Quickly register to comment, Ask questions, and/or keep up to date on new fallacies.

one moment please...

  • False Conversion
  • False Dilemma
  • False Effect
  • Far-Fetched Hypothesis
  • Faulty Comparison
  • Gambler’s Fallacy
  • Genetic Fallacy
  • Hasty Generalization
  • Having Your Cake
  • Hedging
  • Historian’s Fallacy
  • Homunculus Fallacy
  • Hypnotic Bait and Switch
  • Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
  • The Fallacies: If–Mu
  • If-By-Whiskey
  • Illicit Contraposition
  • Illicit Major
  • Illicit Minor
  • Illicit Substitution of Identicals
  • Inconsistency
  • Inflation of Conflict
  • Jumping to Conclusions
  • Just Because Fallacy*
  • Just In Case Fallacy
  • Least Plausible Hypothesis
  • Limited Depth
  • Limited Scope
  • Logic Chopping
  • Ludic Fallacy
  • Lying with Statistics
  • Magical Thinking
  • Meaningless Question
  • Misleading Vividness
  • Missing Data Fallacy*
  • Modal (Scope) Fallacy
  • Moralistic Fallacy
  • Moving the Goalposts
  • Multiple Comparisons Fallacy
  • The Fallacies: Na–Ri
  • Naturalistic Fallacy
  • Negating Antecedent and Consequent
  • Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises
  • Nirvana Fallacy
  • No True Scotsman
  • Non Sequitur
  • Notable Effort
  • Overwhelming Exception
  • Package-Deal Fallacy
  • Poisoning the Well
  • Political Correctness Fallacy
  • Post-Designation
  • Prejudicial Language
  • Proof by Intimidation
  • Proving Non-Existence
  • Quantifier-Shift Fallacy
  • Quantum Physics Fallacy*
  • Questionable Cause
  • Rationalization
  • Red Herring
  • Reductio ad Absurdum
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum
  • Regression Fallacy
  • Reification
  • Relative Privation
  • Retrogressive Causation
  • Rights To Ought Fallacy*
  • The Fallacies: Sc–Wi
  • Scapegoating
  • Selective Attention
  • Self-Sealing Argument
  • Shoehorning
  • Slippery Slope
  • Special Pleading
  • Spiritual Fallacy*
  • Spotlight Fallacy
  • Statement of Conversion
  • Stereotyping
  • Stolen Concept Fallacy
  • Strawman Fallacy
  • Style Over Substance
  • Subjectivist Fallacy
  • Subverted Support
  • Sunk-Cost Fallacy
  • Suppressed Correlative
  • Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
  • Tokenism
  • Two Wrongs Make a Right
  • Unfalsifiability
  • Unwarranted Contrast
  • Use-Mention Error
  • Weak Analogy
  • Willed Ignorance
  • Wishful Thinking
  • Appeal to Emotion

      Get the Book!

    Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:

    Get It!

    (also known as: playing on emotions, emotional appeal, for the children)

    Description: This is the general category of many fallacies that use emotion in place of reason in order to attempt to win the argument.  It is a type of manipulation used in place of valid logic.

    There are several specifically emotional fallacies that I list separately in this book, because of their widespread use.  However, keep in mind that you can take any emotion, precede it with, “appeal to”, and you have created a new fallacy, but by definition, the emotion must be used in place of a valid reason in supporting the conclusion.

    Logical Form:

    X must be true.

    Imagine how sad it would be if it weren’t true.

    Example #1:

    Power lines cause cancer.  I met a little boy with cancer who lived just 20 miles from a power line who looked into my eyes and said, in his weak voice, “Please do whatever you can so that other kids won’t have to go through what I am going through.”  I urge you to vote for this bill to tear down all power lines and replace them with monkeys on treadmills.

    Explanation: Notice the form of the example: assertion, emotional appeal, request for action (conclusion) -- nowhere is there any evidence presented.  We can all tear up over the image of a little boy with cancer who is expressing concern for others rather than taking pity on himself, but that has nothing to do with the assertion or the conclusion.

    Example #2:

    There must be objective rights and wrongs in the universe.  If not, how can you possibly say that torturing babies for fun could ever be right?

    Explanation: The thought of people torturing babies for fun immediately brings up unpleasant images (in sane people).  The actual argument (implied) is that there are objective (universal) rights and wrongs (morality).  The argument is worded in such a way to connect the argument's conclusions (that there is objective morality) with the idea that torturing babies for fun is wrong (this is also a non sequitur fallacy).  No matter how we personally feel about a horrible act, our feelings are not a valid substitution for an objective reason behind why the act is horrible.

    Exceptions: Appealing to emotions is a very powerful and necessary technique in persuasion.  We are emotional creatures; therefore, we often make decisions and form beliefs erroneously based on emotions, when reason and logic tell us otherwise.  However, using appeals to emotion as a backup to rational and logical arguments is not only valid, but a skill possessed by virtually every great communicator. 

    Tip: By appealing to both the brain and the heart, you will persuade the greatest number of people.

    Registered User Comments

     Copyright 2016, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.