Fallacies of Causal Relationship.  The various fallacies that may be committed under the relation of cause and effect are many.  Just because something happened prior to something else (the effect), the first may be mistakenly quoted as the cause.  Or the reverse may be the error—­the second may be assumed to be the effect of the first.  The way to avoid this fallacy was suggested in the discussion of explanation by means of cause and effect where the statement was made that two events must not be merely sequential, they must be consequential.  In argument the slightest gap in the apparent relationship is likely to result in poor reasoning, and the consequent fallacy may be embodied in the speech.  When people argue to prove that superstitions have come true, do they present clear reasoning to show conclusively that the alleged cause—­such as sitting thirteen at table—­actually produced the effect of a death?  Do they establish a close causal relationship, or do they merely assert that after a group of thirteen had sat at table some one did die?  Mathematically, would the law of chance or probability not indicate that such a thing would happen a little less surely if the number had been twelve, a little more surely if fourteen?

Common sense, clear headedness, logical reasoning, and a wide knowledge of all kinds of things will enable a speaker to recognize these fallacies, anticipate them, and successfully refute them.

Methods of Refuting.  Having found the fallacies in an argument you should proceed to refute them.  Just how you can best accomplish your purpose of weakening your opponent’s position, of disposing of his arguments, of answering his contentions, must depend always upon the particular circumstances of the occasion, of the material presented, of the attitude of the judges or audience, of your opponent himself, and of the purpose you are striving to accomplish.  Practice, knowledge, skill, will in such cases all serve your end.  You should be able to choose, and effectively use the best.  It is impossible to anticipate and provide for all the possibilities, but a few of the most common probabilities and the methods of dealing with them can be here set down.

Courteous Correction.  In case of apparent error or over-sight you will do well to be courteous rather than over-bearing and dictatorial in your correction.  Never risk losing an advantage by driving your audience into sympathy for your opponent by any manner of your own.  A newspaper discussing the objections made to the covenant of the League of Nations points out an over-sight in this way:  “How did Senator Knox happen to overlook the fact that his plan for compulsory arbitration is embodied in Article XII of the proposed covenant?”

Refuting Incorrect Analogy.  The caution was given that reasoning from analogy must show the complete correspondence in all points possible of the known from which the reasoning proceeds to the conclusion about the unknown, which then is to be accepted as true.  Unless that complete correspondence is established firmly the speaker is likely to have his carefully worked out analogy demolished before his eyes.  Notice how such refutation is clearly demonstrated in the following.