Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary

A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is made based on misleading, superficial, or inappropriate comparisons. It asserts that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect, even though this is not supported by the facts.

Examples:

1. Comparing Different Skills:
   "Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit on the head to make them work, so must employees."
   This analogy fails because it assumes that treating employees harshly will produce better results, just as hitting a nail does, ignoring the complex human factors involved in management and motivation.
2. Comparing Different Situations:
   "Cars and bicycles both have wheels, so maintaining a car is just as easy as maintaining a bicycle."
   While both vehicles have wheels, their maintenance requirements are vastly different due to their complexity, functionality, and the systems involved.
3. Comparing Different Entities:
   "The human brain is like a computer. Computers can be rebooted, so humans should be able to reset their minds to solve any problem."
   This analogy oversimplifies the complexities of the human brain and mental processes by comparing them to computer functions.

A false dilemma, also known as a false dichotomy or the fallacy of bifurcation, is a logical fallacy that presents a situation as having only two exclusive options, when in fact there are additional viable alternatives. The error lies not in the logical form of the argument, but in the false premise that limits the available choices.

In its simplest form, a false dilemma reduces the situation to two opposing choices: either A or B is true. If A is true, B must be false, and vice versa. This oversimplification excludes other possible options (e.g., C), misleading the audience into thinking that they must choose between the limited options presented.

Is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

Examples:

1. "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no more harmful than when your neighbor drips some oil on the ground when changing his car's oil."
   The "false equivalence" is the comparison between things differing by many orders of magnitude: Deepwater Horizon spilled 210 million US gal (790 million L) of oil; one's neighbor might spill perhaps 1 US pt (0.47 L).
2. "They are both Felidae, mammals in the order Carnivora, therefore there's little difference between having a pet cat and a pet jaguar."
   The "false equivalence" is in an oversimplification of the factors that make an animal a suitable pet.
3. "Consuming marijuana can lead to consuming and acquiring a psychological dependence on heroin later in life by acting as a gateway drug, so taking marijuana is like taking heroin."
   The "false equivalence" is not considering the difference in likelihood. Consuming heroin is more likely to lead to future heroin dependence than taking marijuana, even given the assumption that one who begins using marijuana is more likely at some later time to try heroin, than someone who has never used marijuana.