7

7 The False Dilemma
Everybody, unfortunately, has experience with true dilemmas; that is, when one is forced to choose between undesirable alternatives. To have this operation is dangerous; to delay is to risk illness or even death. To study tonight is to give up the party; not to study is to risk flunking the test. To go to the party and study is to give up all sleep. In a false dilemma, the speaker represents the situation as offering only undesirable alternatives when the facts do not warrant it. One of the given alternatives may actually be neutral or even desirable, or, more frequently, an unstated alternative exists which is at least neutral. In other words, the false dilemma turns out to be no dilemma at all. The all-or-nothing fallacy and the false dilemma are related since each involves ignoring alternative positions. The relation of dilemmas to the rules of classification is explained on page 39.
EXAMPLE COMMENT
There is a famous Greek dilemma. One of the sophists advertised that any pupil of his would win his first case at law or not have to pay for the course of instruction. A pupil completed the course, announced that he did not expect to practice law, and refused to pay the sophist for the course. The sophist sued, and the pupil entered the following plea: "If I lose this case, according to the agreement I do not have to pay, as it is my first case. If I win it, I do not have to pay by the judgment of the court." The sophist replied: "On the contrary, if you win this case, you have to pay, according to the agreement. If you lose it, you must also pay, according to the judgment of the court." It is not known how the case was decided.
A farmer can never expect to make much money. Either the farmer raises a bumper crop and finds that the price is low, or the price is all right, but he finds he has only a meager crop to dispose of. This dilemma is false since it overlooks the possibility of government subsidies and price supports as well as other factors. Refuting a false dilemma by pointing out an additional possibility which is not undesirable is called going around or between the horns of the dilemma.
Abbe Sieyes, a figure in the French Revolution, posed this famous dilemma concerning a bicameral legislature, "If the second chamber agrees with the first, it is superfluous; if it disagrees it is pernicious." This is a false dilemma since disagreement of the second chamber is not necessarily "pernicious." One may question either of the assumptions of a dilemma, namely, that the alternatives are exhausted or that all the alternatives are alike undesirable. Refuting a false dilemma by pointing out that one of the alternatives is not undesirable is called taking the dilemma by the horns.

EXAMPLE	COMMENT
There is a famous Greek dilemma. One of the sophists advertised that any pupil of his would win his first case at law or not have to pay for the course of instruction. A pupil completed the course, announced that he did not expect to practice law, and refused to pay the sophist for the course. The sophist sued, and the pupil entered the following plea: "If I lose this case, according to the agreement I do not have to pay, as it is my first case. If I win it, I do not have to pay by the judgment of the court." The sophist replied: "On the contrary, if you win this case, you have to pay, according to the agreement. If you lose it, you must also pay, according to the judgment of the court."	It is not known how the case was decided.
A farmer can never expect to make much money. Either the farmer raises a bumper crop and finds that the price is low, or the price is all right, but he finds he has only a meager crop to dispose of.	This dilemma is false since it overlooks the possibility of government subsidies and price supports as well as other factors. Refuting a false dilemma by pointing out an additional possibility which is not undesirable is called going around or between the horns of the dilemma.
Abbe Sieyes, a figure in the French Revolution, posed this famous dilemma concerning a bicameral legislature, "If the second chamber agrees with the first, it is superfluous; if it disagrees it is pernicious."	This is a false dilemma since disagreement of the second chamber is not necessarily "pernicious." One may question either of the assumptions of a dilemma, namely, that the alternatives are exhausted or that all the alternatives are alike undesirable. Refuting a false dilemma by pointing out that one of the alternatives is not undesirable is called taking the dilemma by the horns.