The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy

Every afternoon after school, Leo proudly claims, "None of my friends likes to read." Then, his best friend Sam pulls out a graphic novel and happily reads it cover to cover. Instead of admitting he made a bad generalization, Leo crosses his arms and says, "Well, no real friend of mine likes to read!"

Ask your kid why Leo's reasoning is flawed. You're listening for something like: Sam is Leo's friend, so Leo's rule was actually wrong. Changing the rules of who counts as a "real" friend just because Sam didn't fit his claim is cheating the argument.

Leo is moving the goalposts: whenever evidence turns up that proves him wrong, he redefines his terms on the spot so he never has to admit he was incorrect.

Once you've discussed why Leo's reasoning is flawed, define the No True Scotsman fallacy and moving the goalposts. Giving them the vocab only after they've seen it themselves makes it stick much better than just trying to memorize a definition.

Early in American history, Thomas Jefferson and his allies championed "strict constructionism"—the idea that the federal government could only do what was explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson argued that "No genuine Republican would ever support expanding federal powers beyond the literal text."

Then came 1803, when France offered to sell the entire Louisiana Territory to the U.S. for $15 million. The Constitution didn't explicitly give the president power to buy foreign land, but the deal was too good to pass up. When critics pointed out the contradiction, Jefferson's supporters moved the goalposts: they argued that because the purchase benefited the nation, taking it actually represented the "true intent" of Republican values after all!