The six top fallacies about powerpoint

False Analogy Example: “Construction workers use blueprints to guide them as they build. Doctors use X-rays and MRI images as diagnostic aids. Therefore, presenters should use PowerPoint slides as teleprompters during live-audience presentations. ”

Post Hoc Example: “Let’s not use PowerPoint for our next presentation. Every time we use PowerPoint, the audience gets bored.”

PowerPoint doesn’t cause boredom. Not even close. Audience boredom is often caused by bad design, poor storytelling, a monotonous voice, insufferable presentation skills, lack of audience research, or any number of other factors. Those who blame the software tool for boredom are guilty of the fallacy of Post Hoc.

3. Contradictory Premises

Contradictory Premises Example: “The human brain ignores boring presentations. Therefore, a boring presentation was created by a human without a brain.”

This sounds good. Heck, it even sounds right! But when the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no argument. If there is an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. People with functioning brains create boring presentations. And they do so consciously, with rabid attention to boring, minute detail.

The Question & Answer portion of a presentation is often a big Ad Misericordiam festival. In Ad Misericordiam, the presenter doesn’t answer the question you ask, and instead appeals to your emotions or sympathy. Ad Misericordiam is an extremely popular Q & A technique in business and political press conferences.

Ad Misericordiam Example: Suppose during the Question and Answer period of a presentation, you ask a presenter, “You said our brains ignore boring presentations. If that’s true, what about all the subconscious and subliminal stuff our brains capture? Don’t our brains really absorb almost everything? Isn’t it proven that we can recall boring stuff with incredible accuracy under hypnosis or in our dreams? And why do we talk so much about presentations that bore us? Surely our brains notice — and even categorize our boredom in painstaking detail!”

The presenter answers, “I put a lot of effort into making my presentation simple and easy to understand for the lay person. You’re splitting hairs, muddying the waters, and making it hard for regular people to understand important concepts. I don’t deserve this kind of specificity or a bitter, ruthless attack on my scientific integrity.”

In the above Q&A example, you’ll note that the presenter hasn’t really answered your question at all. Instead, the presenter tried to rouse audience pity. The presenter also tried to shame, belittle, or humiliate you for asking rather obvious questions. In this way, the presenter committed the fallacy of Ad Misericordiam.

Hasty Generalization Example: “I’ve seen quite a few boring PowerPoint presentations in my day. So have a lot of other people I know. Therefore, all PowerPoint presentations are boring.”

Remember, demanding specificity is the enemy of wacky generalizations!

Poisoning the Well Example: Imagine I’m in a debate. My opponent gets up first and says, “Laura is a known fool. She doesn’t have a lick of sense, and you cannot believe a word she is going to say.”

Of course this isn’t fair. I don’t stand a chance if I’m called an idiot before I even begin my presentation. The audience is cheated out of the opportunity of finding that out for themselves! My opponent has “poisoned the well” before the audience had an opportunity to drink from it.