Well, of course an apple is redder and an orange more orange. It is rather absurd to be making such a comparison because even though apples and oranges are both fruit, they are not the same kind of fruit. If you were to compare a Fuji apple to a gala apple, or a naval orange to a clementine, then you would have a legit- imate comparison. But comparing two things that do not fit in the same category makes for an illogical com- parison. It is obvious here, but in many arguments, you may have to look harder to detect an apples-to-oranges comparison. Two questions from the pretest can help demonstrate how common this fallacy is and how to identify it. 7. Unemployment in Winston County has risen only 4% since I took office. Under my predecessor, unemployment rose 14%. Clearly, my economic policies are far more effective. Which of the following must be true in order for this argument to be valid? a. Winston County’s population dropped significantly during the current administration. b. The national unemployment rate increased by 12% during the previous administration but only 2% during the current administration. c. Key socioeconomic variables such as the state of the national economy and the demographics of Winston County are comparable for each administration. d. Key policy changes, such as increased job training for the unemployed, were implemented under the current administration. e. Tax incentives have been implemented to bring new businesses to Winston County. The problem here is that unless key variables that affect unemployment are the same during these two administrations, this is a case of comparing apples to oranges. For example, if the predecessor was in office dur- ing a deep national recession, no matter how good his economic policies were, he would experience a higher unemployment rate. If Winston County’s economy had been supported largely by a factory that shut down during the predecessor’s administration, that might also explain a significantly higher unemployment rate. The national recession and the factory closing would both have a huge impact on the county’s unemployment no matter who was in office.Without knowing that the variables are nearly the same or without making allowances for differences in those variables, one must assume this is a case of comparing apples to oranges. The same is true for the question about where to go for heart surgery: 12. One out of four heart surgery patients at St. Vincent’s dies from complications during surgery. Only one out of six heart surgery patients at St. Mary’s dies from complications during surgery. If you need heart surgery, make sure you go to St. Mary’s, not St. Vincent’s. Which of the following, if true, is the best reason to reject this argument? a. St. Vincent’s specializes in heart surgery for elderly and high-risk patients. b. St. Mary’s surgical equipment is more up to date than St. Vincent’s. c. St. Vincent’s has the most renowned heart surgeon in the country on its staff. d. St. Vincent’s offers flexible payment options for balances not covered by insurance. e. Two doctors who used to work at St. Mary’s now work at St. Vincent’s. – CRITICAL REASONING– 98 Remember that on the GMAT exam, you must assess arguments and answer questions based only on the infor- mation presented on the test. For the moment, forget what you might know or how you might feel about the topic or issue. Base your answer only on the argument and evidence in front of you. Don’t Get Personal 99 The best reason to reject this argument is the one that shows us this is an apples-to-oranges compari- son. To make a fair comparison of mortality rates, the patient base for both hospitals would have to be nearly identical. Because the patients at St. Vincent’s are already at a higher risk for mortality, their mortality rates are necessarily going to be higher — but that doesn’t mean you are less likely to survive surgery there. Assum- ing you are not an elderly or high-risk patient, to make an informed choice, you would need statistics about St. Vincent’s mortality rates for surgery on patients that are not elderly or high risk. A PPEALS TO E MOTION Arguments that appeal to emotions try to rouse your sense of pity, fear, or anger instead of offering logical reasons for accepting their claim. Here is an example: Let’s go to Morning Glory for coffee. That national coffee chain is putting Morning Glory out of business, and I feel bad for the owner. Although feeling sorry for the owner is a legitimate emotion, it is not a logical reason to go to Morning Glory for coffee. Similarly, see the following argument: Let’s go to Morning Glory for coffee. I’m sick of those big franchises putting the little guy out of business. The speaker is appealing to your sense of anger, but he is not offering any logical reasons for going to Morning Glory. His argument would be much stronger, however, if he simply added a logical premise or two: Let’s go to Morning Glory for coffee. I’m sick of those big franchises putting the little guy out of business. We should support local businesses and help them stay in business. B ANDWAGON APPEALS Bandwagon appeals are those fallacies that appeal to the human desire to be accepted and belong. They include arguments of peer pressure, bandwagon (join the winning side just because it’s winning), and com- mon practice (it’s okay to do it because everyone else does it). Here is an example: I know I’m not supposed to take anything from the stock room, but no one saw me take it. Besides, every- one steals stuff from the office once in a while. This argument suggests that because “everyone steals stuff from the office once in a while,” it’s okay for the speaker to take stuff, too. But just because others do X, that doesn’t make X right. STRAW MAN The straw man fallacy works by distorting, oversimplifying, exaggerating, or otherwise misrepresenting the opponent’s position. For example, in arguing against tax reform, you might distort the opponent’s position by saying the following: The people who support tax reform are only out to get a break in their own capital gains taxes. Even if this is one of the reasons why people support tax reform, it cannot be the only one — after all, something like tax reform is a pretty complicated issue. Furthermore, the straw man portrays the reformers as selfish and greedy — only in it for themselves — which makes it much easier for us to reject their position. Similarly, if you were to argue for tax reform, you might set up a straw man like the following: The folks who oppose tax reform simply don’t want to go to the trouble of restructuring the IRS. True, restructuring the IRS may be one major concern of the opponents, but is it their only,or even their main, concern? Is that the real reason why they don’t support it? Chances are their position stems from a num- ber of issues of which reforming the IRS is only one. Once again, the opponent’s position has been misrep- resented, making it much easier to reject. RED HERRING Imagine for a moment a magician on a stage. At the crucial moment of the trick, a puff of smoke appears, and poof — the rabbit appears, the assistant is cut in two, or the box begins to levitate. Whatever trick the magi- cian is performing, and whatever technique he or she uses to distract you — smoke, music, a wave of the hand, and so on — the point is that he or she has misdirected you. The magician has used a technique of distrac- tion to prevent you from seeing what is really happening with his or her hands. The same thing can be done with arguments. If you want to distract your listeners from the real issue, you can throw in a red herring (also called a smokescreen) — an irrelevant issue — in the hopes that your lis- teners will follow that trail instead of the original. For example, look how the following argument uses a red herring to throw the reader off track: Many citizens will be upset by another tax increase, but we have no other choice. Besides, we live in the best county in the state. This argument claims the tax increase is inevitable, but instead of offering a premise that supports this conclusion, it changes the subject to bring in an irrelevant issue. Whether or not “we live in the best county in the state” has no bearing on the claim that another tax increase is necessary. This red herring attempts to deflect the matter so that the speaker does not have to explain why taxes should be higher. – CRITICAL REASONING– 100 Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia, attempted to defend himself through red her- rings during his 2002 trial at The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Accused of atrocities in Kosovo, war crimes in Croatia, and genocide in Bosnia, Milosevic repeatedly tried to change the issue by shifting the blame onto his accusers. In his opening defense, Milosevic said, “They [NATO] want to ascribe to me responsibility and accountability for everything that they themselves did and all the crimes that they perpetrated themselves” and that “Our defense was a heroic defense from the aggression launched by NATO.”Instead of offering rea- sons why he should not be found guilty of his alleged crimes, Milosevic was raising other controversial issues (whether NATO and other countries involved in the conflict committed the same crimes, whether NATO launched a criminal attack on Yugoslavia, or whether the Yugoslav defense was “heroic”). He was hoping to throw his accusers off track. SLIPPERY SLOPE The slippery slope fallacy presents an if/then scenario as an absolute. It argues that if X happens, then Y will automatically follow. This “next thing you know” argument has one major flaw, however: X does not always lead to Y. You need to look carefully at the argument to determine whether this is false reasoning (slippery slope) or if a direct and plausible cause/effect relationship really exists between X and Y. For example, look at the following argument: If scientists are allowed to experiment with cloning humans, next thing you know, they will be mass pro- ducing people on assembly lines. It will be just like Brave New World! If scientists were to experiment with cloning human beings, for example, does that necessarily mean that humans will be mass produced on production lines? Definitely not. First of all, it may prove impossible to clone healthy humans successfully, no matter how much scientists experiment. Second, if it is possible, it’s a far step from one clone to assembly-line production. Third, if assembly-line production is possible, it will probably not be legal, unless the kind of social/political revolution described in the classic science fiction novel Brave New World occurs. So although the thought of mass-produced human beings is frightening, it’s not log- ical to restrict experiments because you are afraid of consequences that will probably not occur.You must have other, more logical reasons if you wish to limit that kind of experimentation. BEGGING THE QUESTION Another common logical fallacy is begging the question. This fallacy is also known as circular reasoning, and for good reason: The argument goes in a circle. Notice how the following argument doubles back on itself; the conclusion and premise say essentially the same thing: Tom: “That’s not important, Jeb.” Jeb: “Why?” Tom: “It just doesn’t matter.” Conclusion: That’s not important. Premise: It doesn’t matter. – CRITICAL REASONING– 101 This is begging the question. Instead of progressing logically from conclusion to evidence for that con- clusion, Tom’s argument gets stuck repeating the conclusion. Like a dog chasing its tail, it goes nowhere. Here is another example: I know he is telling the truth because he is not lying. Again, the argument goes in a circle. The premise repeats the conclusion. AD H OMINEM Ad hominem is any type of pseudoreasoning that asks you to reject a claim because of its source — not because the source lacks credibility, but because of who or what that source is — a lobbyist, a member of a particular political party, a notorious liar, a gabby next door neighbor, and so on. Hence the name, ad hominem, which means “to the man” in Latin. It is a fallacy that attacks the person, not the claim. Here are some examples: “Oh, don’t listen to him. What does he know? He’s just a kid.” “Don’t believe anything George has to say. He’s a liar.” If Wilkins says to vote yes, then I’m voting no. I won’t go along with any of her ideas. The source of a claim is very important, and you should always consider the credibility of the source before you accept a claim. Ad hominem, however, is different because it asks us to reject a claim based on the person who made the claim, not on any merits of the claim itself.You may thoroughly dislike the person who made the claim, but that doesn’t mean what that person has to say isn’t a good argument or that his or her claim deserves to be automatically rejected. Any time you automatically reject a claim (or ask someone to reject a claim) because of who said it, you commit the ad hominem fallacy. This includes rejecting a claim because it’s inconsistent with something the claim maker has said or done. Just because Sally once cheated on an exam, for example, doesn’t mean you should reject her claim that it’s wrong to cheat. If Sally claims that it’s wrong to cheat and continues to cheat herself, then you have every right to call her a hypocrite. But that doesn’t mean that her claim — that cheat- ing is wrong — is invalid. Keep in mind that people have the right to change their minds and to reject past beliefs or behaviors. Now read the following question carefully. Use your knowledge of logical fallacies to answer it correctly. The national golf tournament should not be open to women. The tournament has traditionally been open to male members only. There is no reason to break with that tradition, just because some people want to be politically correct. Besides, women golfers have their own clubs and tournaments. This is the most renowned tournament, however, and that is exactly why it should remain exclusive. Indeed, the tournament is renowned in part because it is so exclusive. Opening it to women would reduce its importance in the golf world. Worse, allowing women into the event would mean that we would end up having to let everybody play, without restrictions, and that would completely demean the tournament. – CRITICAL REASONING– 102 Which of the following is the most serious weakness of this argument? a. It assumes that it is wrong to break tradition. b. It assumes that women should not have an equal opportunity. c. It assumes that including women would mean that everyone would have to be included without restriction. d. It does not acknowledge that men are included in some women’s tournaments. e. It does not explain why the tournament is such a renowned event. This argument has many problems, including the fact that in general, it does not offer any truly logical reasons to support its conclusion. Of the options given, the best choice is c. This assumption is a slippery slope fallacy. Including women would not mean anyone could enter the tournament. This slippery slope is used as a sort of scare tactic to frighten off support for including women in the tournament. GMAT questions will often ask you to determine what evidence strengthens or weakens an argument or what information would help you better evaluate an argument. Now that you have reviewed the elements of evaluating arguments, take another look at this question from the pretest: 13. DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to exonerate the innocent. Because so many convicted felons have been cleared by DNA evidence, all cases in which someone was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence should be called into question and reviewed. Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen this argument? a. One in three convictions today rests largely on DNA evidence. b. DNA evidence is admissible even after the statute of limitations has expired. c. Of every ten cases in which DNA evidence becomes available post-conviction, five convictions are overturned. d. DNA evidence is 99.8% accurate. e. DNA evidence is very difficult to falsify or tamper with. To answer this question, you need to evaluate each of the options. The key question is which choice is the most relevant to the argument. As discussed earlier in this chapter, this is a controversial conclusion, so it should be backed by very strong evidence. Which of these claims provides the best support for the argument? The best choice is c. The fact that would most strengthen this argument is the percentage of cases in which DNA evidence overturned prior convictions. If a full half of all cases resulted in erroneous convictions that were later cleared by DNA evidence, then that should certainly draw other convictions into doubt. That means that potentially half of all felons have been wrongly convicted. The fact that one in three of today’s con- victions rest on DNA evidence has no bearing on prior convictions, so choice a is irrelevant. Similarly, the admissibility of DNA evidence (choice b) has no bearing on the quality of prior convictions; it is also irrel- evant. That DNA evidence is accurate (choice d) and difficult to tamper with (choice e) strengthens the argu- ment for the use of DNA evidence in court, but it does not directly strengthen the argument that prior convictions should be called into doubt. – CRITICAL REASONING– 103 . their only,or even their main, concern? Is that the real reason why they don’t support it? Chances are their position stems from a num- ber of issues of which reforming the IRS is only one. Once. all felons have been wrongly convicted. The fact that one in three of today’s con- victions rest on DNA evidence has no bearing on prior convictions, so choice a is irrelevant. Similarly, the admissibility. infor- mation presented on the test. For the moment, forget what you might know or how you might feel about the topic or issue. Base your answer only on the argument and evidence in front of you. Don’t