This paper reviews Dennis McInerny's "Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking," a foundational text on logic and critical reasoning published in 2005. The review examines McInerny's background, the book's structure across five progressive sections, and detailed analysis of ten logical fallacies including undistributed middle terms, begging the question, straw-man fallacies, ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, and simplistic reasoning. The paper evaluates the book's effectiveness as an introductory guide while noting strengths in its accessibility and areas where explanations and examples could be more robust.
Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking is a book authored by Dennis "D.Q." McInerny. The book was published by New York's Random House Trade Paperbacks in May 2005 and consists of 160 pages. According to Random House Trade Paperbacks, the cost of the book is $15.00 (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2005). However, it can be found for a cheaper price from other retailers such as Amazon.
D.Q. McInerny became interested in philosophy during his undergraduate studies at St. Thomas College in St. Paul, Minnesota (McInerny, 2014). After completing his first year of graduate school at Notre Dame, McInerny served four years in the United States Navy (McInerny, 2014). Dr. McInerny took his first teaching job in 1970 at Bradley University in Illinois (McInerny, 2014). Eventually, he went on to teach philosophy and logic at St. Thomas College, and in 1994 he became a professor at Our Lady Guadalupe Seminary in Nebraska, where he continues to teach (McInerny, 2005).
When writing Being Logical, McInerny set out to create a guide to the basic principles of logic in a way that would be comprehensible to those being introduced to the subject for the first time (McInerny, 2005, p. x). The intention was to present readers with the scientific fundamentals and basic skills of logical thinking (McInerny, 2005, p. ix). McInerny believes that logic is the pillar of education but it is not often taught in American schools (McInerny, 2005, p. ix). As a whole, McInerny's goal was to have readers realize the importance of logic as well as appreciate the satisfaction that comes with being logical (McInerny, 2005, p. xi).
The book is divided into five sections, representing the five stages in which McInerny approaches logic, with each section building upon its predecessor. Part One prepares the reader to think logically by establishing the required mindset. The core of the book is contained in Parts Two and Three, where McInerny discusses the basic principles of logic and the idea of argument. Part Four consists of the sources of illogical thinking, while Part Five focuses on specific types of illogical thinking. The layout of the book is straightforward and easy to follow, as McInerny intended.
McInerny discusses forms of illogical thinking in Part Five of Being Logical. One form is the "undistributed middle term," also known as "guilt by association." This occurs when the middle term is not distributed at least once to make the connection between the major and minor terms (McInerny, 2005, p. 106). An example of an undistributed middle term is:
All Dalmatians have spots.
Freckles has spots.
Therefore, Freckles is a Dalmatian.
The problem with this way of thinking is that while Freckles may have spots, it does not necessarily mean she is a Dalmatian. Although some may suspect Freckles is a Dalmatian, it is simply speculation at this point.
Another fallacy McInerny discusses is "begging the question." The point of arguing is to prove a point. The person making the argument has the burden of proof and must show concrete evidence that the conclusion is true (McInerny, 2005, p. 109). This fallacy attempts to bypass the process of arguing and lacks a real premise (McInerny, 2005, p. 109). An example of begging the question is:
The shoes are in high demand because everyone wants to buy them.
This statement is not an argument at all. It is essentially saying the shoes are in demand because they are in demand. In this error, the point that is trying to be substantiated is already assumed to be true (McInerny, 2005, p. 109).
In some instances of arguing, a person may try to distort the opponent's view in order to make it easier to defeat. This is known as the "straw-man fallacy." Say person A wants teenagers to be taught sex education in school so they can learn to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and avoid pregnancy. If person B says person A is attempting to give teenagers permission to be promiscuous, person B has committed the straw-man fallacy. One must approach the argument as given and not twist the opponent's conviction to weaken it (McInerny, 2005, p. 112).
Humans tend to get set in traditional ways, whether family-related or on a bigger scale such as political. What is difficult is separating the merits of the traditions from the biases we have toward them. When evaluating whether a tradition is worth keeping, we must focus on the practice rather than its history (McInerny, 2005, pp. 112–113). The act of deeming a tradition worthy of keeping or abandoning based solely on its longevity is called "abusing tradition." An example of this fallacy is the idea of legalizing gay marriage. Opponents may argue that since marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it is not acceptable to change the tradition. However, it is just as illogical to point out the longevity of the tradition as the reason to make a change (McInerny, 2005, p. 113).
Another logical fallacy is the "democratic fallacy." This is the assumption that just because the majority holds a belief, that belief must be true (McInerny, 2005, p. 115). Although this is very common, it is possible for majorities to be wrong. It is also possible for emotions to persuade our beliefs and decisions, as well as for some people to not stand up for their beliefs simply because they are in the minority. An example of the democratic fallacy is seen in the judicial process. Many cases are decided by a jury with the decision being based on a majority vote. While this is typically a very effective and accurate process, juries have been known to reach incorrect verdicts.
The name of the "ad hominem" fallacy is quite literal, coming from the Latin term for "against the person" (McInerny, 2005, p. 115). The ad hominem fallacy occurs when a person attacks their opponent rather than the argument in order to win the argument (McInerny, 2005, p. 115). This type of fallacy can be very powerful as it discredits the opponent. We often see this in political debates. Candidates find out about their opponent's indiscretions and focus on them in order to cause voters to lose faith in their candidate of choice. It has been shown time and time again that this is very effective. An example of an ad hominem fallacy would be if two candidates were engaging in a debate and one candidate brought up the opponent's extramarital affair. This would attack the opponent's character, whether or not it was even relevant to the argument.
The "uses and abuses of expertise" fallacy occurs when a person in an argument claims their view is correct because an expert in a specific practice advocates for the position (McInerny, 2005, p. 116). It is seen as legitimate to use this rationale to defend one's argument if the expert's views are relevant to the argument (McInerny, 2005, p. 116). An example of this logical error is if one argues that the acne medicine she uses is the best simply because her dermatologist says it is. She gives no other reasoning behind her point other than the doctor's expertise. While this is common, we should base our views on the argument itself, not merely the word of an expert (McInerny, 2005, p. 117).
When a person finds it difficult to cite legitimate reasons for holding a certain position in an argument, he may attempt to divert the opponent's attention from the argument at hand toward an unrelated topic that will provoke an emotionally volatile reaction. This is known as the "red-herring fallacy" (McInerny, 2005, pp. 121–122). A good example of someone employing this fallacy is presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential election. When asked about gun control and access to assault weapons, Romney diverted and chose to talk about raising children in households with two parents and improving schools. The answer given did not remotely relate to the question asked.
Another type of fallacy is the "inability to disprove does not prove" fallacy. This occurs when the proponent of an argument states that his position must be true because the opponent cannot provide proof against the original argument (McInerny, 2005, p. 124). An example would be if a person makes the claim that God is not real. The opposition states that God does not exist but when asked for proof states he has none. The person that believes in God then asserts that God must exist since there is no proof showing otherwise. One cannot claim that his argument is true simply because he cannot be proven wrong (McInerny, 2005, p. 124).
We often encounter situations in which there are only two possible outcomes, and we also encounter situations that have a wide array of outcomes. When one tries to persuade another to choose one of two options and claims there are no other choices, he has committed the "false dilemma fallacy" (McInerny, 2005, p. 125). This logical error attempts to rush the audience into making a decision between two options chosen by the perpetrator. An example would be a car salesman. If a salesman brought a customer one choice and said, "It's either you choose this car or you do not get one," he would have just executed the false dilemma fallacy.
People are attracted to easy answers and hearing what they want to hear if it is applicable to their situation. However, it is irrational to provide a simple answer to a much more complex reality by distorting it. This is known as the "simplistic reasoning fallacy" (McInerny, 2005, pp. 128–129). An example of this fallacy is when a person advocating a weight loss pill suggests that you will lose weight if you simply take the pill because it has worked for others. Those wanting to lose weight will be persuaded to purchase the product because it is an easy solution to the problem of being overweight, or so is claimed. In reality, the act of losing weight is much more complex than taking a pill.
"Review strengths, weaknesses, and overall judgment"
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.