Bad polling data, smoking bans, gambling superstitions, and causes of fires, all seemingly unrelated, but are they? Whenever these issuses are discussed it is easy to fall prey to logical sophistry. Understanding and recognizing logical fallacies eliminates these false conclusions, which is a useful skill both academically and in "real life".

On Tuesday afternoon, November 2, 2004 things were looking very bad for incumbent president George W. Bush in his bid for reelection. The exit polling done by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International suggested that challenger John F Kerry would defeat Bush. However, when the first polls on the East Coast started closing it became apparent that something was wrong. The polling results were so different from reality that Fox News Channel "decided to quit using the exit poll results Tuesday evening, calling them inaccurate and unreliable" (Vlahos, 2004).

What brought about this discrepancy? Logical fallacy was a major contributor. Even though the early polling data came with a disclaimer that this exit data only approximated the actual vote count, many news agencies as well as the blogosphere, decided to run with these preliminary results. The pressure of competitive advantage proved to tempting and opened the door for the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Hasty generalization is an inductive reasoning fallacy also known as dicto simpliciter (jumping to conclusions). Making sweeping statements or not having sufficient data to validate the conclusion defines hasty generalization. In the case of the exit polling above, due to either skewed or not large enough data samples, there was insufficient data available to draw a valid conclusion.

In the context of critical thinking the fallacy of hasty generalization is important to recognize. Jumping to conclusions, "frequently leads us to false conclusions. However, sometimes a conclusion (generalization) will be correct by chance-but not on the basis of the unrepresentative sample" (Kirby & Goodpaster, 2007, p. 206).

Hasty generalization is also important to understand in the context of decision-making. Knowing what the data represents, and when conclusions can be drawn from that data are important skills for any individual to possess. As Larry Sabato, Director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics said about the exit polling, "It's disgraceful how bad the information was" (Memmott, 2004).

To generate luck, the gambler goes through his normal ritual of wearing his "lucky combo", an old yellow shirt and baseball cap. After a bad luck streak, he notices that there is someone next to him at the table with a "bad vibe", he quickly moves to another table nearby. He has a hunch that this table is bad luck, so he moves yet again. This above scenario is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore, because of this") fallacy.

Mistakenly assuming that since one event follows another and therefore, the first event caused the second defines Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In the case of the superstitious gambler, he had a big day when he wore his lucky clothing and assumed that the lucky clothes caused his big winnings.

Superstition is just one of the possible applications of this faulty inductive reasoning. Take for example, someone looking at a house that is burning down. Using the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, they may argue that because fireman are always at fires, fireman are the cause of those fires.

Understanding when this flaw in critical thinking enters the decision making process will help form valid arguments. Look carefully at the role of coincidence in many seemingly related events when making decisions and when there truly is a link to a previous event document it well.

A good example of examining all the data occurs in Responsible Gaming Quarterly where they examine a study that purports to show a link between problem gamblers and superstition. They point out that the study had at least three limitations: (1) no definition of superstition, (2) choice of subjects, and (3) the control subjects (American Gaming Association, 2004).

The City Council of Belmont, California voted to consider a ban on all smoking except in single-family detached homes. This ban would outlaw smoking in apartments and condominiums as well as other forms of non-detached housing like duplexes. Anti-smoking advocates lauded the decision but even many non-smokers wondered if this law crossed the line.

Similarly, Nevada recently passed a law that "bans smoking in bars that serve meals; in slot machine sections of grocery and convenience stores; and at video arcades, shopping malls, schools and day-care centers. It allows smoking in the gambling areas of casinos" (Associated Press [AP], 2006).

Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, believes that maybe Belmont should slow down. He states, "I think the folks in Belmont have to be very careful in what they do on this one.... There is always a question of how fast do you move" (La Ganga, 2007).

On the flip side, Smoking advocates have repeatedly voiced their concern about the erosion of individual rights, and business owners have long cited the wearing down of private property rights. One reader of the San Mateo Daily Journal website wrote, "People of this country need to wake up before all of our rights are diminished by these small interest groups and elected officials" (La Ganga, 2007). This argument is using the flawed logical fallacy of the "slippery slope".

The slippery slope fallacy is an inductive reasoning flaw that assumes once a step is taken; a second step or third or fourth step has to follow. The pro-smoking supporters contend that every new law passed starts into action the ultimate outlawing of smoking everywhere. Is this truly the case?

While judging from the comments of Bergman it may be true that the anti-smoking supporters do want a complete smoking ban, from a critical thinking point of view the slippery slope argument is invalid. While the true intent of the anti-smoking lobby is not known, the possibility exists that they intend only to push for legislation that harms third parties.

Decision makers need to be cognizant of any bias the slippery slope fallacy introduces, as many examples of stopping along the slippery slope exist. Imagine if the slippery slope fallacy was not wrong; all gamblers would become gambling addicts, all boxers would commit assaults, and anyone who bought a single product would buy every product in the store.

Both inductive and deductive reasoning have the potential to lead the decision maker or debater to false conclusions. The three logical fallacies presented are only part of the complete list. I suggest that any serious decision maker do further research into the other forms of logical fallacies.

American Gaming Association (2004, Summer). Gambling superstitions: No dogs near the gaming table and keep your horny toad toenail close. Responsible Gaming Quarterly, 2004, Summer, . Retrieved May 06, 2007, from http://www.americangaming.org/rgq/rgq_detail.cfv?id=258

Associated Press (2006, December 05, 2006). Business owners demand injunction against Nevada smoking ban. Las Vegas Sun, , . Retrieved May 05, 2006, from http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/dec/05/120510459.html

Kirby, G. R., & Goodpaster, J. R. (2007). Thinking (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

La Ganga, M. L. (2007, January 29, 2007). This proposed smoking ban has some fuming. Los Angeles Times, , . Retrieved May 06, 2007, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-belmont29jan29,0,7656220.story?coll=la-home-local

Memmott, M. (2004, November 03, 2004). Predictions burn pollsters, pundits - again. USATODAY.com, , . Retrieved May 05, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-polls-burn-pundits_x.htm

Vlahos, K. B. (2004, November 03, 2004). Egg on face of exit pollsters. FOXNews.com, , . Retrieved May 04, 2007, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137451,00.html