Table of Contents
When evaluating arguments, it’s essential to recognize that not all are as solid as they appear. Some arguments might initially seem compelling, but upon closer inspection, they falter due to flawed reasoning. Among the most pervasive issues are “appeal to x” fallacies—arguments that lean on emotional manipulation, popular opinion, or the endorsement of authority rather than logic. With so many varieties of “appeal to” fallacies, it’s easy to be misled or even to unwittingly use one. In this post, I’ll list common “appeal to x” fallacies to offer you a guide to help identify and avoid these pitfalls. Below is a table that categorizes these fallacies, providing a clear framework for understanding and critiquing them.
In the study of logic, it’s important to distinguish between formal and informal fallacies (watch a video). Formal fallacies arise from errors in an argument’s structure; they occur when the logical form is flawed, regardless of the content. A classic example of a formal fallacy is Affirming the Consequent, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises despite the argument’s superficial appeal.
Affirming the Consequent:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Example:
If I were in NYC, I would see the Statue of Liberty.
I can see the Statue of Liberty now.
Therefore, I must be in NYC.
This argument is a formal fallacy because it mistakenly assumes that the presence of a specific condition (seeing the Statue of Liberty) necessarily implies the original condition (being in NYC). The error assumes that because Q (seeing the Statue of Liberty) is true, P (being in NYC) must also be true. However, you could see the Statue of Liberty in many other ways without being in NYC (e.g., viewing a photograph or watching a video). The argument ignores these possibilities and incorrectly concludes that the only explanation for seeing the Statue of Liberty is in NYC.
In contrast, informal fallacies stem from errors in reasoning related to the content or context of the argument rather than its structure. They often rely on emotional appeals, irrelevant information, or ambiguous language. The “appeal to X” fallacies fall into this category. They exploit psychological factors rather than engaging with the argument’s logical merits, making them intellectually dangerous in everyday discourse. Understanding this distinction helps evaluate arguments more critically.
Appeal to X Fallacies LIST
| Fallacy | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal to Authority | Arguing that something must be true because it’s endorsed by someone important. | My physics professor says eating only chocolate is healthy, so I’m canceling my salad subscription. |
| Appeal to Popularity | Arguing that something must be true or good because everyone else thinks so. | Everyone puts pineapple on their pizza, so it must be the right culinary choice. |
| Appeal to Emotion | Manipulating emotions instead of providing a solid argument. | If you don’t support my idea, just think of the puppies that will be sad. |
| Appeal to Pity (emotion) | Arguing for a conclusion out of sympathy rather than evidence. | I deserve an “A” because my goldfish had an emotionally draining mid-life crisis. |
| Appeal to Fear (emotion) | Arguing that something must be true or false by scaring people into believing it. | If we don’t buy this security system, raccoons will take over our neighborhood. |
| Appeal to Ignorance | Arguing that something must be true just because it hasn’t been proven false. | No one has proven climate change yet, so we should not advocate for any climate policies. |
| Appeal to Nature | Arguing that something is better because it’s natural, or worse because it’s not. | Same-sex couples should not get married because it is unnatural. |
| Appeal to Tradition | Arguing that something is right because it’s the way it’s always been done. | We’ve always used carrier pigeons for communication, so there’s no need for email. |
| Appeal to Consequences | Arguing that something must be true or false based on how it makes you feel about the outcome. | I oppose funding the children’s lunch program at school because it would lead to higher taxes. Therefore, we shouldn’t support the program. |
| Appeal to Novelty | Arguing that something is better just because it’s new. | This self-driving unicycle is the future of transportation. |
| Appeal to Wealth | Arguing that someone is right because they have money, or wrong because they don’t. | He must be an expert on happiness; he has a yacht named ‘Contentment.’ |
| Appeal to Poverty | Arguing that someone is right because they’re poor, or wrong because they’re rich. | She’s definitely wise because her bank account is as empty as a deserted island. |
Check out this undergrad paper checklist containing a checklist for other common informal fallacies.