The Last Straw Fallacy: Another Causal Fallacy and Its Harmful Effects


We have noticed a pattern of arguments that exhibit a type of irrationality or a particular informal logical fallacy that is not fully captured by any existing fallacy. This fallacy can be explored through three examples where one misattributes a cause by focusing on a smaller portion of a larger set—specifically, the last or least known—and claiming that that cause holds a unique priority over other contributing factors for the occurrence of an event. We propose to call this fallacy the “last straw fallacy” and will argue why these examples actually warrant a new logical name. Finally, we will show how these cases point to a deeper insight about the contexts in which we typically invoke this type of reasoning and some significant harmful consequences of doing so.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    We recognize that this name could present some confusion in having a name too close to the well-known and widely taught straw man fallacy. However, having considered some alternative names, we find that “the last straw” is the best title. Not only does it suggest the image of the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, as opposed to, say, the straw out of which the weakest pig house was built and blown down by the wolf,–thus being catchy and illustrative—but is more literal and straight-forward than too many fallacy names insofar as it explicitly points to the last thing done or known which is central to the reasoning error we are identifying. We take the use of the term “baptizing” a new fallacy from Johnson (1995); although, we do not explicitly follow his definition of fallacy.

  2. 2.

    This is what motivates them to construct a “pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies” that treats fallacies as “faux pas of communication—as wrong moves in argumentative discourse” (Van Eemeren and Groostendorst 1995, p. 130).

  3. 3.

    The story begins: “In the same way that teams will scout an opponent for offensive and defensive tendencies, they also scout officiating crews. Teams try to decipher what kinds of penalties they call and how often, and then prepare their players for the tendencies. Some coaches go as far as using a PowerPoint presentation to inform their players and assistant coaches about what to expect on Sunday.”

  4. 4.

    Or, a player could intend to draw the foul, such as in basketball where one quickly fouls in clear view of the referee in order to stop the clock, hope the opponent misses free throws, and quickly regain possession.


  1. Calabresi, Massimo, and David Von Drehle. 2012. What will Justice Kennedy do? Time 179(24): 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cillizza, Chris. 2012. Why Ohio is the most important state in the country. The Fix. Accessed 28 March 2013.

  3. Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. 1990. Introduction to logic, 8th ed. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fraleigh, Warren P. 2003. Intentional rules violations—one more time. The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport. doi:10.1080/00948705.2003.9714642.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gelman, Andrew, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin. 2012. What is the probability your vote will make a difference? Economic Inquiry. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00272.x.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Govier, T. 1995. A reply to Massey. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 172–180. University Park, PA: Penn State UP.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts, ed. Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen, Hans Vilhelm. 2002. The straw thing of fallacy theory: the standard definition of ‘Fallacy’. Argumentation 16: 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hurley, Patrick. 2011. A concise introduction to logic, 11th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson, Ralph H. 1995. The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory. In Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 108–119. University Park, PA: Penn State UP.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kirwan, Pat. 2011. Pass interference, holding penalties on the rise in the NFL. Accessed 28 March 2013.

  13. Liptak, Adam and Allison Kopicki. 2012. Approval rating for justices hits just 44% in new poll. New York Times. Accessed 28 March 2012.

  14. Mangu-Ward, Katherine. Your vote doesn’t count: Why (almost) everyone should stay home on election day. Accessed 21 November 2013.

  15. Nickel, Lori. (2013). Packers scout NFL officials. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online. Accessed 28 March 2013.

  16. Pinto, Robert C. 1995. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 302–311. University Park, PA: Penn State UP.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenberg, Morris. 1954. Some determinants of political apathy. The Public Opinion Quarterly 18(4): 359–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Simon, Robert L. 2005. The ethics of strategic fouling: a reply to fraleigh. The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport. doi:10.1080/00948705.2005.9714672.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stengel, Richard. 2012. The Swing voter who matters most. Time 179(24): 6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stewart, John. 2012. Jon Stewart’s swing state hell: Are Ohio’s 18 electoral votes the only ones that matter? Video. Accessed 28 March 2013.

  21. Tabin, John. 2012. Obamacare in Anthony Kennedy’s hands. Accessed 28 March 2013.

  22. Tyler, Tom R., and Gregory Mitchell. 1994. Legitimacy and the empowerment of discretionary legal authority: The United States Supreme Court and abortion rights. Duke Law Journal 43(4): 703–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 130–144. Penn State UP: University Park PA.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. London: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Walton, Douglas. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wyler, Grace. 2012. “Here are the only five states that matter in the presidential election.” Business Insider. Accessed 28 March 2013.

Download references


We owe thanks to Robert Talisse for helping us to name this fallacy and to Scott Aiken for helpful discussions regarding this fallacy generally and sports ethics in particular. Application of this case to students seeking grade changes came from Robert Maldonado. Generous thanks are due also to the comments and fruitful objections of anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this essay.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn Cusick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cusick, C., Peter, M. The Last Straw Fallacy: Another Causal Fallacy and Its Harmful Effects. Argumentation 29, 457–474 (2015).

Download citation


  • Informal fallacy
  • Strategic reasoning
  • Tactical reasoning
  • Causal fallacy
  • Intentional foul
  • Last straw