ATP 2-33.4, page 26

Chapter 2 e Argumentum ad populum (“argument to the people"): This fallacy uses an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. There are three basic approaches: = Bandwagon approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action (COA), the argument must be true or the COA must be the best one. For instance, “Over a million people purchased that phone rather than one with competing software; all those people can’t be wrong. That company must make the best phones.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid. = Patriotic approach: “Draping oneself in the flag.” This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are somehow unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, or godless communism. A true American would never use this approach: “And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.” = Snob approach: This type of argumentum ad populum does not assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “The top analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency agree that my analytic approach is correct.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the analyst’s assertion is not an equal to the “top analysts of the Central Intelligence Agency,” and thus has no right to question the analytic conclusions. e Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future. Fallacies of Omission 2.35. Fallacies of omission occur when an analyst leaves out necessary material in a conclusion or inference. Some fallacies of omission include oversimplification, composition, division, post hoc, false dilemma, hasty generalization, and special pleading. e@ Oversimplification is a generality that fails to adequately account for all the complex conditions bearing on a problem. Oversimplification results when one or more of the complex conditions pertaining to a certain situation is omitted and includes ignoring facts, using generalities, and/or applying an inadequately qualified generalization to a specific case. For example, an ordnance specialist inspecting a captured, handcarried, surface-to-air missile launcher concludes that the threat has no effective low-level air defense. The assessment is based on the fact that the weapons system is equipped with antiquated guidance mechanisms. The ordnance specialist’s conclusion omits the following considerations: = That this piece of equipment may not be the enemy’s only low-level air defense weapon. = That the launcher may have been planted by the threat to give a misleading picture of the threat’s true capabilities and deceive weapons experts. = That the threat abandoned the launcher because it was ineffective and more capable systems were available. e@ Fallacy of composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of parts of that whole when, in fact, no justification is provided for that conclusion. For example, during a battle with an ethnic militia, a single detainee was captured. This detainee was suffering from malnutrition and low morale. It was noted that the detainee was equipped with a semiautomatic weapon of World War II vintage. After a brief interrogation, the intelligence analyst reported the enemy militia recently engaged was starving, diseased, and poorly armed. The intelligence analyst failed to consider that— = The detainee may have been captured because he was too sick to keep up with the rest of the unit. = The weapon of early vintage did not necessarily make it ineffective. 2-10 ATP 2-33.4 18 August 2014 Chapter 2 2-10 ATP 2-33.4 18 August 2014  Argumentum ad populum (“argument to the people"): This fallacy uses an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. There are three basic approaches:  Bandwagon approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action (COA), the argument must be true or the COA must be the best one. For instance, “Over a million people purchased that phone rather than one with competing software; all those people can’t be wrong. That company must make the best phones.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid.  Patriotic approach: “Draping oneself in the flag.” This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are somehow unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, or godless communism. A true American would never use this approach: “And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.”  Snob approach: This type of argumentum ad populum does not assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “The top analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency agree that my analytic approach is correct.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the analyst’s assertion is not an equal to the “top analysts of the Central Intelligence Agency,” and thus has no right to question the analytic conclusions.  Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future. Fallacies of Omission 2-35. Fallacies of omission occur when an analyst leaves out necessary material in a conclusion or inference. Some fallacies of omission include oversimplification, composition, division, post hoc, false dilemma, hasty generalization, and special pleading.  Oversimplification is a generality that fails to adequately account for all the complex conditions bearing on a problem. Oversimplification results when one or more of the complex conditions pertaining to a certain situation is omitted and includes ignoring facts, using generalities, and/or applying an inadequately qualified generalization to a specific case. For example, an ordnance specialist inspecting a captured, handcarried, surface-to-air missile launcher concludes that the threat has no effective low-level air defense. The assessment is based on the fact that the weapons system is equipped with antiquated guidance mechanisms. The ordnance specialist’s conclusion omits the following considerations:  That this piece of equipment may not be the enemy’s only low-level air defense weapon.  That the launcher may have been planted by the threat to give a misleading picture of the threat’s true capabilities and deceive weapons experts.  That the threat abandoned the launcher because it was ineffective and more capable systems were available.  Fallacy of composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of parts of that whole when, in fact, no justification is provided for that conclusion. For example, during a battle with an ethnic militia, a single detainee was captured. This detainee was suffering from malnutrition and low morale. It was noted that the detainee was equipped with a semiautomatic weapon of World War II vintage. After a brief interrogation, the intelligence analyst reported the enemy militia recently engaged was starving, diseased, and poorly armed. The intelligence analyst failed to consider that—  The detainee may have been captured because he was too sick to keep up with the rest of the unit.  The weapon of early vintage did not necessarily make it ineffective.