TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHTis alogical fallacythat 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 ATTACKA 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 Attack1. 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."INCONSISTENCYThe 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 speakerisa racist, although the speaker doesnt notice the inconsistency.CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEMGuilt by association is a version of thead hominemfallacy 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 WELLPoisoning 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 ofad hominem, circumstantialfallacy.Example:[Prosecuting attorney in court] When is the defense attorney planning to call that twice-convicted child molester, David Barnington, to the stand? OK, Ill rephrase that. When is the defense attorney planning to call David Barnington to the stand?PERFECTIONISTIf 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-DRAWINGIf 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 QUESTIONA form ofcircular reasoningin 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.