Lesson Plan

Monty Python and the Quest for the Perfect Fallacy

SUMMARY
If you weigh the same as a duck, then, logically, youre made of wood and must be a
witch. Or so goes the reasoning of Monty Pythons Sir Bedevere. Obviously something
has gone wrong with the knights reasoning and by the end of this lesson, youll know
exactly what that is. This lesson will focus on 10 fallacies that represent the most
common types of mistakes in reasoning.
KEY TERMS
Argument: A conclusion together with the premises that support it.
Premise: A reason offered as support for another claim.
Conclusion: A claim that is supported by a premise.
Valid: An argument whose premises genuinely support its conclusion.
Unsound: An argument that has at least one false premise.
Fallacy: An argument that relies upon faulty reasoning.
Booby-trap: An argument that, while not a fallacy itself, might lead an inattentive
reader to commit a fallacy.
Examples
Example 1: Whichever basketball team scores the most points will win the game.
Virginia scored more points than UNC. Therefore Virginia won the game.
In Example 1, the first two sentences are premises and the third is the
conclusion. The argument is valid, for the two premises provide genuine support
for the conclusion.
Example 2: Whichever candidate receives the greatest share of the popular vote will be
elected President of the United States. Al Gore received more votes than George Bush.
Therefore, Al Gore was elected President of the United States.
Example 2 has exactly the same structure as Example 1. The first two sentences
are premises, and the third sentence is the arguments conclusion. The
difference, of course, is that in Example 2, the first premise is false. Getting the
most votes is not the way one gets elected president. So Example 2 is unsound.
BACKGROUND
Arguments can be bad for one of several reasons. They might fail because one of the
premises is false. For example:

If Burger King sells Big Macs, then McDonalds will go out of business.
Burger King does sell Big Macs.
Therefore, McDonalds will go out of business.
In this argument, the first two lines are premises and the third line is the conclusion. The
argument is formally valid (that is, if the premises were true, then the conclusion would
have to follow). Its also unsound, since Burger King is not in the business of selling Big
Macs, and thus McDonalds franchise is safe (or at least it wont fail for this reason!).
Arguments also fail when the conclusion does not properly follow from the premises.
Baptists are often politically conservative. (premise)
Republicans are also often politically conservative. (premise)
Therefore Baptists are often Republicans. (conclusion)
This sort of argument can be extremely seductive, but logically it does not work.
Consider another argument that has exactly the same form:
John Elway is a great quarterback. (premise)
Michael Vick is a great quarterback. (premise)
Therefore, Michael Vick is really John Elway. (conclusion)
Both arguments are invalid, for even if their premises are true, their conclusions can still
be false. Many logical fallacies are of just this sort: They offer reasons that fail to
support their conclusions.
Finally, some arguments are bad not because they make false claims or because they
commit some logical error, but rather because they are booby-traps for unsuspecting
readers.
Dr. Roy Spencer, who is a prominent climate scientist at the University of
Alabama at Huntsville and winner of NASAs Medal for Exceptional Scientific
Achievement, doesnt think that humans are causing global warming (premise).
So humans are probably not causing global warming. (conclusion)
Formally speaking, there is nothing fallacious about this argument. It appeals to
authority, but Dr. Spencer is fairly clearly an appropriate authority on the matter of
global warming. So as far as it goes, this is a good argument. The problem, however, is
that the argument leaves out an important bit of information, namely that the
overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is being
caused by humans. But by suppressing important evidence, the argument is potentially
a booby-trap for unwary readers.
MATERIALS

1. Student handout #1, Common Fallacies and Booby-Traps

http://factchecked.org/Downloads/LessonPlans/Fallacies/student.handout.comm
on.fallacies%282%29.pdf
2. Student handout #2, Sample Fallacies
http://factchecked.org/Downloads/student.handout.sample.fallacies%281%29.pdf
3. Teacher version of student handout #2, Sample Fallacies
http://factchecked.org/Downloads/teacher.handout.sample.fallacies%281%29.pdf
4. Video, Monty Python, The Argument Clinic
http://youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
5. Video, Monty Python, The Witchs Trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
6. Teacher handout, Teachers Guide to the Witchs Trial Argument
http://factchecked.bootnetworks.com/Downloads/LessonPlans/Fallacies/teacher.
handout.witchs.trial.pdf
7. Lexus commercial, Moments
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fUdkzk4kNx0
8. Vernon Robinson ad, Twilight Zone
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=fe78f475b3fdb079243e
9. Coca-Cola commercial, No More Regrets for Old Man
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=144ddade56fca3cd710f
10. Video, Bush-Hitler, ad produced for MoveOn.org contest
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d599736ffe74624b615b
11. Link to helpful fallacy site, for students interested in exploring the topic further:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
12. Internet access is needed for this lesson
INSTRUCTIONS
Take time to review and familiarize yourself with the common fallacies and booby traps
described in student handout #1.
Make a copy of handout #3 for yourself only.
Make copies of student handouts # 1 and #2 and pass them out at the beginning of
class.
EXERCISES
Exercise #1 The basic fallacies
To the Teacher: Emphasize to the students that picking out fallacies is more art than
science. Some arguments are bad but not fallacies, and some arguments are so bad
that they could very well be more than one kind of fallacy. Getting the name of the
fallacy right is far less important than understanding why the argument in question is a
bad argument.
Go over the list of Common Fallacies and Booby-Traps, student handout #1, with the
full class. Ask them for examples of each of the pitfalls as you describe them.
Exercise #2 Identifying fallacies

Divide students into groups of 3 or 4 and have them look at the Sample Fallacies
handout. Ask students to work together to evaluate the arguments on the list. Each
argument contains either a fallacy or a booby-trap. Some arguments contain more than
one type of fallacy. Ask students to identify the fallacy (or fallacies) and/or booby-trap(s)
in each argument. Then ask students to report back on their findings.
Questions to consider:
Are any of the arguments unsound (that is, have premises that are just plain
false)?
Which arguments commit one of the five types of logical fallacies we have
discussed?
Which arguments present possible booby-traps for unwary readers?
Exercise #3 Ordinary language arguments.
To the Teacher: One of the hardest parts of dealing with fallacies is learning to make
the leap from the theoretical to the practical. Sample classroom exercises are chosen
because they clearly (or fairly clearly) exhibit a particular sort of fallacy. Picking fallacies
out of ordinary, everyday language can be more difficult. Knowing that a straw man is
an oversimplification of an opponents views is much easier than knowing that this
particular argument commits the straw man fallacy. Getting students to think about why
they classify a particular argument as they do is far more important than the
classification they end up offering. See the Teachers Guide to the Witchs Trial
Argument for more details on this specific exercise.
Show the Witchs Trial clip to the class. Then ask the students to assess, in their small
groups, the arguments presented.
1. What is the argument being offered? It is sometimes helpful to paraphrase it. You
might consider writing down each premise as a separate line. Keep in mind that
sometimes a larger argument might contain smaller sub-arguments. Remember
a helpful tip for thinking about arguments: Look at a statement and then ask
yourself, Why should I believe that? Then read the rest of the argument. If no
other statement provides a reason for believing the one you just read, then the
statement youre looking at is probably a premise. If there is another statement
that offers an answer to the why question, then the statement answering the why
question is a premise, and the one youre looking at is a conclusion.
2. Look at each conclusion. Now assess the reasons (premises) being offered for
that conclusion. Ask yourselves two questions about those premises. (1) Do I
have any cause to believe that the premises are true? (2) Do the premises
logically support the conclusion?
3. Assess the arguments for fallacies and/or booby-traps. Do any of the arguments
make logical errors? Might the arguments lead you to commit a fallacy?
Exercise #4 Fallacies in advertising
To the Teacher: Not all arguments are found in textbooks. Indeed, the most common
source of arguments is the world of advertising (whether political or commercial). All ads
present an argument (i.e., vote for my candidate or buy my product) and all present a

reason (or reasons) for that conclusion. Very rarely, however, do those ads present
good reasons for their conclusions. Far more common are distortions, fallacies and
booby-traps, all designed to part unwary viewers from their money.
Each small group should be assigned an advertisement to watch and analyze. Ask the
groups to determine what, if any, mistakes are being made in the arguments. Then have
each group come to some agreement as to why the ad is an example of a particular sort
of fallacy or booby-trap. Ask the students to identify the fallacy/fallacies presented in
each ad.
Use the same guidelines you used in Exercise #3 that is, identify the argument being
presented, as well as the premises.
1. First, identify the argument being presented. It is sometimes helpful to
paraphrase the argument. You might consider writing down each premise as a
separate line. Keep in mind that sometimes a larger argument might contain
smaller sub-arguments. Refer to the helpful tips above for thinking about
arguments. Remember that arguments may be implied rather than stated
explicitly. Ask yourselves, What am I supposed to believe after I watch this ad?
and Why do they ask me to believe it?
2. Look at each conclusion. Now assess the reasons (premises) being offered for
that conclusion. Ask yourselves two questions about those premises. (1) Do I
have any cause to believe that the premises are true? (2) Do the premises
logically support the conclusion?
3. Assess the arguments for fallacies and/or booby-traps. Do any of the arguments
make logical errors? Might the arguments lead you to commit a fallacy?
About the clips (for the teacher):
1. Clip 1, Lexus Moments. This ad is fairly typical of a whole class of commercial
advertisements. It is one long (very well done) red herring. The general approach
is always the same: Invoke a number of positive images and then place your
product at the very end. Many ads use sex in this way (e.g., Axe commercials,
most beer commercials, Hardees/Carls Jr. ads, etc.) The Lexus spot provides
quick cuts of multiple good images, with corresponding voice-over. At the end
viewers are invited to savor all of lifes momentswhile being treated to an
image of a Lexus driving down the road.
2. Clip 2, Vernon Robinson, Twilight Zone. This ad from a 2006 House candidate
commits too many fallacies to list individually. Easy examples: equivocating on
aliens, suppressed evidence (that it is not, in fact, illegal to say under God in
the pledge of allegiance; that Jackson and Sharpton support racial quotas which
are, in fact, already illegal), and straw men (you can burn the American flag and
kill babies pretty seriously oversimplifies the arguments at issue).
3. Clip 3, Coca-Cola, No More Regrets for Old Man. This is a (humorous) instance
of a false cause fallacy. In the commercial, drinking a Coke causes the old man
to go out and do all the things that hes never done before. Obviously, though,
there is no evidence that drinking a Coke will actually cause this sort of behavior.

4. Clip 4, Bush-Hitler. This is a special instance of the genetic fallacy, one

common enough that some lists of fallacies include it as a separate instance. The
basic structure of the argument is something like the following:
Person X did/said/believed some particular thing Y.
Hitler also did/said/believed Y.
Therefore, we ought to reject Y.
OR
Therefore, person X is just as bad as Hitler.
The first of those conclusions is a genetic fallacy. The second possible
conclusion is an undistributed middle. The Bush-Hitler ad is doing the second of
those two things.

CORRELATION TO NATIONAL STANDARDS

National Social Studies Standards
X. Civic Ideals and Practices
Social studies programs should include experiences that provide for the study of the
ideals, principles, and practices of citizenship in a democratic republic.
Essential Skills for Social Studies
Acquiring Information
A. Reading Skills
1. Comprehension
2. Vocabulary
B. Study Skills
1. Find Information
2. Arrange Information in Usable Forms
C. Reference & Information-Search Skills
2. Special References
D. Technical Skills Unique to Electronic Devices
1. Computer
Organizing and Using Information
A. Thinking Skills
1. Classify Information
2. Interpret Information
3. Analyze Information
4. Summarize Information
5. Synthesize Information
6. Evaluate Information
B. Decision-Making Skills
C. Metacognitive Skills
Interpersonal Relationships & Social Participation
A. Personal Skills
C. Social and Political Participation Skills
Democratic Beliefs and Values

B. Freedoms of the Individual

C. Responsibilities of the Individual
National Mathematics Standards
Process Standards
Reasoning and Proof Standard
National Educational Technology Standards
2. Make informed choices among technology systems, resources, and services.
7. Routinely and efficiently use online information resources to meet needs for
collaboration, research, publication, communication, and productivity.
8. Select and apply technology tools for research, information analysis, problem solving,
and decision making in content learning.
Information Literacy Standards
Information Literacy
Standard 1 The student who is information literate assesses information efficiently and
effectively.
Indicators 1 - 5
Standard 2 The student who is information literate evaluates information critically and
competently.
Indicators 1 - 3
Standard 3 The student who is information literate uses information accurately and
creatively.
Indicators 2 - 4
Social Responsibility
Standard 7 The student who contributes positively to the learning community and to
society is information literate and recognizes the importance of information to a
democratic society.
Indicator 1
Standard 8 The student who contributes positively to the learning community and to
society is information literate and practices ethical behavior in regard to information and
information technology.
Indicator 3
Standard 9 The student who contributes positively to the learning community and to
society is information literate and participates effectively in groups to pursue and
generate information.
Indicators 1 - 3
English Language Arts Standards
Standard 1 Students read a wide range of print and non-print texts to build an
understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the
world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and
the workplace; and for personal fulfillment. Among these texts are fiction and nonfiction,
classic and contemporary work.

Standard 3 Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret,

evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions
with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their
word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., soundletter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
Standard 5 Students employ a wide range of strategies as the write and use different
writing process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a
variety of purposes.
Standard 6 Students apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions
(e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to
create, critique, and discuss print and non-print texts.
Standard 7 Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and
questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a
variety of sources (e.g., print and non-print texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their
discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience.
Standard 8 Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g.,
libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information
and to create and communicate knowledge.
Standard 12 Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their
own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of
information).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joe Miller received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Virginia. He is a
staff writer at FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvanias
Annenberg Public Policy Center. Prior to joining FactCheck, he served as an
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at West Point and at the University of North
Carolina at Pembroke, where he taught logic, critical thinking, ethics and political
theory. The winner of an Outstanding Teacher award at UNC-Pembroke and an
Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant award at the University of Virginia, Joe
has over 10 years of experience developing curriculum. He is a member of
American Philosophical Association and the Association for Political Theory.