Logical Fallacies are most basically defined as flaws in reasoning, typically used in an argumentative chain of statements. Analyzing the set of assumptions that underlie a chain of argumentative statements is the bedrock of critical thinking. Fallacies are often used to support an indefensible or weak position by tricking the non-critical thinker into believing that the fallacy is based on logic. Our current president, George W. Bush, is a master at using logical fallacies to obfuscate his listeners and support weak arguments. This paper will briefly analyze three common logical fallacies, the Appeal to Pity, the Bandwagon Argument, and the Red Herring, and give examples from George Bush's debates with Democratic candidate John Kerry.
The Appeal to Pity is a fallacious appeal to pity and is also referred to as a sob story. It differs from a legitimate appeal to pity in that it is used to replace logic instead of supporting it. For example, it is a perfectly legitimate argument to ask someone to give you money to buy food because you haven't eaten for days and are very hungry. This is an appeal to pity, and it does not use pity to preclude a logical examination of the issue. The fallacious appeal to pity either greatly exaggerates the problem at hand, or it is used to cover an inappropriate request. The fallacy is most often used in an attempt to substitute emotion for reason in order to persuade (sjsu.edu). In the first presidential debate, George Bush used the Appeal to Pity when he said the words "it's hard work" numerous times in response to questions about his policy decisions. A prime example came when he was asked to defend the cost of the Iraq war in terms of American casualties. Bush cited a widow named Missy Johnson, and commented that "you know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way" (1st Debate). This was clea...