8 Ways on How to Catch Others Avoiding Answering a Question (With Fallacies)
Introduction
Ah! Fallacies. The errors in logic.
Fallacies are errors in reasoning, which result in faulty, misleading, or unsound arguments.
It’s basically ‘bad logic.’
Have you ever had an argument with someone and they continuously used new ideas that started to make no sense?
I recently had an argument with someone at work and we had a discussion about the Super Bowl LVIII in 2024.
He claimed that the producers showed Taylor Swift wayyyyyyyyyyyy too much.
So I looked it up. The Super Bowl showed Taylor Swift a whopping total of…
53 seconds.
Out of the average 3.5 hours of showtime (including the halftime show) from start to finish.
Yes, there was a lot of hype and animosity towards the pop star with her relationship with Travis Kelce, but 53 seconds was not that much in my opinion. In fact, what was considered too much screen time?
The entire discussion was riddled with weird fallacies.
Keep in mind that not all of these will be discussed in this blog. Since this book has so many fallacies worth discussing, I’m breaking this book up into a four-part series.
“That’s like 10 plays!” (weak analogy)
Yes, but Taylor’s screentime is not the same as the screentime of football plays even at the Super Bowl. All games will take time off the field to film the crowd and other big names in attendance.
“The fact you Google’d ‘how long was Taylor Swift shown at the Super Bowl’ and there were multiple sources proves that they showed Taylor Swift too much.” (appeal to the people)
Yes because I’m sure that millions of people are having this same argument. Sources wanted an answer so now it’s querable by the public. It does not mean that Taylor Swift was shown way too much. This can easily be recency bias.
“I think since we’re a democratic nation, we should vote to see who agrees that they showed Taylor Swift too much at the Super Bowl.” (whole-to-part; appeal to the people)
Just because we live in a democratic country does not mean that this office is exactly like one. A popularity contest does not prove that Taylor Swift has had ‘wayyyyyyyyyyy too much’ screentime. These are opinions of, frankly, a bunch of Army dudes here that all seem to dislike T Swizzle.
We finally concluded that Taylor Swift had ‘waayyyyyyyy too much’ screentime in comparison to other celebrities.
I can accept that answer. It just took a whole lot longer to get to that answer by filtering through bad logic.
Anyway, here are 8 ways on how we can avoid answering the question using fallacies and how we can spot when others use these in the school setting (Disclaimer: Yes, I’ve been guilty of using these but I’m only human).
For a complete guide on these fallacies, check the link to my book notes for The Fallacy Detective.
1) Red Herring
Red herring is used to introduce an irrelevant point into an argument to think it proves your side or distracts from the argument, itself.
It’s when someone throws something into an argument that doesn’t support the original argument and acts as a distraction.
This is one of my favorite ones because they’re perfect when setting up an “off-the-wall” punchline in response to someone’s question or argument.
In the classroom it can look like this:
Ivana P: Can I go to the bathroom right now?
Teacher: No.
Ivana P: Why not?
Teacher: Because I said so.
I think we’ve all heard this one before. It’s the red herring as old as time.
Ivana wants to know why she can’t use the bathroom right now. Expecting a valid answer, Ivana doesn’t hear one. It doesn’t support the “why.”
Maybe the teacher wants Ivana to wait because you’re about to say something important to the class
Or maybe Ivana abuses her restroom time by taking her sweet time to escape classroom instruction.
Either way, it may be best to give Ivana a valid reason why she should wait. If it’s the ladder reason, maybe tell her privately.
Tip: Try giving some autonomy to Ivana by asking her if she can hold it until the lesson is over. This gives Ivana a choice and empowers her to take control of her autonomy. And hey, if she uses the restroom and comes back confused because she missed something important then have a classmate explain to her. These are natural consequences of actions.
2) Special Pleading
Special pleading is when we use a double standard or argue for an unjustified exception.
I’m not going to lie, I’ve been guilty of this one and I think all teachers have both used and fallen for this at some point in their careers.
This may poke some sensitive areas but when we use it for our gain, it’s what we call “hypocritical” in the biz.
Here’s one example:
Teacher: Welcome to the first day of school. Let’s go over some school policies. No running in the hallways, no phones in class, no chewing gum…
A month goes by.
Erica: Hey, how come you’re chewing gum, Mr. Park? You can’t chew gum. It’s against school rules!
Me: Yeah but I’m a teacher so I can get away with it.
Before you all raise your fists in the air, I never chewed gum in front of the kids but I do remember one colleague did and her identity shall remain hidden.
Let’s be honest. No one likes a hypocrite and we need to keep ourselves in check in front of the kids.
Okay here’s one that I’ve actually been very guilty of.
Teacher: Welcome to the first day of school. Let’s go over some school policies. No running in the hallways, no phones in class, no chewing gum…
A month goes by.
Me: (watching students with the guest speaker while playing Madden Mobile on my phone)
Now you can raise your fists at me. What can I say? I had to grind out some events to get a platinum cornerback. Defense wins championships!
Tip: Try to be mindful of which standards are applied to the students and try your best to abide by them. We can’t win them all (for example, we need our phones on us at all times) but some kids are aware of these double standards.
3) Ad Hominem
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “to the man.”
We use this when we choose to not focus on the argument and attack someone else’s character or motives.
As educators, I would highly advise resorting to this. Things can get personal quickly
Observe:
Upset parent: How come my daughter failed her math test? I’ve been helping her with her math homework every night.
Teacher: Are you mad because you have a PhD in mathematics and your daughter is struggling?
Obviously, this is a clear attack on the upset parent but this can be damaging in two ways:
Asking why you think a parent is mad does not address the argument: How come the daughter failed her math test?
The bridge analogy for the relationship is being lit on fire with those words. As professionals, there are times when we need to remain emotionless and unbiased, and this was one of those times.
Here’s an example of someone attacking one’s motives:
Teacher: Alright class. Let’s break up into groups of 4 for this science experiment.
Geno: DK, Jaxon. Come here!
Jaxon: We still need one more person.
DK: I think Tyler doesn’t have a group yet.
Jaxon: You just want Tyler because he’s your best friend.
Let’s break this down.
Even if Tyler is DK’s best friend, is that a strong argument as to why Tyler should not be in the group?
What if Tyler is great at science? What if he’s a hardworking kid?
Tip: Attacking someone’s character or motives is a near-surefire way to escalate a situation beyond proportion. We need to be aware if someone’s response does not address the argument and is just a way to rile us up by personally attacking us. Likewise, we should be able to identify when someone’s response does not address the argument. Call the kids out!
4) Genetic Fallacy
Definition: Condemns an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.
If an argument was made from a bad person or a bad event, it doesn’t mean the argument is bad itself.
Cakes are delicious but if I eat sugar, eggs, and flour separately, it’s not the same thing.
I think we can be quick to assume things based on who or where something comes from.
This happens whether it involves politics, news, celebrities, etc.
As the judges, jury, and executioners in our classrooms, it becomes important to make sure that our biases don’t get in the way of everything we do and say.
Think about how we often tend to label students.
Teacher’s pet. Bossy. Shy. Sensitive. The list goes on.
Observe:
Fletcher: Mr. Park, did you know my dad was a professional football player?
Mr. Park: Oh yeah? Fletcher, I’ve noticed that I’ve caught you stretching the truth sometimes. This sounds like one of those times.
This is based on the assumption that even if Fletcher “lies” from time to time, his “fact” about his dad is a lie.
We have to be careful here because we can’t just assume that since the statement is coming from someone who lies, everything he/she says is also a lie.
What if Fletcher’s dad really was a professional football player?
Here’s another example:
Art Teacher: Hey, I think I caught Selena saying a curse word in class today.
Teacher: Selena? There’s no way. She’s one of my top students! She could never…
Or could she?
How could someone as sweet as Selena be so sour like the sauce?
Be careful with assumptions and genetic fallacies. We can’t just assume that our prior assumptions about who or where something came from make it either correct or incorrect.
Tip: Don’t be quick to judge where or who something is coming from. Be mindful of how we label our students and when we catch ourselves quickly falling prey to our biases, seek the truth. Challenge assumptions and keep your mind sharp at all times, my fellow teachers.
5) Tu Quoque
Tu quoque is Latin for “you too.” This also implies that “two wrongs don’t make it right.”
Definition: Dismissing someone’s viewpoint because he/she is inconsistent in the same thing (a.k.a. hypocritical).
This makes me think of when one person who does or did the same thing tries to tell you otherwise.
We mentioned that we should refrain from double standards so this falls in line with this too.
Just because someone does or did the same thing, does not mean that it’s the right thing to do.
Observe:
Ms. Orange: Sorry I’m late everyone. There was crazy traffic this morning.
Mr. Apple: You shouldn’t come to work late.
Ms. Orange: That’s funny. Weren’t you late last week to Joseph’s IEP meeting?
Alright so maybe Ms. Orange is getting spicy with her comeback but even though Mr. Apple was last to someone’s meeting last week doesn’t give Ms. Orange a pass and it is okay for her to be late today.
I know what you’re probably thinking.
But, Mr. Apple! That hypocrite! Off with his head!
Yes, this is true. He probably shouldn’t have been so quick to be snarky when he was inconsistent himself.
At the same time, did Mr. Apple have a point though? Should you come to work late? Some principals, and other employers, don’t find this to be a positive characteristic to observe.
This is important when it comes to students and the behaviors that feed off of each other.
Here’s a trickier one.
Ash punches Brock. Brock punches Ash back.
It’s a textbook example of what teachers want versus what some parents want.
I’m sure some of us have heard of moms and dads wanting their children to fight back if someone swings first.
I get it.
At the same time, just because one person swings first doesn’t make it rational that the other must do it in return. We can’t assume that one action validates the same action.
Tip: No one likes a hypocrite. If you spot one that did or does the thing that you’re doing as well, it doesn’t strengthen your argument. Just because someone else has been guilty of that same action does not validate yours. Be accountable for your actions. Be better.
6) Faulty Appeal to Authority
When we support our arguments, it makes sense to use credible, reliable figures that are authorities on a given subject.
When we don’t, we’re engaging with a faulty appeal to authority fallacy.
This is when we turn to someone and use him/her as a credible source who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
This can be like when someone quotes financial advice about cryptocurrency from a TikTok influencer.
I’m not saying all the influencers out there are not credible but it can be easy to mislead the public with false knowledge when you’re not an expert in the field and you’ve already had an established fan base.
Observe:
Gary: My dad says aliens are real so they must exist out there.
Teacher: And what does your dad do for a living, Gary?
Gary: He works for an insurance company.
Oh, Gary… While it’s plausible that other lifeforms live out there in the 90 billion light years of the universe, Gary is using his dad as an authority on the subject of aliens when he isn’t an expert on the field. It’s not to say that he’s wrong but the support for Gary’s argument is lacking.
This also applies to using just a single figure of authority who is an expert on his/her subject.
Observe:
Mr. Yeller: I heard that yelling at students actually benefits the classroom.
Ms. Peace: Where did you get this information?
Mr. Yeller: A researcher at the education department at Yale.
While Mr. Yeller is appropriately using a valid authority to back up his argument, one person is still not enough evidence to truly strengthen one’s argument.
It’s a start but an “anomaly” in a field of experts does not make the argument instantly correct.
Let’s think about it.
If educators are constantly diverting attention toward every novel idea that proves other studies wrong just once, we’re just a fish in a bowl constantly chasing shiny baubles.
How was the study conducted? Did other researchers criticize the methods?
This is not to say that we shouldn’t explore new ideas to improve our field; it just means that we can’t take brand new pieces of information or studies and treat them like law. It requires time to ensure that new ideas can truly pass the test of time.
Until then, it might be a wise decision to go with the group of experts and implement those evidence-based practices in the classroom.
Tip: Be careful with whom you use to support your arguments in front of peers and students. If you’re willing to double down to address an argument with someone, use actual experts in the field from where you’re drawing your conclusions from. Additionally, don’t just name-drop one expert. Make sure that more experts are on board with your argument to give your support more weight.
7) Appeal to People
The appeal to the people fallacy is when we claim our viewpoint is correct because many people agree with it.
I think a lot of us fall for this like how my coworker thought that a popularity contest would settle if Taylor Swift was shown too much at the Super Bowl. And it can be incredibly dangerous sometimes.
Think about how many people who doom scroll on their phones before bed. Or chase the latest fad diets. Or go nightclubbing on Thursdays because the drinks are cheaper?
What about all those myths that get debunked?
Like the strictly left brain/right brain myth? Or how humans can only use 10% of their brains? Or people with different learning styles?
To tell yourself that if everyone does it or thinks it, it must be true is illogical. That’s not how it works or serves as a strong enough support for an argument.
Just because a lot of people think or do something, does not validate it.
Here’s a good example:
Albert: Can we have pizza Fridays every Friday?
Literally every kid in the classroom: Yesssssssssssss! We should do that!
Albert: Everyone agrees with me. So we should have pizza on Fridays from now on!
Nice try, Albert but just because everyone agrees with you does not make your argument correct.
Also, who’s paying for that pizza? That ain’t my problem.
What about when teachers use their power to create storms in the classroom?
Observe.
Angry Teacher: This class has been rude and disruptive all morning. And because of that, everyone owes me 10 minutes of recess! If anyone disagrees with that, let me know now. No one? Okay, so it looks like we all agree that this class owes me 10 minutes of recess. Time starts now.
This is a controversial one but we can try dissecting it.
Just because no one disagreed does not mean that everyone should have owed recess time.
In fact, there’s a good chance that no one publically disagreed because they didn’t want to make it worse.
But come on, the teacher is really saying that every single student was rude and disruptive?
Even so, why does that equate to lost recess?
Tip: Be careful with conformity. Just because a lot of people think or do something, does not strengthen your argument. Learn to think outside the box. Also, I would refrain from mass punishments. The ones who are trying to behave may not want to do so anymore…
8) Straw Man
This fallacy is when we distort or exaggerate an opponent’s position to make it easier to knock it down.
It’s basically dramatizing what someone says and it can be kind of funny when you catch it in time.
For example:
Ms. Sunny: I think my class needs to spend more time on math this afternoon.
Mr. Rain: Wow. Someone really hates reading, science, social studies, and health subjects.
Relax Mr. Rain. It’s not that deep.
His immediate assumption exaggerated Ms. Sunny’s statement to make it sound like she hates other subjects, making it easier to refute.
Also, just because Ms. Sunny wants to spend an afternoon catching up on math does not translate to her hate for other subjects.
We cannot just assume the wildest things out of small occurrences to paint bad pictures for other people. I don’t think anyone should strive to be this kind of person.
Now, imagine I wrote here a really smooth segue to the next transition.
One of my favorite times of the year is when it gets closer to the winter holidays.
Let’s be honest. I get time away from the students, relax, and sometimes hang out with friends and family.
But one of the things I will always cherish is the gifts I receive from students and parents.
Even though I always get at least one coffee mug a year, I just appreciate the sentiment and thought that goes through the gifts.
Especially Starbucks gift cards (I give these to my mom, sorry!). Imagine if this were me.
Grateful Parent: Hey Mr. Park! Merry Christmas! Here’s a Starbucks gift card for you.
Mr. Park: Ah yes, this is delightf- what is the meaning of this?! “Happy Holidays?!” What happened to good ol’ Merry Christmas? Starbucks clearly hates Christians!
First off, I don’t care what religion any of you practice, or none at all. Just because Starbucks has been changing what would be traditionally Merry Christmas to something more inclusive to all religions (you mean there’s more than one religion celebrated in the US? Shocker), doesn’t mean that the Seattle-based coffee-serving chain hates Christians.
Notice in this made-up scenario, I assumed that since Starbucks had moved away from traditional greetings on gift cards, I dramatized that this was clearly the company’s outward hate for a specific religious affiliation.
Not true.
This is an error in one’s thinking to assume such a thing. It sounds very manipulative and closed-minded if you think about it.
Tip: Be careful when trying to distort or exaggerate what someone else says. Although politicians like to use this to make the other person look evil, this is probably something we should avoid as professionals. Small things don’t equal catastrophic things.
