In logic, what does the term “argument from fallacy” (or “bad reasons fallacy”) mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Argument from Fallacy: Don’t Confuse a Weak Argument with a Wrong Conclusion
When Faulty Reasoning Leads to Faulty Assumptions
Not every bad argument produces a bad conclusion. That is the central lesson behind a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Fallacy, sometimes called the Bad Reasons Fallacy or argumentum ad logicam.
This fallacy occurs when someone identifies a flaw in another person’s reasoning and then assumes that the conclusion must also be wrong. The problem is that the quality of an argument and the accuracy of its conclusion are two separate questions.
Imagine someone predicts that a particular football team will win its next game because the team has won every game played on a Sunday. Another person points out that the team’s Sunday record is not a reliable way to predict the outcome. That criticism may be entirely justified. But it does not establish that the team will lose its next game. The prediction might still be correct for entirely different reasons.
The lesson is simple: exposing faulty reasoning does not, by itself, establish the opposite conclusion.
video Example: Argument from Fallacy or Bad Reasons Fallacy
A Familiar Problem in Employment-Discrimination Cases
This logical error can arise in Washington employment-discrimination litigation when attorneys focus so heavily on defeating an opposing argument that they overlook the remaining evidence.
Consider an employee who alleges racial discrimination after being terminated. The employee points to the employer‘s failure to follow its established disciplinary procedures as evidence of discriminatory treatment.
The employer responds that a procedural departure, standing alone, does not establish discrimination. That may be a valid criticism of the employee‘s particular argument. But it does not resolve whether discrimination occurred. Other evidence, including differential treatment, inconsistent explanations, discriminatory remarks, or suspicious circumstances surrounding the termination, may still support the employee’s claim.
The employer would fall into the Argument from Fallacy by treating the weakness of that one argument as proof that discrimination did not occur.
Plaintiff‘s attorneys can make the same mistake. Showing that an employer’s explanation is inconsistent with its documentation may undermine the employer’s credibility. But that inconsistency should not automatically be treated as proof of discrimination. The evidence must still be evaluated under the applicable legal standard.
Why the Distinction Matters Under the WLAD
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60* RCW, prohibits employment discrimination based on specified protected characteristics. In disparate-treatment cases, a plaintiff must establish that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor in the challenged employment decision.
In Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court* explained that a plaintiff need not prove discrimination was the sole motivating factor behind an adverse employment decision.
The decision also recognizes two ways a plaintiff can satisfy the pretext prong* of the McDonnell Douglas framework*: demonstrating that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual, or showing that discrimination was nevertheless a substantial factor motivating the decision, even if the employer’s stated reason was legitimate.
This distinction is important because a legitimate explanation does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of unlawful discrimination. Likewise, undermining an employer’s explanation does not automatically establish that discrimination occurred.
Turning the Fallacy into an Advocacy Tool
Recognizing the Argument from Fallacy can help employment-discrimination attorneys avoid confusing a weakness in an argument with the defeat of an entire claim.
In Scrivener*, 181 Wn.2d 446–48, the Washington Supreme Court* recognized two ways a plaintiff can establish pretext under the WLAD:
(1) presenting evidence that the employer’s stated reason for its decision was pretextual, or
(2) showing that discrimination was nevertheless a substantial factor motivating the decision, even if the employer’s stated reason was legitimate.
This distinction matters to both sides. Plaintiff‘s attorneys should not assume they must disprove the employer‘s stated reason if other evidence supports a finding of discrimination. Likewise, defense attorneys should not assume that establishing a legitimate reason for an employment decision necessarily defeats the discrimination claim.
The lesson for trial attorneys is straightforward: exposing a weakness in one argument does not resolve the entire case. The remaining evidence must still be considered to determine whether it supports the conclusion being advanced.
Closing Argument
The Argument from Fallacy illustrates a subtle but consequential mistake in reasoning: assuming that because one explanation fails, the conclusion it was offered to support must also fail.
In employment-discrimination litigation, the distinction matters. An employer may have a legitimate explanation for its decision and still have acted, in part, because of unlawful discrimination. Conversely, an employer’s questionable explanation does not automatically establish discriminatory motivation.
For Washington employment-discrimination trial attorneys, effective advocacy requires looking beyond individual arguments and examining what the evidence actually establishes.
Discrediting an argument is not the same as disproving a claim. In the courtroom, the evidence—not the weakness of an opponent’s reasoning—must ultimately carry the day.
Read Our Related Articles
» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent
» Law & Logic: Appeal to Emotion
» Law & Logic: Argument from Incredulity
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Nauseam
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)
» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)
» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
» Law & Logic: Fallacy of the Inverse (Denying the Antecedent)
» Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Hasty Generalization
» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)
» Law & Logic: Ipse Dixit Fallacy or “It Simply Is”
» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)
» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)
» Law & Logic: The False Compromise
» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
–gw