What is false equivalence?

You’ve probably heard the phrase “comparing apples to oranges.” This example of false equivalence is as easy as it gets. It’s a metaphor for avoiding the confusion of two entities that are hardly alike.

However, in the world of cognitive biases, slanted reporting, and bad actors, spotting this logical fallacy is much more difficult. Through orders of magnitude, a logically incorrect comparison can gain momentum through exaggeration and slippery slopes. False equivalence is found in many different areas of life, from politics to advertising, and can have serious consequences if not recognized and corrected.

Write with Confidence using Editor

Elevate your writing with real-time, intelligent assistance

Learn more

Definition of false equivalence

The definition of false equivalence is the act of comparing two things that aren’t equivalent as if they were. This creates a false sense of balance or fairness, as if both sides of an argument are equally valid when they are not.

In false equivalence, the thought process goes like this:

• Thing 1 and Thing 2 both share characteristic A.
• Therefore, Things 1 and 2 equate to each other.

The characteristic can equate less harmful behavior to more egregious behavior. It boils down to the concept of whataboutism, or “If so-and-so is so bad, what about the time you did something bad?” It brings up what is fundamentally irrelevant to the argument being presented to discount an opposing argument.

Examples of false equivalence

False equivalence can often be found in advertising. Advertisers often use false equivalence to make their products appear better than their competitors. For example, an advertisement for a new brand of toothpaste might claim that it’s “just as good as the leading brand,” when in fact it has not been tested or proven to be as effective.

Another example can be used to defame people. If Ms. Red once received a speeding ticket, and Mr. Blue was arrested for murder, are they both criminals? After all, one may argue that they both technically violated the law. But the magnitude of these two incidents is nowhere close because one crime is far more serious. Making this argument both serves to make Ms. Red look worse and lessen the severity of Mr. Blue’s crime.

False equivalences are often found in arguments related to major political issues. Some people argue that there is a debate about the reality of certain topics related to bigotry, prejudice, or scientific consensus, as if both sides of the argument are equally valid. You might hear someone saying: “legalizing drug A will lead to the legalization of harder and more harmful drugs like drug B.” This is a false equivalence because one piece of legislature won’t necessarily guarantee to the passing of further laws, and the harm done by these two drugs is incomparable.

Political attack ads rely on false equivalence. The supposed flaws of one politician mean that they are unfit to serve. Their actions may be compared to someone else’s misdeeds that might be completely different. And because a politician from one side does something corrupt, everyone in their party is just as prone to corruption.

Oftentimes one side is promoting harm to a vulnerable or marginalized group, presenting their views as if there is a debate. When political views equate a group as “bad people,” usually comparing them to historical figures, this can lead to moral panic.

Bigotry and stereotypes are also related to false equivalence. Just because someone from one group (racial, cultural, gendered, or otherwise) commits a crime, that doesn’t mean everyone from that group is inclined to do the same. This is a false equivalence that may just attempt to justify the lack of compassion or basic human rights for the marginalized.

Similar fallacies that can lead to false equivalence

There are dozens of logical fallacies out there, and the following two are most closely related to false equivalence:

• Slippery slope: This is a fallacy where if something bad happens, something even worse is likely to happen. It relies on extreme hypotheticals to sway an audience to the fallacy committer’s point, even if it’s likely not true and there is little correlation. If you smoke cigarettes, for example, what’s to stop you from taking more harmful substances?
• Exaggeration: Also known as the appeal to extremes, this is a fallacy that oversimplifies an argument, including additional elements that may not be relevant. The real cause of a situation is brought up to an unrealistic standard or scenario that will also likely not happen. If you paid teachers more money, for example, then they’ll spend all their money on school supplies, and we’ll have classrooms full of coloring pencils.

How to avoid false equivalence

If you’re making an argument that you want to be taken seriously by your audience, it’s important to question the validity of a comparison that you’re making. Ask yourself if the two things compared are genuinely equivalent on an equal scale to the negative attribute presented or if one side of the argument relies on facts and evidence while the other rests on opinion or propaganda.

It’s also important to seek out reliable sources of information and to fact-check claims before accepting them as true. This can help prevent the spread of false equivalence and other forms of misinformation.

By recognizing false equivalency, we can make more informed decisions and avoid deception from false or misleading information. It’s especially helpful if you’re writing an argumentative essay, looking for credible sources, or being a savvy media consumer.