ARGUMENT

W W W. A B H I S H E K P A L I W A L . C O M | D E S I G N B Y : W W W. C O N C E P R O . C O M

BY UNDERSTANDING HOW LOGICAL FALLACIES WORK

http://www.abhishekpaliwal.com

http://www.concepro.com



ABOUT THE AUTHORAbhishek Paliwal is an author and an entrepreneur, currently living in Helsinki, Finland. He’s also an acclaimed designer. You can find more information about Abhishek at www.AbhishekPaliwal.com.

Abhishek helps high achievers acquire the sales and marketing leadership skills necessary to win at Business. He also provides mentorship to individuals to succeed in life, and reach their true potential.

He's also the Co-founder and Director of CONCEPRO - A Digital Marketing & Sales Agency based in Helsinki, Finland, where he coaches, defines profitable strategies, and consults businesses full-time.

http://www.AbhishekPaliwal.com

http://www.concepro.com/

We all know how frustrating it is to lose an argument — especially when you believe strongly in the value of your idea. If you're going to get better at convincing others, you need to figure out why you lose arguments in the first place, and then avoid those mistakes in the future, and even win those arguments based upon your knowledge about how Logical Fallacies work.

Most of the time, you can find a specific diagnosis for your lost arguments. Did you lose the argument because you relied on anecdotes to support your claim? Did you

see the dispute in black and white instead of considering multiple possible conclusions? Did you mix up correlation and causation and end up digging yourself into a hole?

To help you identify what mistakes you might be making, read this ebook carefully. It lists 29 of the most common ways people lose arguments (+ one bonus), and includes examples. Next time you're writing a persuasive email or trying to support your claim to your peers, you'll be able to reflect back on this guide.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

D E F I N I T I O N : Treat ing abst ract or hypothet ica l th ings or ideas as concrete rea l i t ies; personi fy ing abst ract ions.

E X A M P L E : I f you' l l on ly open your hear t , love wi l l f ind you.

REIF

ICAT

ION

R E I F I C AT I O N

1W W W. A B H I S H E K P A L I W A L . C O M | D E S I G N B Y : W W W. C O N C E P R O . C O M





D E F I N I T I O N : Using human ignorance or someone's inabi l i ty to prove someth ing in order to make a c la im.

E X A M P L E : Nobody's ever been able to prove that ghosts ex is t , so i t 's obv ious that they don' t .

APPE

AL T

O IG

NORA

NCE A P P E A L T O I G N O R A N C E






D E F I N I T I O N : Making an argument by inc i t ing fear or mak ing threats.

E X A M P L E : I f you don' t s tar t get t ing onboard the No Chi ld Lef t Behind pol ic ies, you' l l lose your job. I t 's c lear ly the best avenue for educat ion in your c lassroom.

ARGU

MEN

TUM

AD

BACU

LUM

A R G U M E N T U M A D B A C U L U M






D E F I N I T I O N : Diver t ing at tent ion by changing the subject .

E X A M P L E : In terv iewer: Have you been overcharg ing customers wi thout them knowing? Bus iness Owner: We take our bus iness ser ious ly and we do everyth ing we can to bu i ld a qua l i ty product .

RED

HERR

ING

R E D H E R R I N G






D E F I N I T I O N : Using an instance of a smal l f ract ion of the populat ion to make an argument for the greater populat ion. (S imi la r to Anecdote. )

E X A M P L E : The two students that were assaul ted on campus prove there is a scary t rend in the co l lege v io lence that we need to be aware of .

SMAL

L NU

MBE

RS

STAT

ISTI

CS

S M A L L N U M B E R S S TAT I S T I C S






D E F I N I T I O N : Using ev idence that hasn' t been proven in order to prove someth ing e lse, then us ing that someth ing e lse to prove the or ig ina l c la im; us ing A to prove B, then us ing B to prove A.

E X A M P L E : You can' t g ive me a C on th is paper ! I am an A student ! And A students don' t get C's.

CIRC

ULAR

REA

SONI

NGC I R C U L A R R E A S O N I N G






D E F I N I T I O N : Cherry-p ick ing a par t icu lar dataset or co l lect ion of facts whi le ignor ing others in order to make an argument that su i ts a par t icu lar purpose.

E X A M P L E : The 'FastFood T imes' just repor ted some pret ty conv inc ing ev idence that 78% of people who eat fast food regular ly, aren' t obese.

CHER

RY-P

ICK

C H E R R Y - P I C K






DOWNLOAD MORE READYMADE SOCIAL MEDIA

TEMPLATES AND OTHER RESOURCES LIKE THIS?

Yes, I want to Download More Resources

http://www.concepro.com/downloads/

D E F I N I T I O N : Cla iming someth ing to be t rue or accurate ly s imple because most people be l ieve i t to be t rue or accurate. (S imi la r to Appeal to Trad i t ion)

E X A M P L E : 93% of the students surveyed sa id they be l ieve the tu i t ion sp ike was to pay for the co l lege pres ident 's sa lar y. How could i t not be t rue?

BAND

WAG

ONB A N D W A G O N






D E F I N I T I O N : Using non-qual i f ied statements to suggest ideas that imply 'a l l ' or 'every ' th ing or s i tuat ion; s tatements that would requi re the arguer to be omnisc ient in order to make such a c la im.

E X A M P L E : Everybody knows that women prefer men wi th heavy stubble and men prefer women wi th b londe ha i r.

OMNI

SCIE

NCE

O M N I S C I E N C E






D E F I N I T I O N : Using a personal or iso la ted exper ience as compel l ing and wor thwhi le ev idence, suggest ing that a personal or un ique exper ience can be appl ied to other c i rcumstances.

E X A M P L E : Chevy t rucks are the b iggest waste of money! I owned one for four years and had to rep lace my t ransmiss ion twice. Don' t buy that garbage.

ANEC

DOTE

A N E C D O T E






D E F I N I T I O N : Making a c la im that uses a tac i t or impl ied assumpt ion; ra ise a quest ion by assuming an answer or shared be l ie f .

E X A M P L E : Our count r y 's mora l s i tuat ion wi l l on ly get worse i f we cont inue to a l low rated-R movies in publ ic theat res. (Th is statement ra ises the quest ion: but do rated-R movies actua l ly decrease mora l i ty?)

BEGG

ING

THE

QUES

TION B E G G I N G T H E Q U E S T I O N






D E F I N I T I O N : Asking a quest ion that , i f answered, wi l l imply a shared agreement; forc ing a person to agree to an assumpt ion by them answer ing a quest ion.

E X A M P L E : When are you guys go ing to stop your whol ly uneth ica l pract ice of mak ing people fee l l i ke the i r house is go ing to f lood, then overcharge them to have the i r p lumbing f ixed?

LOAD

ED Q

UEST

ION

L O A D E D Q U E S T I O N






D E F I N I T I O N : Attempt ing to sway popular suppor t by appeal ing to sent imenta l weakness rather than wi th facts or reason.

E X A M P L E : Moving the count r y to the Af fordable Care Act is the on ly th ing that makes sense. Just th ink how many st ruggl ing s ing le mothers and s ick ch i ldren are out there wi thout insurance because they can' t a f ford i t .AR

GUM

ENTU

M A

D PO

PULU

M

A R G U M E N T U M A D P O P U L U M






D E F I N I T I O N : Consider ing on ly the ext remes in any argument and ignor ing the poss ib i l i t ies that ex is t in between; fa lse d ichotomy. (S imi la r to B lack or Whi te. )

E X A M P L E : I f we don' t immediate ly put a stop to the se l l ing of guns to the publ ic , v io lence is go ing to f ly through the roof and anyone who doesn' t have a gun is go ing to get shot .

EXCL

UDED

MID

DLE

E X C L U D E D M I D D L E






D E F I N I T I O N : Attack ing a person or the i r character ra ther than making a c la im based on reasoning. Ad hominem arguments inc lude name-ca l l ing, labe l ing, and be ing of fens ive and showing l i t t le in te l l igent thought .

E X A M P L E : Vegetar ians don' t have a c lue about cu l inary sophist icat ion. When i t comes to food, you just can' t t rust a t ree-hugger.AD

HOM

INEM

A D H O M I N E M






D E F I N I T I O N : Instead of prov ing someth ing to ex is t or to be t rue, an arguer asks h is opponent to prove that i t doesn' t ex is t ; prov ing to to be rea l by suggest ing the opposi te can' t be proven.

E X A M P L E : I know you th ink I 'm crazy because I be l ieve a l iens have v is i ted the ear th in the past century, but you go ahead and prove that they haven' t !

PROV

ING

NON-

EXIS

TENC

E

P R O V I N G N O N - E X I S T E N C E






WANT MORE CONTENT MARKETING WISDOM

RESOURCES LIKE THIS?



D E F I N I T I O N : Conclud ing that a premise is e i ther t rue or fa lse based on what the consequence of that premise would be.

E X A M P L E : I f we made a law that ch i ldren weren' t a l lowed to watch TV, they won' t be exposed to a l l that garbage on TV. Removing TV f rom the l i ves of ch i ldren therefore is the best way to keep k ids innocent and wel l -behav ing.AP

PEAL

TO

CONS

EQUE

NCES

A P P E A L T O C O N S E Q U E N C E S






D E F I N I T I O N : Making er roneous conclus ions about the composi t ion of a whole or par t o f someth ing; mak ing incor rect assumpt ions about how a whole or par t o f someth ing re la tes to a whole or par t o f someth ing e lse.

E X A M P L E : Every s ing le p layer on the Basketba l l team has super ior ta lent . Therefore, they must be the best basketba l l team in the league.CO

MPO

SITI

ONC O M P O S I T I O N






D E F I N I T I O N : Lat in for, ' i t does not fo l low' . Mak ing a conclus ion that does not fo l low f rom prev ious ly estab l ished premise or conclus ions. (S imi la r to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. )

E X A M P L E : The last t ime we had a lunar ec l ipse, there was an ear thquake in Mex ico. I t 's pret ty obv ious that Mex icans need to star t pan ick ing for th is Fr iday 's lunar ec l ipse.NO

N SE

QUIT

URN O N S E Q U I T U R






D E F I N I T I O N : Making st range or er roneous c la ims about a par t icu lar idea by us ing stat is t ics that have l i t t le or no ab i l i ty to make such a c la im; misus ing or mis in terpret ing a stat is t ic or set of s tat is t ics to make a c la im.

E X A M P L E : 84% of people who d ie in th is count r y d ie in a hospi ta l room. I f we'd just learn to stay out of hospi ta ls , we'd l i ve longer.M

ISUN

DERS

TAND

ING

STAT

ISTI

CS

M I S U N D E R S TA N D I N G S TAT I S T I C S






D E F I N I T I O N : Concoct ing a fa lse or made up scenar io and then at tack ing that scenar io in order to make an opponent look bad; person A has pos i t ion X, then person B uses pos i t ion Y (d is tor t ion of X) to at tack person A.

E X A M P L E : Donald: NASA is spending too much money on space explorat ion. Trump: What are you, ant i -Amer ican? Space is the future of human explorat ion.ST

RAW

MAN

S T R A W M A N






D E F I N I T I O N : Suggest ing on ly 2 a l ternate conclus ions ex is t , when in rea l i ty severa l poss ib i l i t ies ex is t . (S imi la r to Exc luded Middle. )

E X A M P L E : The US needs to e i ther t r ip le i ts product ion of o i l to reduce costs or requi re automobi le manufacturers to make cars that get 75 mi les to the ga l lon. There 's no other way the economy can surv ive wi th such h igh gas pr ices.BL

ACK

OR W

HITE

B L A C K O R W H I T E






D E F I N I T I O N : In tent iona l ly mis leading a person to be l ieve someth ing by te l l ing someth ing that is , in fact , t rue, but leav ing out impor tant in format ion.

E X A M P L E : This van gets 28 mi les to the ga l lon, has a l l -wheel dr ive, power-everyth ing, and bu i l t in DVD-player. You can' t go wrong! ( Ignor ing the fact that the van has a fau l ty t ransmiss ion and three safety reca l ls . )

HALF

TRU

THH A L F T R U T H






D E F I N I T I O N : Rely ing a person's or group of people 's ignorance to make a c la im; mis leading a person or group by appeal ing to the i r lack of knowledge in a par t icu lar top ic.

E X A M P L E : Trust me, i f you don' t get th is e lect r ica l panel rep laced, i t cou ld could set your house on f i re. See the cor ros ion here? I t 's been known to ign i te sparks and burn through to the insu lat ion.AR

GUM

ENTU

M A

D IG

NORA

NTIS

M

A R G U M E N T U M A D I G N O R A N T I S M






D E F I N I T I O N : Arguing that a change in procedure, law, or act ion wi l l c reate a domino-ef fect of adverse consequences; suggest ing that i f one th ing happens, a ser ies of th ings wi l l inev i tab ly happen.

E X A M P L E : I f fast food restaurants cont inue to increase por t ion s izes, the next th ing we' l l know, McDonald 's wi l l be serv ing ga l lon-s ized Cokes and burgers as wide as la rge p izzas!SL

IPPE

RY S

LOPE

S L I P P E R Y S L O P E






D E F I N I T I O N : Lat in for ' i t happened af ter, so i t was caused by ' . Suggest ing that , because someth ing prev ious ly happened that is re la ted to an event , the prev ious happening caused the new event . (S imi la r to Non Sequi tur but dea ls wi th someth ing in t ime. )

E X A M P L E : The f inancia l mel tdown happened af ter republ icans took of f ice so we can b lame the republ icans for the cr is is we are in.PO

ST H

OC, E

RGO

PROP

TER

HOC

P O S T H O C , E R G O P R O P T E R H O C






D E F I N I T I O N : Avoid ing engagement wi th another 's argument by argu ing someth ing unre la ted in return; answer ing cr i t ic ism wi th cr i t ic ism.

E X A M P L E : Beyonce: Vegetar ian ism is the best approach to reducing an imal crue l ty in th is count r y. B ieber: Wel l , I just watched you eat a pepperon i p izza last week, so anyth ing you say about vegetar ian ism being wor thwhi le might as wel l be thrown out the window.TU

QUO

QUE

T U Q U O Q U E






D E F I N I T I O N : Using t rad i t ion or cu l tura l be l ie f to suggest that someth ing is t rue or accurate, suggest ing that , because someth ing has long been done in a cer ta in way, i t must be the cor rect way. (S imi la r to Bandwagon)

E X A M P L E : We've been g iv ing grades in school for over a century. Mov ing away f rom the grad ing model seems r id icu lous! I t 's been the r ight way for over a hundred years; meaning i t must be r ight .AP

PEAL

TO

TRAD

ITIO

NA P P E A L T O T R A D I T I O N






D E F I N I T I O N : Making c la ims about the cause of someth ing s imply because there ex is ts a cor re la t ion between two th ings ( i .e . , argu ing that a stat is t ica l cor re la t ion between ch i ldren who p lay v io lent v ideo games and v io lent behav iour means that v io lent v ideo games cause v io lent behav iour ) .

E X A M P L E : I t 's been shown over and over that k ids who p lay v io lent v ideo games tend to be more aggress ive. Therefore, v io lent v ideo games cause k ids to be aggress ive.

CONF

USIO

N OF

CO

RREL

ATIO

N AN

D CA

USAT

ION

C O N F U S I O N O F C O R R E L AT I O N A N D C A U S AT I O N






D E F I N I T I O N : Making an argument that re l ies heav i ly on a personal bas is; inadver tent ly ignor ing cer ta in facts because of prev ious ly he ld be l ie fs. (S imi la r to Cherr y-p ick ing. )

E X A M P L E : After a l l I ' ve been reading about how r ich people don' t g ive much to char i t ies, i t 's pret ty much a l l r ich people are se l f ish and money-hungry. I know I 've never met a generous r ich man ( ignor ing a l l the accounts of r ich people who g ive generous ly ) .BO

NUS:

CON

FIRM

ATIO

N BI

AS

B O N U S : C O N F I R M AT I O N B I A S

…W W W. A B H I S H E K P A L I W A L . C O M | D E S I G N B Y : W W W. C O N C E P R O . C O M





WANT FREE READYMADE EBOOKS, SOCIAL MEDIA TEMPLATES AND OTHER

RESOURCES JUST LIKE THIS?



THIS PRESENTATION IS DESIGNED BY

CONCEPRO A DIGITAL MARKETING & SALES

AGENCYwww.concepro.com

Self Improvement

29 ways to lose (and win) any argument - by understanding how logical fallacies work