Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies

Faulty Causation Fallacies

Puzzle pieces coming together

Dimitri Otis / Stone / Getty Images

The causation fallacies known as oversimplification and exaggeration—also called the fallacy of reduction or multiplication—occur when the series of actual causes for an event is reduced or multiplied to the point where there is no longer a genuine, causal connection between the alleged causes and the actual effect. In other words, multiple causes are reduced to just one or a few (oversimplification) or a couple of causes are multiplied into many (exaggeration).

Also known as the "reductive fallacy" because it involves reducing the number of causes, oversimplification seems to occur more often, perhaps because there are so many ostensibly good reasons for simplifying things. Well-intentioned writers and speakers can fall into the trap of oversimplification if they are not careful.

Why Oversimplification Happens

One impetus for simplification is the basic advice given to all who want to improve their writing style: Don't get bogged down in details. Good writing needs to be clear and precise, helping people to understand an issue rather than confusing them. In the process, however, a writer can leave out too many details, omitting critical information that should be included.

Another impetus that can lead to oversimplification is the overuse of an important tool in critical thinking called Occam's Razor. This is the principle of not assuming more factors or causes for an event than are necessary and is often expressed by saying "the simpler explanation is preferable."

Although it is true that an explanation should be no more complicated than necessary, it is important not to construct an explanation that is less complicated than necessary. A quote attributed to Albert Einstein states, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Examples of Oversimplification

Here is an example of oversimplification that atheists often hear:

School violence has gone up and academic performance has gone down since organized prayer was banned at public schools. Therefore, prayer should be reintroduced, resulting in school improvement.

This argument suffers from oversimplification because it assumes that problems in schools (increasing violence, decreasing academic performance) can be attributed to a single cause: the loss of organized, state-mandated prayers. Myriad other factors are ignored as if social and economic conditions have not changed in any relevant way.

One way to reveal the problem in the above example is to change the apparent cause:

School violence has gone up and academic performance has gone down ever since racial segregation was banned. Therefore, segregation should be reintroduced, resulting in school improvement.

Presumably, some racists would agree with that statement, but few of those who make the first argument will also make the second argument, yet they are structurally the same. Both examples of oversimplification actually illustrate another causation fallacy, known as post hoc fallacy: Because an event occurred before another, then the first event caused the other.

Oversimplification in Politics

In the real world, events typically have multiple intersecting causes that together produce the events we see. Often, however, such complexities are difficult to understand and even more difficult to change; the unfortunate result is that we simplify things. Sometimes that isn't so bad, but it can be disastrous. Politics is a field in which oversimplification occurs more often than not. Take this example:

The nation's current lack of moral standards was caused by the poor example set by Bill Clinton when he was president.

Granted, Clinton might not have set the best example imaginable, but it isn't reasonable to argue that his example is responsible for the morality of the entire nation. A wide variety of factors can influence the morality of individuals and groups.

Not all examples of oversimplification identify as the cause of something completely irrelevant. Here are two examples:

Education today isn't as good as it used to be. Obviously, our teachers are not doing their jobs.
Since the new president took office, the economy has been improving. Obviously he is doing a good job and is an asset to the nation.

Although the first is a harsh statement, it cannot be denied that teacher performance impacts the quality of education that students receive. Thus, if their education isn't very good, one place to look is teacher performance. However, it is a fallacy of oversimplification to suggest that teachers are the sole or even primary cause.

Regarding the second statement, it is true that a president impacts the state of the economy, for better or worse. However, no single politician can take sole credit or blame for the state of a multitrillion-dollar economy. A common reason for oversimplification, especially in the political realm, is a personal agenda. It is a very effective means of either taking credit for something or for blaming it on others.

Oversimplification in Religion

Religion is another field in which oversimplification fallacies can be readily found. Consider, for example, a response heard after anyone survives a major tragedy:

She was saved through God's help.

For the purposes of this discussion, we should ignore the theological implications of a god who chooses to save some people but not others. The logical problem here is the dismissal of all the other factors that contribute to a person's survival. What about doctors who perform life-saving operations? What about rescue workers who work tirelessly in the rescue effort? What about product manufacturers who make safety devices, such as seat belts?

All these and more are causal factors that contribute to the survival of people in accidents, but they are too often ignored by those who oversimplify the situation and attribute survival solely to the will of God.

Oversimplification in Science

People also commit the fallacy of oversimplification when they don't understand what they are talking about. This is a common occurrence in science debates because much of the material can be comprehended only by experts in specialized fields. One place where this often is seen is arguments some creationists offer against evolution. Consider this example, a question that Christian evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind uses attempting to prove that evolution isn't true and isn't possible:

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

To someone unfamiliar with evolution, this question may seem reasonable. Its error lies in oversimplifying evolution to the point where it becomes unrecognizable. It is true that natural selection operates with the available genetic information, but natural selection is not the only process involved in evolution. Ignored are such factors as mutation and genetic drift.

By oversimplifying evolution down to just natural selection, however, Hovind can portray evolution as a one-dimensional theory that cannot possibly be true. In such examples, an oversimplification fallacy can also become a Straw Man Fallacy if a person criticizes the oversimplified description of a position as if it were the genuine position.

Examples of Exaggeration

Related to but rarer than the fallacy of oversimplification is the fallacy of exaggeration. Mirror images of each other, an exaggeration fallacy is committed when an argument tries to include additional causal influences that are irrelevant to the matter at hand. We can say that committing a fallacy of exaggeration is a consequence of failing to heed Occam's Razor, which states that we should prefer the simpler explanation and refrain from adding unnecessary "entities" (causes, factors).

A good example is one that is related to one of those used above:

The rescue workers, doctors, and various assistants are all heroes because, with the help of God, they managed to save all the people involved in that accident.

The role of individuals such as doctors and rescue workers is obvious, but the addition of God seems gratuitous. Without an identifiable effect of which can be said to be necessarily responsible, the inclusion qualifies as an exaggeration fallacy.

Other instances of this fallacy can be found in the legal profession, for example:

My client killed Joe Smith, but the cause for his violent behavior was a life of eating Twinkies and other junk food, which impaired his judgment.

There is no clear link between junk food and violent behavior, but there are other identifiable causes for it. The addition of junk food to that list of causes constitutes a fallacy of exaggeration because the real causes end up being masked by additional and irrelevant pseudo-causes. Here, junk food is an "entity" that is simply not necessary.

Format
mla apa chicago
Your Citation
Cline, Austin. "Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies." ThoughtCo, Feb. 14, 2021, thoughtco.com/oversimplification-and-exaggeration-fallacies-3968441. Cline, Austin. (2021, February 14). Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/oversimplification-and-exaggeration-fallacies-3968441 Cline, Austin. "Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/oversimplification-and-exaggeration-fallacies-3968441 (accessed March 4, 2021).