From Stephen's Guide (10)

flyingty

Missing the Point

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These fallacies have in common a general failure to prove that the conclusion is
true.
The following fallacies are cases of missing the point

1. Begging the Question
( petitio principii )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

Examples:
(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

Proof:
Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we
must already agree that the conclusion is true

2. Irrelevant Conclusion
( ignoratio elenchi )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
An argument which purports to prove one thing instead
proves a different conclusion.

Examples:
(i) You should support the new housing bill. We can't
continue to see people living in the streets; we must have
cheaper housing. (We may agree that housing s important
even though we disagree with the housing bill.)
(ii) I say we should support affirmative action. White males
have run the country for 500 years. They run most of
government and industry today. You can't deny that this
sort of discrimination is intolerable. (The author has proven
that there is discrimination, but not that affirmative action
will end that discrimination.)

Proof: <./b>
Show that the conclusion proved by the author is not the
conclusion that the author set out to prove

3. Straw Man

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:
(i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
Canada.
(ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
should realize that there are more important things than
convenience.

Proof:
Show that the opposition's argument has been
misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
argument. Describe the stronger argument

litoky

up~