TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT

is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another
wrong will cancel it out. This statement is seen as true to some people because 2 negatives
indeed make a positive in math (3-(-3)= 3+3). However, a person with common sense would
know that two wrongs don't make a right.

Speaker A: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.

Speaker B: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

DESCRIPTION OF PERSONAL ATTACK

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when
attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the
attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a
claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an
individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a
bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be
a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such
attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made
the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of
the person making the claim.
Examples of Personal Attack
1. In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His
opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."
2. "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is
a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to
speak at the World Conference on Cancer."
3. "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it
must be wrong to do that."
4. "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he
is."

5. "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior
offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."
6. "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian,
so we don't have to listen to her."
7. Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After
all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into
poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."
INCONSISTENCY

The fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a
claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
Example:
Im not racist. Some of my best friends are white. But I just dont think that white women
love their babies as much as our women do.
That last remark implies the speaker is a racist, although the speaker doesnt notice the
inconsistency.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM
Guilt by association is a version of the ad hominem fallacy in which a person is said to be
guilty of error because of the group he or she associates with. The fallacy occurs when we
unfairly try to change the issue to be about the speakers circumstances rather than about the
speakers actual argument. Also called Ad Hominem, Circumstantial.
Example:
Secretary of State Dean Acheson is too soft on communism, as you can see by his inviting so
many fuzzy-headed liberals to his White House cocktail parties.
Has any evidence been presented here that Achesons actions are inappropriate in regards to
communism? This sort of reasoning is an example of McCarthyism, the technique of
smearing liberal Democrats that was so effectively used by the late Senator Joe McCarthy in
the early 1950s. In fact, Acheson was strongly anti-communist and the architect of President
Trumans firm policy of containing Soviet power.
POISONING THE WELL

Poisoning the well is a preemptive attack on a person in order to discredit their testimony or
argument in advance of their giving it. A person who thereby becomes unreceptive to the
testimony reasons fallaciously and has become a victim of the poisoner. This is a kind of ad
hominem, circumstantial fallacy.
Example:
[Prosecuting attorney in court] When is the defense attorney planning to call that twiceconvicted child molester, David Barnington, to the stand? OK, Ill rephrase that. When is the
defense attorney planning to call David Barnington to the stand?
PERFECTIONIST

If you remark that a proposal or claim should be rejected solely because it doesnt solve the
problem perfectly, in cases where perfection isnt really required, then youve committed the
perfectionist fallacy.
Example:
You said hiring a house cleaner would solve our cleaning problems because we both have
full-time jobs. Now, look what happened. Every week she unplugs the toaster oven and
leaves it that way. I should never have listened to you about hiring a house cleaner.
LINE-DRAWING

If we improperly reject a vague claim because its not as precise as wed like, then we
commit the line-drawing fallacy. Being vague is not being hopelessly vague. Also called the
Bald Man Fallacy, the Fallacy of the Heap and the Sorites Fallacy.
Example:
Dwayne can never grow bald. Dwayne isnt bald now. Dont you agree that if he loses one
hair, that wont make him go from not bald to bald? And if he loses one hair after that, then
this one loss, too, wont make him go from not bald to bald. Therefore, no matter how much
hair he loses, he cant become bald.
SLIPPERY SLOPE (asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of
related events culminating in some significant impact)
Suppose someone claims that a first step (in a chain of causes and effects, or a chain of
reasoning) will probably lead to a second step that in turn will probably lead to another step
and so on until a final step ends in trouble. If the likelihood of the trouble occurring is
exaggerated, the slippery slope fallacy is committed.
Example:
Mom: Those look like bags under your eyes. Are you getting enough sleep?

Jeff: I had a test and stayed up late studying.

Mom: You didnt take any drugs, did you?
Jeff: Just caffeine in my coffee, like I always do.
Mom: Jeff! You know what happens when people take drugs! Pretty soon the caffeine wont
be strong enough. Then you will take something stronger, maybe someones diet pill. Then,
something even stronger. Eventually, you will be doing cocaine. Then you will be a crack
addict! So, dont drink that coffee.
BEGGING THE QUESTION

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose
the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up
somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief
in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is
no progress.
Example:
Women have rights, said the Bullfighters Association president. But women shouldnt
fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.
The president is saying basically that women shouldnt fight bulls because women shouldnt
fight bulls. This reasoning isnt making any progress.