False equivalence


A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed, faulty, or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such:
In an even more fallacious version, is not required to exist in both sets; merely a similarity of two items in set and in set is cited to assert equivalence among the sets.
Example:

Examples

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:
; "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no more harmful than when your neighbor drips some oil on the ground when changing his car's oil."
; "They are both Felidae, mammals in the order Carnivora, therefore there's little difference between having a pet cat and a pet jaguar."
; "Consuming marijuana can lead to consuming and acquiring a psychological dependence on heroin later in life by acting as a gateway drug, so taking marijuana is like taking heroin."

Negative consequence

False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.
Thomas Patterson of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University wrote about the false equivalency used by the media during the 2016 United States presidential election: