Tip: Ask yourself what kind of using: Are you relying on the opinions or “sample” you’re experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion philosophy classes are hard for “Some some would not be a hasty generalization.) students” MISSING THE POINT Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. Example: of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. “The seriousness Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk The argument actually supports several conclusions—”The punishment for driving.” drunk driving should be very in particular—but it support the claim that the serious,” doesn’t death penalty, specifically, is warranted. Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if actually given that evidence. Missing the point often you’ve occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know claiming something big. you’re POST HOC (ALSO CALLED FALSE CAUSE) This fallacy gets its name from the which Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” translates as because of “after this, therefore this.” Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the true that the first event caused the one that came roll, it’s later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time really related as cause and aren’t event. That is, correlation the same thing as causation. isn’t Examples: and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones “President Jones raised taxes, is responsible for the rise in The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in crime.” the rising crime rates, but the argument that one caused the other. hasn’t shown us
Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes are hard for some students” would not be a hasty generalization.) MISSING THE POINT Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. Example: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.” The argument actually supports several conclusions—”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in particular—but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted. Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you’ve actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you’re claiming something big. POST HOC (ALSO CALLED FALSE CAUSE) This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “after this, therefore because of this.” Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation. Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.” The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused the other.