Ad Hominem's Argument Analysis

So, it is a normal day where two individuals, (Bill and Sam) are having a conversation over lunch. Bill complains Sam about how the weather has been abnormally cold lately. Sam follows this comment by saying, “Yeah, I know, and these liberals have been harping about global warming, yet it’s been snowing all over!” Bill thinks that Sam’s argument is logical and he agrees with him to switch the subject. However, what Sam just committed is a logical fallacy, additionally Bill was swayed into believing this falsehood. Nowhere in Sam’s argument did he have empirical evidence to make such a conclusion about global warming. Many people, past and present, have committed such errors daily, and most others may receive the information as factual based upon the false logic presented through personal experience or other methods.
First to understand what a fallacy is, it is imperative to comprehend what an argument is. In a few words, an argument consists of a premise (one or more) and a conclusion. A premise is a statement that is either true or false, and is made in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion.
There are two common types of arguments: inductive and deductive. An inductive argument is an argument that the premise gives less than complete

support of the conclusion. While a deductive argument consists of premises that provide complete support for the conclusion. An excellent inductive argument is known as a cogent argument, additionally if the premise is true, the conclusion is likely to be true. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument, moreover if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true. Now that the understanding of an argument has been established, it is time to define logical fallacy.
Logical fallacy is the generalized reasoning and common error of a subject that tends to undermine the logic of the argument. A more simplistic definition is: an error of reasoning. An example was given in the conversation between Bill and Sam. Sam had adopted the position that global warming could not possibly be real since it is snowing and severely cold. This position is based upon the poor reasoning that was not backed by factual evidence. There are numerous types of fallacies, each fall into two common types: formal and informal. These designations were codified in ancient Greece by the famous philosopher Aristotle.
Aristotle was the first formal and informal logician, in which he codified the rules of reasoning correctly, as well as cataloging the types of incorrect reasoning, more specifically, fallacies. He was the first to name the types of logical error, and to group them into categories, resulting in the book, “On Sophistical Refutations”. Although Aristotle holds these achievements of firsts, credit must be delivered to his mentor Plato for collecting examples of poor reasoning. Plato’s collection is a necessary preliminary piece of field work that led to the naming and cataloging. Plato’s “Euthydemus” holds a collection of fallacy-ridden arguments in dialogue-form among two sophists. It is for this reason that fallacious arguments are also known as “sophisms” and poor reasoning “sophistry”. Aristotle utilizes these terms in reference to some of his named fallacies.
Among Aristotle’s categorizations and labeled fallacies some of the popular and common are: red herring, anecdotal fallacy, ecological fallacy, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Ad hominem. Each of these types of fallacies tends to occur the more frequently, but are not the only kinds. Also note that even though they are referred to as different types of fallacies they are still maintained as logical fallacies.
A red herring is an error in logic, in which a proposition intentionally misleads in order to make irrelevant and/or false conclusions. To put it in simpler terms; an argument given in retort of another argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the focus of the argument. This is a diversionary tactic that is utilized to avoid the key issues often used by politicians and business individuals alike. Example: “Sure, we haven’t given raises in over five years to our employees. You know, we work really hard to make a good product. We try to ensure the best customer service, too.”
Anecdotal fallacy occurs when an individual uses a personal experience or isolated example, as the premise instead of sound reasoning and/or compelling evidence. This type of fallacy is often the kind that occurs between regular people in conversation. An example was given earlier in the conversation between Bill and Sam. Sam had no evidence and generalized his conclusion based upon the isolated event of weather.
Ecological fallacy is actually a grossly utilized error and is at the root of racism. This type occurs when inferences are made about a specific group of individuals, like race, based upon aggregate data of that group. An example of this can be found among the “Islamophobic” comments made in recent settings within America. It is assumed that all Muslims are radical and violent based upon the statistics of Middle Eastern terrorist attacks. However, the data does not reflect the attitude of all followers of Islam, rather it references extremists.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the most basic of logical fallacies. This is a conclusion made when assuming, if ‘X’ occurred after ‘Y’ then ‘Y’ must have caused ‘X’. Here is a more specific example: “Ari ate a catfish po’boy and now she is sick, so the po’boy must have made her sick.” The obvious problem seen is that the illness could have been caused from a number of things, yet the example would lead individuals to believe that the sandwich caused it.
Ad hominem is another favorite of politicians.

Ad hominem is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. There are many examples that have been given in the recent years of President Obama’s administration. A generalized example would be: “President Obama’s strategies aren’t effective because he is a Socialist.” In this example, there are actually two types of fallacies: Ad hominem and ecological. It is first and foremost an attack on the President’s character, however, it attempts to group him with Socialists. The statement does not describe the President’s strategies, only that they are ineffective. There is no truth behind the statement, nor does it possess physical

evidence.
In each of these common examples the potential for persuasion is high, especially among those of lower intellect and simple reasoning. This presents a stage of influence that affects the masses. Politicians, businessmen, and extremists tend to utilize logical fallacies to lead people sometimes towards positivity and other times in the direction of negativity. Individuals lack trust in the government due to logical fallacy. Racism exists as a result of aggregate error about whole cultures. Environmental issues are never fixed since most would believe global warming is fake. The trend behind this logically does not make sense as individuals are being influenced by an error in reasoning. To be affected by error, specifically logical fallacy poses a problem that will dwarf all others for if people always follow blindly like sheep nothing will ever change.