As such, it unjustifiably puts issues into black-or-white terms. This is a false dilemma as there are other emotions people may feel for each other than just these two extremes. Essentially, this fallacy can be committed in two ways: by suggesting that there are only two possible options when more exist, or by incorrectly presenting the choices as mutually exclusive only one of the options can be true.
Also, one of the given options is often clearly undesirable, while the other one — which the arguer may want us to choose — seems acceptable and rational.
Many of these messages are implied, if not stated outright. It presents two options, one of which is unsavory, and prompts the listener to make a decision. These questions are emotionally loaded, making them inherently flawed. Presenting listeners with a limited number of choices can be an effective way to move a decision along.
Some helpful uses of false dilemmas include:. While these examples are technically false dilemmas, because they ignore many other options, they are ultimately beneficial for both speaker and listener. Often, having too many options leads to analysis paralysis , which can hamper decision-making just as much as a logical fallacy. When presented with a false dilemma, consider whether those two options are really your only choices. Determine whether refusing one option will inevitably lead to the second option.
Are they trying to convince you to do something by offering a false choice? Is making this decision in your best interest, or in theirs? If it is indeed a false choice, call them out on it by naming a third option. A false dichotomy indicates that two options are opposites. It is a type of false dilemma, which uses these limited options to persuade a listener to make a faulty choice.
False dichotomies are related to false dilemmas because they both prompt listeners to choose between two unrelated options. Another related type of logical fallacy is a false analogy. False analogies inaccurately compare two items as completely related when they might be only slightly similar. A third case of this fallacy is the implied mutual exclusivity. The statement itself does not exclude either a third, not coffee or tea related option like a smoothie, nor does it exclude you choosing some combination of both coffee and tea if you are extra adventurous.
The fallacy here does not lie in the statement itself, but that an X or Y choice may convince one to make a fallacious assumption that these options cannot be chosen together. X or Y does not always exclude the choice of X and Y. There are two main methods to expose a false dilemma. One is to argue for an unmentioned option. For example, one may ask if you are going to vote for candidate from party A or candidate from party B. In the oncoming election you can actually choose from a list of ten potential candidates, so you respond by saying candidate C.
The person you are discussing this with may then make the argument that only A or B holds any chance of winning the election, therefore implying that C was not a valid choice. The second method would be to make the case for choosing both options, therefore denying the implication of mutual exclusivity of choice.
Your argumentative opponent would then have to make the case that your examples were not of true Americans, to which you would have plentiful of other examples, or to revise their argument altogether.
0コメント