E. Shifting ground.

This fallacy usually arises from using a word in a double capacity. For instance, "Every American citizen should be democratic in his conduct; therefore he should vote the Democratic ticket," is an example of this fallacy. Here the term democratic is used in more than one sense. It is first used to indicate an attitude of kindly sympathy towards one's fellow men; then it is used to designate a political party. Likewise we might argue in an equally fallacious manner that because this country is a republic, every man should vote the Republican ticket. The cause of this fallacy is usually a failure on the part of the arguer to define exactly his own position and to state the meaning of vital words used in the proposition. An unscrupulous debater will take advantage of this fallacy as soon as he is cornered by shifting to a different meaning of the words employed. Whenever a debater begins to prove one proposition and ends by upholding another proposition he has shifted ground. This fallacy is usually so concealed in a maze of words that its detection is difficult.

F. Refuting an argument which has not been advanced.

This form of ignoring the question may arise from a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the opposition or from an honest mistake as to just what argument has been advanced. In either case it ignores the question at issue and is a useless expenditure of time and effort. Sometimes a debater cannot refute the arguments advanced by his opponents and he therefore seeks to occupy his time by arguing against contentions which he thought would be advanced but which in reality have not been mentioned. It is far better not to argue at all than to ignore the real points at issue in this manner. G. Arguing on a related proposition.

This is a very common way of ignoring the question. For example, in support of prohibition, a debater often proves

that temperance is a benefit to the community. The real question is whether prohibition is advisable as a means of dealing with the liquor traffic. The question as to whether temperance benefits the community is only related. Therefore to argue in support of the related question is to ignore the real one. In a debate on the proposition "Resolved, that the compulsory arbitration of strikes is practicable in the United States" the affirmative devoted its efforts to proving that the system would be of great advantage to the country and that it had worked well in New Zealand. The question, whether compulsory arbitration is practicable in the United States, was entirely ignored by its advocates arguing in support of two related propositions which might be stated as follows: "Resolved, that the compulsory arbitration of strikes would be of great advantage to the United States," and "Resolved, that compulsory arbitration of strikes has worked well in New Zealand." The real question at issue was entirely ignored.

(4). Begging the question.

To beg the question is to assume its truth or falsity without proof. This does not mean a direct assumption of truth or falsity but an indirect assumption reached in a circuitous manner by an appearance of logical reasoning. In logic this error is called petitio principi. It may appear in many different forms but the following are the most frequently encountered:

This error involves more than one syllogism. It begins by assuming the truth of a premise, next upon this premise a conclusion is built and then finally this very conclusion is used in an attempt to prove the premise with which the syllogism was begun. For example, a student is urged to take the course in corporation law in the Harvard Law School

because it is the best in the country. When the student inquires why it is the best in the country he is told that it is the best because it is given in the Harvard Law School. In other words no reason is given but the statement stripped of its semblance of reasoning is merely that the Harvard Law School is the best because it is the best.

An excellent example showing the refutation of a circular argument is found in Percival and Jelliffe's Specimens of Exposition and Argument. It is taken from the argument of Felix Adler against the evils of child labor in the United States.

"There is one other argument so un-American and so inhuman that I am almost ashamed to quote it, and yet it has been used, and I fear is secretly in the minds of some who would not openly stand for it. A manufacturer standing near the furnace of a glasshouse and pointing to a procession of young Slav boys who were carrying the glass on trays, remarked 'Look at their faces, and you will see that it is idle to take them from the glasshouse in order to give them an education; they are what they are, and will always remain what they are.' He meant that there are some human beings and these Slavs of the number-who are mentally irredeemable, so fast asleep intellectually that they cannot be awakened; designed by nature, therefore, to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. This cruel and wicked thing was said of Slavs; it is the same thing which has been said from time immemorial by the slave owners of their slaves. First they degrade human beings by denying them opportunity to develop their better nature; no schools, no teaching, no freedom, no outlook; and then, as if in mockery, they point to the degraded condition of their victims as a reason why they should never be allowed to escape from it."

B. Directly assuming the point at issue.

In directly assuming the truth of the point at issue much

language is employed which tends to conceal the lack of real proof. Stripped of their wealth of expression such so-called arguments appear as bare unsupported assertions. The following is a good example of this fallacy: "Up to the time when the crime was committed, the character of the prisoner was above reproach, for his conduct was always characterized by honest respect for law and order."

Often a single word may directly assume the truth or falsity of the proposition under discussion. In opposing the proposition "Resolved, that the boycott is a proper policy for organized labor," the first speaker began by saying, "It is our purpose to prove that the wicked and pernicious system of boycotting is not a proper policy for organized labor." This statement begged the whole proposition by assuming at the outset that boycotting is wicked and pernicious. A subsequent speaker committed the same fallacy by saying, "We contend that there are ways by which organized labor can accomplish its purpose that are unlike the boycottlegitimate and proper." In some cases such question-begging words as those employed above are used in defining the terms of the proposition. This manner of defining terms begs the question as effectively and directly as any of the other fallacious practices discussed under this heading.

C. Indirectly assuming the point at issue.

One of the most common ways of begging the question is to assume the truth of a broad general proposition which includes the one under discussion. This does not directly assume the truth of the proposition but does it indirectly. For instance, a student declared that "Our football team will win the championship, because the captain of the team says we cannot lose it." This begs the point at issue, namely— whether our team will win the championship, by assuming the truth of a broader proposition, namely that whatever the captain of the team says is true.

The same result follows the assumption of particular truths which the proposition involves. In supporting the proposition, "Resolved, that the state should prescribe uniform text-books for the public schools" a student attempted to prove that public instruction should be uniform throughout the state. He thus assumed that uniform text-books would secure uniform public instruction throughout the state. This was a particular proposition involved in the main proposition, and it was the duty of the debater to show that uniform textbooks would bring about uniform public instruction.

III. Fallacies of causal relation.

We have already considered the importance of causal relation in argumentation. A relation clearly established between a cause and an effect affords a substantial basis for valid reasoning. The failure to establish such relation results in error. Of course the causal relation may exist although undiscovered. Nevertheless, the failure to show such relation should always be considered as a warning to look out for fallacies.

1. Fallacies of the argument from effect to cause.

The argument from effect to cause may be shown to contain a fallacy by proving any one of the following contentions:

1. That the alleged cause was not sufficient to produce the effect.

2. That an independent cause intervened between the alleged cause and the effect.

3. That the alleged cause was prevented from operating.

In arguing from a known effect to an unknown cause certain fallacies occur with such frequency that we must give them special attention. Of these common errors the following are the most important: