write an essay about love is a fallacy

Love is a Fallacy | Summary & Analysis

Summary of love is a fallacy by max shulman, love is a fallacy | summary.

One day, the narrator becomes infatuated with a girl named  Polly Espy . He views her as  an attractive and desirable partner, but he also notices that she is interested in Petey . The narrator uses his logical skills to concoct a plan:  he offers to trade Petey his raccoon coat, which is a fashionable item, for Petey’s girlfriend, Polly.  The narrator explains his plan to Petey, using logical reasoning to persuade him that the trade would be beneficial for both parties.  He lays out his arguments in a syllogism: Polly is beautiful, beautiful people should be with beautiful people, and the narrator is beautiful (in his own opinion). Thus, the narrator concludes, that he should be with Polly.

However, Petey introduces an unexpected twist to the situation.  He reveals that Polly desires the raccoon coat, and he wishes to give it to her as a gift.  The narrator realizes that his logical plan has been foiled by the unpredictable emotions of Polly and Petey.  The story concludes with a playful and ironic tone, as the narrator reflects on the fallacy of his own reasoning and the complex nature of human emotions . He acknowledges that logic cannot always account for matters of the heart.

Love is a Fallacy | Analysis 

The protagonist’s infatuation with Polly Espy  introduces the main conflict of the story. Polly, though attractive, proves to be an enigma that defies the protagonist’s attempts to fit her into his logical framework.  The story plays with the age-old concept of love being irrational and unpredictable, as Polly’s interest in Petey contradicts the protagonist’s calculated expectations.

Love is a Fallacy | Theme

Love is a fallacy | character sketch , the protagonist (narrator), petey bellows, liars don't qualify summary & analysis, luella miller summary & analysis, related articles, an occurrence at owl creek bridge | summary and analysis, the great lawsuit summary, we ate the children last summary & analysis, liars don’t qualify summary & analysis, leave a reply cancel reply, adblock detected.

An Analysis of Max Shulman’s Love is a Fallacy

Reading is a favorite past time of many people in the world. It has the power to transport the reader to other places and times that he might never be able to see. Reading can even take the reader to places that do not exist, or places that once did but will never again. For readers who are short on time but would love to explore these new worlds, there is a genre of literature dedicated to fast and fun reading called short stories. Short stories are usually works full of fun and entertaining characters and littered aplenty with literary devices and interesting twists.

A favorite of such short stories is Max Shulman’s Love is a Fallacy. Love is a Fallacy is a fun short story where the author teaches basic principles of fallacies in an entertaining way. Shulman’s Love is a Fallacy is about a young man attending the University of Minnesota in the early 1950’s. The main character, who is narrating the story, is a self described “keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute, and astute” individual whose goal during this story is to obtain, from his friend Petey Burch, a girl by the name of Polly Epsy.

Petey is an illogical young man who desperately wants a raccoon coat, and he makes a deal with the narrator to give him Polly for a coat – because anybody who is anybody at the time has a raccoon coat. Polly is a beautiful girl whom the main character is infatuated with, as he sees her as a girl that would be fitting for the man he was to become. He believes that when he is a lawyer, he needs to have a beautiful woman as his wife just as he sees all good lawyers do. The only drawback to his plan was that Polly Epsy did not seem to be the brightest girl on campus – much to the contrary; she seems to be quite airheaded.

But being the keen and calculating fellow he is, the narrator will educate this beautiful woman and make her more suitable for him. The narrator proceeds to meet with Polly and teaches her about logic and fallacies, a study which proves to be his downfall. After her lessons, he begins to tell her of his want of her companionship, and she dismisses all of his pleas as fallacious arguments and tells him she is going steady with Petey Burch – because he has a raccoon coat!

In the beginning of Love is a Fallacy, Shulman creates the character of the narrator as a egocentric young fellow who thinks quite highly of himself. The narrator seems to be able to disregard the feelings of others in favor of his own ambitions, as shown in the text, “My brain, that precision instrument, slipped into high gear. ‘Anything? ’ I asked, looking at him narrowly. ” This sentence was where the narrator got the idea of trading Petey, who would do anything for a raccoon coat, a coat for Petey’s girl (who really had no “kind of formal arrangement with her”).

Shulman created the picture of the narrator looking at Petey

narrowly so that the reader would imagine an unscrupulous man about take advantage of someone’s weakness in order to emphasis the self-centeredness of the character. After the Narrator retrieves a raccoon coat from his father’s house, he convinces Petey to accept the coat for Polly. Shulman illustrates the inner struggle of Petey while he battles between his want of a raccoon coat to keep up with the latest fad and the thought of giving up the girl he likes for it by writing some dialogue between the narrator and Petey.

Petey at first denies the raccoon coat, but then rationalizes his decision to accept the trade by saying it was not as if he and Polly were in love. This decision is helped along by the narrator while he goads him into trying on the coat and reiterating Petey’s rationalizing self-talk. This dialogue helps to show the reader the true personas of these two characters; Petey being the impressionable, unstable faddist, and the narrator being the conniving and self-concerned type. The basic fallacies that are taught to Polly are meant by Shulman to also give the reader some groundwork for understanding fallacious arguments.

Shulman has Polly point out the very same fallacies that the narrator taught her in his own arguments and declarations of love for her, perhaps showing a hint of intelligence that the narrator taught her – or intelligence that she had all along. In all, Polly and the reader, is taught 8 fallacies: dicto simpliciter, hasty generalizations, post hoc, contradictory premises, ad miscericordiam, false analogies, hypothesis contray to fact, and poisoning the well. Each time the narrator teaches Polly a fallacy, it is met with great irony later on in the story.

He teaches Polly the fallacy of the hasty generalization, or an argument based on too few examples to support the claim. The narrator tells Polly that they seem to be well matched on the premise that they have gotten along so well together. She retorts by saying that he has made a hasty generalization on the grounds that they have only gone out on 5 dates. Polly is taught the fallacy of false analogy, which included an example of 2 different situations of which one could not make a feasible analogy connecting the 2. Polly is later told, “My dear, five dates is plenty.

After all, you don’t have to eat a whole cake to know it’s good. ” To which she replies, “False analogy, I’m not a cake, I’m a girl. ” These ironies add a very humorous tinge to this educational story, but the greatest irony is when he finds out the reason that Polly is now going steady with Petey now. She replies in a seemingly casual way, “Because he’s got a raccoon coat. ” It was very same coat that was traded for her in the first place. It appears that this is a two-sided irony. The narrator has lost the girl he traded a coat for by the man who gave him the rights to her, and she is dating a man who had traded her for a coat!

maybe she knew about the trade the entire time. Maybe Petey and Polly were not as dumb as the narrator might have thought. In his essay, Love in Another Perspective (Takekun, 2006), Takekun believes that Petey knew that after the narrator slyly left for his dad’s house in the beginning of the story, he figured that he was going to try to bargain for Petey’s girl, with whom the narrator has had a long, well-known crush on. Petey might have alerted Polly to this, and since she was his sweetheart, though not officially, she might have agreed to help him.

This of course is speculation, but it would explain the seemingly way to dim-witted vernacular with which Polly speaks. Her one word reactions such as “wow-dow” and “yummy” might all have been a ploy to exact the newest trend from an unsuspecting egomaniac. Love is a Fallacy is an entertaining story that teaches the use of fallacies and offers a humorous conclusion as to why they should be avoided. Maybe if the narrator would have been up-front with Polly about his intentions for her since the beginning, he would not have found himself in the situation he was at in the end. But then again, that is a hypothesis contrary to fact.

More about Essay Database

• Essay Database Summary
• Essay Database Accounting
• Essay Database Anthropology
• Essay Database Architecture
• Essay Database Biology
• Essay Database Business
• Essay Database Chemistry
• Essay Database Computer Science
• Essay Database Criminology
• Essay Database Culture and Arts
• Essay Database Economics
• Essay Database Geography
• Essay Database History
• Essay Database Human resources
• Essay Database International Studies
• Essay Database Jurisprudence
• Essay Database Linguistics
• Essay Database Management
• Essay Database Marketing
• Essay Database Mathematics
• Essay Database Medicine
• Essay Database Movies
• Essay Database Music
• Essay Database Physics
• Essay Database Politics
• Essay Database Psychology
• Essay Database Relationships
• Essay Database Religion
• Essay Database Science
• Essay Database Society
• Essay Database Sociology
• Essay Database Technology
• Essay Database Television
• Essay Database Tourism
• Essay Database Women and Gender

Related Posts

• The Work Of Julius Shulman Photography Essay
• Pathetic Fallacy in of Mice and Men
• Logic and Fallacy Essay Sample
• The Affective Fallacy
• The Lottery Blind Tradition Fallacy essay
• comic relief, clothing in macbeth, and pathetic fallacy in macbeth
• Native Son: analysis of rhetorical strategies- max's final speech
• Character Analysis Max Gottlieb
• Max Arnold the Things They Carried
• Max's summary

How about getting full access immediately?

If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Comparison of the “love is a fallacy” and the “the gifts of magi”, works cited.

There has been a lot of debate on the existence of “real” love (Sidney 24). Proponents have maintained that real or true love exists while opponents have rubbished such claims. However, recent research seems to suggest the existence of true love. Many dictionaries define “love” as an emotion of strong affection and personal attachment to something or someone (Sidney 23).

The definitions do not offer any logical explanation as to why individuals in love behave the way the do. Many sources only describe it as a strong emotional feeling. Indeed, many fallacies that are observed in any love confession make it difficult for one to describe love as being logical. Love is merely emotional and fallacious feeling when analyzed from a logical point of view.

This paper mainly seeks to compare and contrast two kinds of “love” shown in two texts, “love is a fallacy” and “the gift of magi” (Shulman 45).

Many novels, movies and soaps that portray deep love scenes are very popular among young people, especially those yearning for love or experiencing problems with their personal lives. These films and text materials often formulate an idealized feeling of love that is able to stand up against temptation and other obstacles that call for sheer sacrifice. It’s funny that everyone who watches these films or reads such texts never doubts the existence of such love.

In fact, the world is currently witnessing many relationships and marriages that failed because many people are yearning for the idealized love they find in texts or see on screens. The idealized love in the stories is often engineered in a way that it captures the readers/ viewers’ imagination to the point of evoking strong emotional feelings. It’s amazing how a person’s logical capacity diminishes when facing a strong emotional situation.

For instance, people who read fiction books and those who watch movies know too well that nothing real is happening but they are nevertheless carried away deep into the imagination of the writers or actors. It’s not logical to strongly react to something you know too well is unreal. Women tend to cry often when they see sorrowful scenes in the movies or feel envious towards other women in the soaps who they see as leading better love lives.

No one decides to be moved or not by such stories, it just happens. Once in a while one can remember that what he/she sees or reads is just a fiction and thus reacts in a different way. The strong love in the movies, novels, soap operas is often used as a marketing tool to gain more readers to buy the books or more viewers glued to the TV screens catching up on every episode.

The worst effect created by these stories is their ability to make people aspire for such love.

In the real world, “real” or true love is controlled by many dynamic factors which cannot be captured in the movies or stories (Shulman 34). In movies or stories, the main characters who are portrayed as feeling a true love for each other are usually good looking and successful people. In one instance, the woman might be from a disadvantaged background but is nevertheless beautiful.

The man has to be always handsome and successful. In the real world there are many contributing factors other than just beauty and success. There are many instances where love grows between people of diverse backgrounds and cultures.

For instance, a well groomed woman from a God fearing family easily falls in love with a drug addict or gangster and resists all attempts by her family to end the relationships. Love in the real world does not require sacrifice to flourish. It’s more linked to the feeling that people evoke in their loved ones. Many lovers do not expect too much from their partners.

The purpose of this paper is to compare “love” as it is portrayed in two stories, “The gifts of Magi” and “Love is a fallacy”. (Sidney 12) The “Gift of Magi” is a short story that was written by O. Henry. In the story, Jim and his wife Della are poor, but they are sincerely in love with each other and each of them has a possession which they are proud of (Sidney 56).

Della has a beautiful long hair, while her husband Jim has a golden watch that he inherited from his father and grandfather. On the Christmas Eve, both of them become desperate to get a gift for the other, but they have no money. Della sells her hair and gets a platinum chain for Jim’s watch (Sidney 35). On the other hand, Jim sells his golden watch and buys a set of expensive combs for Della. In the end, all the presents are useless but this shows how far they can go to express love for each other (Sidney 57).

This story depicts true love through sheer sacrifice. Della sacrifices her only possession, the long flowing hair to get a gift for Jim, while Jim sells a golden watch that has been passed to him from his father and grandfather.

“Love is a fallacy” and “the gifts of Magi” do not have any romantic similarities (Shulman 20). The stories are set up differently with one portraying love as being sincere and true, while the other portraying it as being a fallacy. Thus, at this stage the paper will mainly focus on the differences between the two texts.

The main difference between the two is the fact that “love is a fallacy” is built around a theme that seems to be hell bent on proving the non existence of “real love” (Shulman 4). On the other hand, “the gifts of magi” indicates that love is real and sincere (Sidney 5). For instance, in the story “love is a fallacy”, the narrator is fond of a beautiful girl Polly, his roommate, and wants her to be his future wife, but his is concerned about her level of thinking.

Therefore, he decides to take her through logic lessons without even having an idea whether she will meet his expectations. He rides on the fact that he is a smart guy and therefore Polly will definitely fall for him. The logic he teaches her works against him as she is able to describe a logical fallacy to everything he says as an emotional expression to show how much he loves her.

The story “the gifts of Magi” is laced with many emotional expressions that underscore the love that exists between Della and Jim (Sidney 12). However, this story does not portray love from logical perspective and thus it doesn’t affect the reaction of each party. Inasmuch as such expressions are rejected by Polly after taking the logic lessons, they work well for Della and Jim (Shulman 30).

The story “love is a fallacy” does not depict love with the kind of seriousness that is seen in the “Gift of Magi” (Shulman 8). “Love is a fallacy” can quickly pass as a comic story that is intended to get the reader laughing rather than being immersed in love like emotions (Shulman 24).

The story shows an illogical love as the narrator is smart and can offer Polly a better life, but she decides to stay with Peter because he has a raccoon coat (Shulman 30). The story revolves around typical campus life but it is spiced up to appear witty. “The gifts of Magi” is so sincere that it has been adopted by various Christian communities to emphasize the need for giving presents during Christmas (Sidney 12).

This paper mainly sought to compare and contrast two kinds of “love” represented in two texts, “love is a fallacy” and “the gifts of magi” (Sidney 12). It further sought to identify whether love is logical or fallacious and whether the love portrayed in stories and films is real or idealistic.

It has been identified that love is emotional and, in most cases a fallacious. The love portrayed in stories and films is always idealistic but nevertheless evokes emotions in the reader and viewer.

The two stories analyzed do not have any similarities, and as far as love is concerned they are set differently. “Love is a fallacy” emphasizes on the portrayal love as illogical, while “the gift of magi” shows love to be sincere and true (Sidney 12).

Shulman, Max. Guided Tour of Campus Humor. New York: Hanover House. 1955. Print.

Sidney, William. The Gifts of the Magi. New York: Dramatists Play Service.1984. Print.

• Love Portrayal in Modern Day Film and Literature
• Money and Happiness in Poor and Wealthy Societies
• What Is the Fallacy of Straw Man?
• “The Gift of the Magi” & “The Rocking Horse Winner”: Comparison
• "The Gift of the Magi" Short Story by O. Henry
• Love Concept: "Butterfly Lovers" and "Love Is a Fallacy"
• Analyzing Love and Love Addiction in Relationships
• The Nature of Humor: What Makes People Laugh
• Emotions and reasoning
• Emotion as a Performance of the Brain
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 6). If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)? https://ivypanda.com/essays/if-love-is-a-fallacy-are-the-loves-or-romantic-relationships-portrayed-in-the-story-logical-or-illogical-fallacious/

"If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)?" IvyPanda , 6 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/if-love-is-a-fallacy-are-the-loves-or-romantic-relationships-portrayed-in-the-story-logical-or-illogical-fallacious/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)'. 6 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)?" November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/if-love-is-a-fallacy-are-the-loves-or-romantic-relationships-portrayed-in-the-story-logical-or-illogical-fallacious/.

1. IvyPanda . "If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)?" November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/if-love-is-a-fallacy-are-the-loves-or-romantic-relationships-portrayed-in-the-story-logical-or-illogical-fallacious/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "If “Love Is a Fallacy,” Are the “Loves” or Romantic Relationships Portrayed in the Story Logical or Illogical (Fallacious)?" November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/if-love-is-a-fallacy-are-the-loves-or-romantic-relationships-portrayed-in-the-story-logical-or-illogical-fallacious/.

Sample details

• Social Issues
• Views: 1,347

Related Topics

• Conversation
• Radical feminism
• Family Tradition
• Responsibility
• Grandmother
• Women'S Rights
• Dispute Resolution
• Family therapy
• Appreciation
• Women Empowerment

Max Schulman’s Essay Love Is a Fallacy Analysis

Max Schulman’s essay Love Is a Fallacy has been viewed by some as anti-women and by others as anti-men, but in reality, it contains elements of both. The narrator portrays women as unintelligent and unable to meet his expectations, which is anti-women. However, the narrator himself is shown as a stereotypical condescending man who sees himself as superior to women, which is anti-men. Both arguments are equally valid, and the most accurate conclusion is that the essay is both anti-women and anti-men.

It is likely that some would read Max Schulman’s essay entitled “Love Is a Fallacy,” and view it as ‘anti-women. ’ Others would be just as likely to see it as ‘anti-men. ’ Objectively speaking, neither view is entirely correct.

This is because, equally strong arguments can be made for both cases. A more accurate conclusion is that the essay is in fact both anti-women and anti- men. The events recounted in the essay confirm this to be logical. There are most definitely elements of anti-women sentiments in the writing.

The narrator makes the character of Polly Espy out to be rather unintelligent. He certainly does not see her as mental stimulation worthy of what he sees as his superior intellect. Indeed, the narrator seems to view most women in such a way; never thinking that any girl could possibly meet his expectations. The fact that he represents the typical woman as being comparatively dim as he sees Polly is nothing short of anti-women.

Of course, the essay is not without its anti-men elements as well. The essay centers around a man who perpetuates his own pigeonhole.The narrator himself is represented as what has become something of a stereotypical ‘condescending man. ’ It is often the case that a man sees himself (and indeed his gender) to be altogether superior to the feminine sex.

It has been put before us so often that it is, in its own right, a pigeonhole; and the narrator of the essay is the very picture of that cliche. Whatever conclusions can be drawn from the assertions that Shulman’s essay “Love Is A Fallacy” is anti-women or anti-men are unreliable, and truly inaccurate.The fact of the matter is that equally forceful cases can be made that its subject matter contains both anti-women and anti- men implications. The most concrete argument that can be made on the subject is that the essay is just as much anti-women as it is anti-men.

Its characters clearly portray both genders as being rather flawed. The narrators description of Polly Espy makes her come across as not so very bright. On the other hand, the way he sees Polly and his reasons for pursuing her make him come across as egotistical and superficial. Both arguments are equally forceful, and so, they are equally correct.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/max-schulmans-essay-love-is-a-fallacy-analysis/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Family History
• Family planning
• Feminist literary criticism
• Importance of family

Check more samples on your topics

Criticism on love is a fallacy analysis.

Unreliable Narrator From the perspective of how figures of speech help to characterize in Love is a Fallacy An unreliable narrator is a narrator whose credibility has been seriouly compromised in fictions (as implemented in literature, film, theatre, etc). It is a narrator whose account of events appears to be faulty, misleadingly biased, or otherwise

Animal Experimentation: the Fallacy of Our Ethical System

Animal welfare

Norman led Jennie into the laboratory and had her sit on a metal table near the windows. She sat quietly while Norman fitted her with a helmet containing electrial monitors and couplings for attaching the helmet to other devices. She was watching people walking across the lawn. When Norman finished, she had to lie down

Fallacy of Complex Question

Critical Thinking Skills

Yes, it is true that the fallacy of complex question is one of the fallacies of presumption. Complex question is also known as many questions, loaded question or presupposition. Complex question is firstly logical fallacy belonging to the fallacy of presumption. This fallacy is committed when a person asks a question presupposing something unproven and

Fallacy Summary and Application

Common sense

            One would thin that as we become more sophisticated in our technology, we would also become more sophisticated in our thinking. This is not really the case, and our everyday life reflects this fact, in looking at critical thinking and arguments in daily life.             In this essay we will examine three fallacies that exist

Fallacy – Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

Since the first man walked this earth, we have been trying to understand why everything is the way it is. Why do things work the way they do? What happens if you put this with that? Humans have always been determined to learn and understand everything they can. As a result, the knowledge that beings

Fallacy in Car Advertisement: A Woman and a Car Equal Sex?

The idea of a man's desire is both fascinating and powerful, particularly in car industry advertisements. Whether in magazines or on television, we are exposed to ads promoting various products and services. Companies often employ fallacies to influence people's decision-making, making it challenging to discern the creator's intended message. Fallacy in advertisement can be an effective

Max Weber’s Sociological Analysis of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy

Rationalization and its different manifestation occupied the most of Weberian thought and remained a focused point in his sociological thought. This focus on rationalization also forced him to contemplate on the processes and development of large-scale organizations in the public and private sectors. Weber presented his idea and application of rationalization on the large-scale organizations

Max Stafford-Clark and His Rehearsal Techniques Character Analysis

Stafford-Clark is one of the most influential directors to embrace British Theatre in the past 40 years. Nearly every play Max has directed is political, including themes such as Marxism (like Brecht), socialism, feminism, poverty and many more political themes. Max says he chooses to direct plays like this because “I am socially curious, and I

Max Mara vs Pinko Analysis

Introduction Max Mara is the best-known name of a number of lines produced by the Maramotti family which include Sportmax, Weekend (lower priced with less expensive fabrics), I Blues (separates), Penny Black and Marella (lower priced), Pianoforte (evening clothes), Max and Co, and Marina Rinaldi (for larger sized women). It is one of the largest if

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

• Houston Community College
• Eagle Online

• Cecilia Bonnor
• English Composition II (ENGL 1302)
• Course Readings

Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Max Shulman's "Love is a Fallacy"

The link address is: https://allinonehighschool.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/day-124-logical-fallacies-answer-key.pdf

What is love? A philosopher explains it’s not a choice or a feeling − it’s a practice

Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Disclosure statement

Edith Gwendolyn Nally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to [email protected] .

How do you define love? Is it a choice or a feeling? – Izzy, age 11, Golden, Colorado

Love is confusing. People in the U.S. Google the word “love” about 1.2 million times a month . Roughly a quarter of those searches ask “ what is love ” or request a “ definition of love .”

What is all this confusion about?

Neuroscience tells us that love is caused by certain chemicals in the brain . For example, when you meet someone special, the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine can trigger a reward response that makes you want to see this person again. Like tasting chocolate, you want more.

Your feelings are the result of these chemical reactions. Around a crush or best friend, you probably feel something like excitement, attraction, joy and affection. You light up when they walk into the room. Over time, you might feel comfort and trust. Love between a parent and child feels different, often some combination of affection and care.

But are these feelings, caused by chemical reactions in your brain, all that love is? If so, then love seems to be something that largely happens to you. You’d have as much control over falling in love as you’d have over accidentally falling in a hole – not much.

As a philosopher who studies love , I’m interested in the different ways people have understood love throughout history. Many thinkers have believed that love is more than a feeling.

More than a feeling

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato thought that love might cause feelings like attraction and pleasure, which are out of your control. But these feelings are less important than the loving relationships you choose to form as a result: lifelong bonds between people who help one another change and grow into their best selves.

Similarly, Plato’s student Aristotle claimed that, while relationships built on feelings like pleasure are common, they’re less good for humankind than relationships built on goodwill and shared virtues . This is because Aristotle thought relationships built on feelings last only as long as the feelings last.

Imagine you start a relationship with someone you have little in common with other than you both enjoy playing video games. Should either of you no longer enjoy gaming, nothing would hold the relationship together. Because the relationship is built on pleasure, it will fade once the pleasure is gone.

Compare this with a relationship where you want to be together not because of a shared pleasure but because you admire one another for who you are. You want what is best for one another. This kind of friendship built on shared virtue and goodwill will be much longer lasting. These kinds of friends will support each other as they change and grow.

Plato and Aristotle both thought that love is more than a feeling. It’s a bond between people who admire one another and therefore choose to support one another over time.

Maybe, then, love isn’t totally out of your control.

Celebrating individuality and ‘standing in love’

Contemporary philosopher J. David Velleman also thinks that love can be disentangled from “ the likings and longings ” that come with it – those butterflies in your stomach. This is because love isn’t just a feeling. It’s a special kind of paying attention, which celebrates a person’s individuality.

Velleman says Dr. Seuss did a good job describing what it means to celebrate a person’s individuality when he wrote: “Come on! Open your mouth and sound off at the sky! Shout loud at the top of your voice, ‘I AM I! ME! I am I!’” When you love someone, you celebrate them because you value the “I AM I” that they are.

You can also get better at love. Social psychologist Erich Fromm thinks that loving is a skill that takes practice : what he calls “standing in love.” When you stand in love, you act in certain ways toward a person.

Just like learning to play an instrument, you can also get better at loving with patience, concentration and discipline. This is because standing in love is made up of other skills such as listening carefully and being present. If you get better at these skills, you can get better at loving.

If this is the case, then love and friendship are distinct from the feelings that accompany them. Love and friendship are bonds formed by skills you choose to practice and improve.

Does this mean you could stand in love with someone you hate, or force yourself to stand in love with someone you have no feelings for whatsoever?

Probably not. Philosopher Virginia Held explains the difference between doing an activity and participating in a practice as simply doing some labor versus doing some labor while also enacting values and standards.

Compare a math teacher who mechanically solves a problem at the board versus a teacher who provides students a detailed explanation of the solution. The mechanical teacher is doing the activity – presenting the solution – whereas the engaged teacher is participating in the practice of teaching. The engaged teacher is enacting good teaching values and standards, such as creating a fun learning environment.

Standing in love is a practice in the same sense. It’s not just a bunch of activities you perform. To really stand in love is to do these activities while enacting loving values and standards, such as empathy, respect, vulnerability, honesty and, if Velleman is right, celebrating a person for who they truly are.

How much control do you have over love?

Is it best to understand love as a feeling or a choice?

Think about what happens when you break up with someone or lose a friend. If you understand love purely in terms of the feelings it stirs up, the love is over once these feelings disappear, change or get put on hold by something like a move or a new school.

On the other hand, if love is a bond you choose and practice, it will take much more than the disappearance of feelings or life changes to end it. You or your friend might not hang out for a few days, or you might move to a new city, but the love can persist.

If this understanding is right, then love is something you have more control over than it may seem. Loving is a practice. And, like any practice, it involves activities you can choose to do – or not do – such as hanging out, listening and being present. In addition, practicing love will involve enacting the right values, such as respect and empathy.

While the feelings that accompany love might be out of your control, how you love someone is very much in your control.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to [email protected] . Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

• Relationships
• Curious Kids
• Romantic relationships
• Curious Kids US

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Research Fellow in Astrobotany

Educational Designer

Organizational Behaviour – Assistant / Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Max Shulman: Love is a Fallacy

Related Papers

Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies

Jochen Petzold

International Journal of English Language, Literature and Translation Studies

Miguel Ángel Jordán

In Jane Austen's novels we can find varied characters, although all described with realism and coherence, according to the sociohistorical context of this author. Through these characters, Austen offers us a faithful reflection of the society of her time and highlights some of the social injustices that limited the lives of women of that period. This article offers a detailed analysis of Miss Bates, from the novel Emma, with which it is intended to demonstrate that this character, apparently secondary and ridiculed, is of great relevance for the development of the plot, and is also the resource that Austen uses to show the socioeconomic predetermination of her time. Before carrying out this analysis, first we will offer a section on the role of the spinsters in the works of Austen and in her historical context, and later, another section dedicated to the definition and characteristics of the flat characters. This theoretical framework will allow us to appreciate in more detail the historical realism with which Austen describes the character of Miss Bates and the relevance of that character for the development of the plot.

Julia Leyda

Moira Bonnington , Lorna Clark

The discovery of a letter from Frances Burney in a private collection provided the inspiration for this article

Philosophical Issues

Jennifer Matey

Here, I draw on empirical work concerning the relation between the assessment of moral character, experiences that are evaluative (perceiving someone as attractive) and the perceptual representation of value. Studies show that people we judge to have good character we also evaluate to be more attractive. I argue that in these cases, evaluative perceptual experiences are penetrated by emotional experiences of esteem and inherit their contents. They thereby come to represent morally admirable people as having positive (often intrinsic) value.

Sal (Sarah) Nicolazzo

Ashley Szanter

American Literary History

Glenn Hendler

Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

Douglas E Green

3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies

Florence Toh Haw Ching

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Academia Letters

Alan Munton

Lotte Spreeuwenberg

Philosophy and Literature

Rick Anthony Furtak

Tatjana Jukić

Magdalena Ozarska

Alexander Nehamas

DJ Journal of English Language and Literature

Mary Chapman

The International Journal of Psychoanalysis

Adele Tutter

Cristina Ozturk

Contemporary Psychoanalysis

Max Cavitch

Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences

Andrew Miller

Ildiko Eva Csengei

Hatice Övgü Tüzün

Adam Smith Works

Shannon Chamberlain

Yağmur Sönmez Demir

Amelia Dale

Revista Eletronica Do Instituto De Humanidades

Carla F Portilho

Ann McGreevy

Intellectual History Review 22(3) September 2012: 465–480

Charles R Pigden

International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research

yasir motlib

Romanticism on the Net

Annie Finch

Nicola Leporini

Suzanne Bunkers

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

What this handout is about

This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The handout provides definitions, examples, and tips on avoiding these fallacies.

Most academic writing tasks require you to make an argument—that is, to present reasons for a particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward. You may have been told that you need to make your arguments more logical or stronger. And you may have worried that you simply aren’t a logical person or wondered what it means for an argument to be strong. Learning to make the best arguments you can is an ongoing process, but it isn’t impossible: “Being logical” is something anyone can do, with practice.

Each argument you make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements that express your reasons or evidence) that are arranged in the right way to support your conclusion (the main claim or interpretation you are offering). You can make your arguments stronger by:

• using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),
• making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion (and not some other conclusion, or no conclusion at all),
• checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of the issue (that is, that your premises and conclusion focus on what is really important to the issue), and
• not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can’t really support them.

You also need to be sure that you present all of your ideas in an orderly fashion that readers can follow. See our handouts on argument and organization for some tips that will improve your arguments.

This handout describes some ways in which arguments often fail to do the things listed above; these failings are called fallacies. If you’re having trouble developing your argument, check to see if a fallacy is part of the problem.

It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence. To help you see how people commonly make this mistake, this handout uses a number of controversial political examples—arguments about subjects like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, gay marriage, euthanasia, and pornography. The purpose of this handout, though, is not to argue for any particular position on any of these issues; rather, it is to illustrate weak reasoning, which can happen in pretty much any kind of argument. Please be aware that the claims in these examples are just made-up illustrations—they haven’t been researched, and you shouldn’t use them as evidence in your own writing.

What are fallacies?

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others’ writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: first, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the “weak” and toward the “strong” end of the continuum.

So what do fallacies look like?

For each fallacy listed, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip on how to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments.

Hasty generalization

Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes about people (“librarians are shy and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

Example: “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!” Two people’s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes are hard for some students” would not be a hasty generalization.)

Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.” The argument actually supports several conclusions—”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in particular—but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you’ve actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you’re claiming something big.

Post hoc (also called false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “after this, therefore because of this.”

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.

Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.” The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused the other.

Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. And that’s what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later.

Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; they assume we can’t stop partway down the hill.

Example: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now.” Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here’s an example that doesn’t seem fallacious: “If I fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate. If I don’t graduate, I probably won’t be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year.”

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and if B, then C,” and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

Weak analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: “My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when I’m stuck inside) and they’re both kind of murky.” So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights? If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive on one’s own, adult humans and fetuses don’t share it, and the analogy is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see whether the two things you’re comparing both share those properties.

Appeal to authority

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at their opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept their argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your readers believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one.

Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks their opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?” Dworkin’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing they are arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Here’s an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!” The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents’ reasoning, rather than on their personal character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone’s character—if your conclusion is “President Jones is an untrustworthy person,” premises about her untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

Appeal to pity

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!” The conclusion here is “You should give me an A.” But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve A’s) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion—but the information isn’t logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here’s another example: “It’s wrong to tax corporations—think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!”

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someone.

Appeal to ignorance

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.” In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence.

Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man (like a scarecrow) isn’t very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponent’s argument isn’t very impressive either.

Example: “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace.” The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated. In fact, most feminists do not propose an outright “ban” on porn or any punishment for those who merely view it or approve of it; often, they propose some restrictions on particular things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers—not viewers—for damages. So the arguer hasn’t really scored any points; they have just committed a fallacy.

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent’s argument, then you’ve really accomplished something.

Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.” Let’s try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what’s wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

False dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the building down.” The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.

Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

Begging the question

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-conclusion form:

Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,” and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, they have left us asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Their argument “begs” (that is, evades) the real question.

Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia is morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active euthanasia is murder.” And that is a debatable premise—again, the argument “begs” or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, “Murder is morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.

Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you’ve just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in different words). If so, you’re probably begging the question. The moral of the story: you can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you’re trying to prove.

Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.” The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both something that is correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and something to which someone has a claim (as in “everyone has a right to life”). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it’s important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.

Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren’t slipping and sliding between those meanings.

So how do I find fallacies in my own writing?

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:

• Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to strengthening those parts.
• List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you’re using.
• Learn which types of fallacies you’re especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there’s a particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.
• Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like “all,” “no,” “none,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “no one,” and “everyone” are sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words like “some,” “many,” “few,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth.
• Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are accurate and fair.

Can I get some practice with this?

Yes, you can. Follow this link to see a sample argument that’s full of fallacies (and then you can follow another link to get an explanation of each one). Then there’s a more well-constructed argument on the same topic.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Copi, Irving M., Carl Cohen, and Victor Rodych. 1998. Introduction to Logic . London: Pearson Education.

Hurley, Patrick J. 2000. A Concise Introduction to Logic , 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 2016. Everything’s an Argument , 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift