Name______Date______
Logical Fallacies in Act III of The Crucible
1.Type of Fallacy:__begging the question—Judge Hathorne
Martha: I am innocent to a witch. I know not what a witch is.
Hathorne: How do you know, then, that you are not a witch? (pg 104)
Fallacy: The premise is if Martha doesn’t know what a witch is, she could be one. It assumes the conclusion that she is one.
2. Type of Fallacy-ad hominem/poisoning the well—Judge Hathorne & Rev Parris
Hathorne: Are you gone daft, Corey?…
Danforth: Who is this man?
Parris: Giles Corey sir, and a more contentious—(105)
Fallacy: Both Hathorne and Parris attempt to discredit Giles before he gives any evidence; Hathorne, most likely because he resents the attack on his authority b/c Giles comes bursting into the court, and Parris, because Giles is going to question people he has allied with. If Parris can paint Giles as contentious (argumentative) and a trouble-maker, then Danforth will be more likely to refuse to listen to him.
3.appeal to fear/scare tactic- DanforthDanforth: Do you know that near to four hundred are in the jails from Marblehead to Lynn, and upon my signature?…And seventy-two condemned to hang by that signature? (105)
Fallacy: Danforth hopes to intimidate Francis Nurse rather than to have to spend time listening to his arguments. If Nurse can be made to fear his power to jail and/or hang him, he might go away.
4.Type of Fallacy-ad hominem—Parris
Parris: They’ve come to overthrow the court, sir!… Excellency, surely you cannot think to let so vile a lie be spread in open court? (106)
Fallacy: In an attempt to discredit Proctor’s and Mary Warren’s argument that the girls (of which his daughter and niece are two) are lying, Parris attacks Proctor’s character and motives, saying he is attacking the court and is a liar.
5.Type of Fallacy-ad hominem—Cheever & Parris
Cheever: When we come to take his wife, he damned the court and ripped your warrant… He plow on Sunday, sir… I think it be evidence… (106-7)
Parris: Such a Christian that will not come to church but once in a month! (107)
Fallacy: Cheever brings up actions of Proctor’s designed to make Proctor look bad. Anything Proctor might say is tainted because now Danforth will suspect him of ulterior motives (overthrowing the court) or of being a poor Christian (plowing on Sunday) and he won’t be believed. Parris hopes for the same. He cannot afford to have Proctor believed, since Proctor is trying to discredit the girls, and that will hurt his reputation
6.Type of Fallacy- red herring/false analogy—Parris
Proctor: Excellency, does it not strike you that so many of these women have lived so long with such upright reputation, and—
Parris: Do you read the Gospel, Mr. Proctor?
Proctor: I read the Gospel.
Parris: I think not, or you should surely know that Cain were an upright man, and yet he did kill Abel.
Fallacy: Proctor attempts to make the argument that the women all have good character in the community. Parris attacks this claim by bringing up the Gospel story of Cain and Abel. It appears to be a relevant analogy and relevant to the argument, but actually has no bearing on the current situation. Just because Cain changed does not mean that the women in Salem have changed. It is a distractor technique meant to also sneakily insinuate that Proctor is not a good Christian for not recognizing this Gospel parallel at once.
7. Type of Fallacy-faulty dilemma/faulty either/or reasoning—Danforth
Danforth: Will you drop this charge?
Proctor: … I cannot.
Danforth: Then your purpose is somewhat larger! (107)
Fallacy: Danforth supposes one of two options: either Proctor will drop the charge because his desire is to save his wife, or his purpose is larger (to overthrow the court). Since Proctor will not drop his charge, Danforth assumes his purpose is to overthrow the court—not option C, which is to prove his wife innocent and to prove the other accused innocent and see justice done.
8. Type of Fallacy-bandwagon/ad hominem—Parris
Parris: All innocent and Christian people are happy for the courts in Salem! These people are gloomy for it…And I think you will want to know, from each and every one of them, what discontents them with you! (109)
Fallacy: Parris implies that everyone else is pleased with the way the trials are going—at least the innocent and Christian ones are. If Proctor is not happy with it, he must not be innocent and Christian.
9.Type of Fallacy?_-faulty dilemma/faulty either/or—Danforth
Danforth: You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between... (109)
Fallacy: Danforth leaves only 2 options for Proctor/Nurse to choose from: You must agree with the court or you must be against it. Since they do not agree with what the court is doing, they must be against the court’s work. There is no consideration given to other options: they may not agree with how the court is pursuing justice or but may not seek to overthrow it.
10. Type of fallacy-scare tactic/appeal to fear/using authority instead of evidence--Hathorne/Danforth
Hathorne: This is contempt of court, Mr. Danforth!
Corey…I stand mute.
Danforth: In that case, I have no choice but to arrest you for contempt of this court… (110)
Fallacy: Hathorne and Danforth try to intimidate Corey into revealing the name of his source by threatening him with jail.
Types of Fallacies
Emotional Fallacies – (pathos) unfairly appeal to the audience’s emotions
Ethical Fallacies – (ethos) unfairly advances the writer’s/speaker’s authority or character
Logical Fallacies – (logos) depend upon faulty logic
Emotional Fallacies
Scare Tactics/Appeal to fear – try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences.
Example – If you support the president’s health care plan, you will lose your own health care plan.
Bandwagon/Appeal to Popularity – encourage an audience to agree wit hthe writer/speaker because everyone else is doing so.
Example – Buying a little dog to carry in a big purse, like Paris Hilton, so that you can be like Paris Hilton.
Either/Or Choices – reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of action.
Example – You need an expensive car or people won’t think you’re cool.
Ethical Fallacies
Ad Hominem/Poisoning the Well – arguments attack a person’s character rather than the person’s reasoning.
Example: Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced will keep her campaign promises?
Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning – occurs when the speaker/writer restates the claim in a different way.
Example: His lies are evident from the untruthful nature of his statement.
Faulty Analogy – an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things.
Example: “A year after the release of the violent video game Annihilator, school violence
Tripled. Coincidence? I think not.”