“If you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the last election, you love Donald Trump.”
While this may seem ridiculous, this is a kind of argument that is used (lecture discussing this). It assumes no middle ground in an argument and is laid out as such:
Either A or B. Not A. Therefore, B.
While other fallacies that Dr. Sadler has discussed have focused more on claims and arguments, this kind of fallacy is based on the premise of the entire argument. The way I see it is that it’s basically giving limited options to start an argument so that you can funnel your opponent into the answer you want.
Dr. Sadler uses a real example of how people have used the false dilemma in recent years. The argument went something like this:
Either you support President Obama or you’re a racist. You don’t support him. Therefore, you are a racist. In this premise, they are putting you into a forced choice. It seems like your only answers are that you are for Obama or you are a racist. But in reality, the premise is flawed. You might not support Obama, but you also might very well not be a racist The premise that was laid out did not allow for more than A or B, but neither A nor B were the correct conclusion. Therefore, you have a fallacious argument.
However, while the premise of this argument is fallacious, the structure itself is not implicitly wrong. For example, you could give someone the premise: Either you voted for Obama or you didn’t. You didn’t. Therefore, you didn’t. In this case, the premise and structure work to make a solid argument, but this depends on the premise to truly have only two viable options with no continuum.
The other fallacy that he talks about is the Slippery Slope Fallacy. This one is laid out as:
If A, then B. If B, then C. If C, then D. If D, then E. Etc.
Once again, this is a structure that can be used correctly and it can support a solid argument, but it depends on the premises of each of these claims to be correct. Let’s examine this kind of argument:
If you were born in 1989, then you are at least 29. If you are at least 29, then you were alive during the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If you were alive during the terrorist attacks, you watched the terrorist attacks on the tv. Simplified: If you were born in 1989, you watched the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on tv.
Does this argument work? Here’s the problem. The first two premises of the argument were correct. However, the last one was not necessarily true. Because of this, the entire argument falls apart. But if you made this exact same argument and left off the last premise, it’s once again a solid argument.
You must be careful when making arguments to not only beware of structural fallacies but also fallacies that start with incorrect or incomplete premises.