Material Fallacies: Fallacies of Language/Ambiguity

Material Fallacies
What is Fallacy?
The word “fallacy” came from the Latin word fallo, which means “I deceive.” This
can be either formal or informal (material). In his Organon (De Sophistici Elenchi),
Aristotle studied the different informal fallacies in the rhetorical arguments of the
“Sophists”.
The following "Informal" or "Material" Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning that

depend on the meaning of the words and sentences involved in arguments. They may
thus be contrasted with the Formal Fallacies that result from logically invalid deductive
arguments.
FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE/AMBIGUITY
The meanings may be relevant to the conclusion but the force of the argument is lost by
differences in meaning or ambiguity, which may confuse, deceive, or even produce
arguments that are formally invalid.
Fallacy of Equivocation
It is the fallacy of using a word in two senses in an argument. Aside from being
an equivocal term, the ambiguous word could also be an analogous term. It is a
deceptive argument which lets the listener believe that two different terms (represented
by one word or sound) are actually the same.
Amphiboly
It is a deception resulting from the grammatical or syntactical ambiguity of

language. Although it uses univocal terms, an amphiboly can be interpreted in various
ways.
Accent
This is very similar to amphiboly; only that it creates ambiguity not through its
grammatical structure but through its changing emphasis. It is also an ambiguity that
results from shifting emphasis from one word to another.
Composition
The fallacy of composition consists in taking words or phrases as a unit when

they should be taken separately. This uses the reasoning from properties of parts to
properties of the whole, or from properties of an individual to properties of a group,
arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the whole
(composite) item has that property.
Division
This is the converse of the fallacy of composition. It consists in taking separately

what should be taken together as a unit and arguing from a property of the whole, to
each constituent part.
False Analogy
This is the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or
phrase. It consists in wrongly inferring similarity of meaning from similarity of word
structure.
Fallacies of Relevance (not of language)

Accident
The fallacy of accident consists in confusing what is essential or necessary to a

thing and what is merely accidental to it. This basically concentrates on one accidental
aspect of a thing which may or may not actually happen. This is also being too strict
about the qualities of things to the point of not considering exemptions.
Hasty Generalization
This is the converse of accident, which is committed by moving to a general rule

from an exceptional specific case.
Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)
It consists in proving a conclusion other than the one that should be proved. It is
simply “missing the point” of the dispute. This diverts attention away from a fact in
dispute rather than address it directly.
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
This is associating an argument or conclusion with the fame, reputation, or

prestige of some person or institution. The argument is intended to take advantage of
an audience’s ignorance by exploiting its respect for authority.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
This is simply the adult form of arguing the way a bully does: if you don't accept
my opinion, I'll punch you in the nose. The arguer demands acceptance of his
proposition not because it is true or proved but because there are consequences for
rejecting it.
Appeal to Personal Ridicule (Argumentum ad Hominem)
This is one of the most common fallacies of irrelevant evidence. This relies upon
character assassination as a substitute for refutation of an opponent’s thesis. It also
makes use of Apophasis, which is done by pretending to deny what is really being
asserted
Appeal to the People/Masses (Argumentum ad Populum)
This argument makes an appeal to a person’s sense of belonging or wanting to

belong to a particular group
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam)
This ignores the point at issue and appeals, instead, to our instinct to have
compassion on the unfortunate.
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
This consists in assuming under some form or other the conclusion that should
be proved and then using it as a premise to prove the very same conclusion. The
premises and the conclusions state exactly the same thing and differ from one another
only verbally. This is also seen in “vicious circles”.
False Cause
This consists in assuming a cause or reason for a thesis that which in reality is
not. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) means to mistake
something as a cause just because it precedes something else, while non causa pro
causa, means to mistake what is not a cause as the cause.
Complex Question
It consists in asking either a multiple question as though it were a single

question, and then demanding a simple yes or no for an answer and thus tricking
someone into making admissions he did not intend.
Consequent
It is inferring that an antecedent is true because its consequent is true, or that a

consequent is false because its antecedent is false.
Non Sequitur
This literally means that it does not follow. It is a series of true but unrelated
propositions that simulate the structure of a syllogism.
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
This infers that a statement is false because it cannot be proved or true because
it cannot be refuted. It follows this pattern: “This is evidence that must be accepted
(denied) because it cannot be refuted.”

Material Fallacies: Fallacies of Language/Ambiguity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Fallacies: Fallacies of Language/Ambiguity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Fallacies: Fallacies of Language/Ambiguity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Fallacies

The following "Informal" or "Material" Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning that

It is a deception resulting from the grammatical or syntactical ambiguity of

The fallacy of composition consists in taking words or phrases as a unit when

This is the converse of the fallacy of composition. It consists in taking separately

Fallacies of Relevance (not of language)

The fallacy of accident consists in confusing what is essential or necessary to a

This is the converse of accident, which is committed by moving to a general rule

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)

Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

This is associating an argument or conclusion with the fame, reputation, or

Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

Appeal to Personal Ridicule (Argumentum ad Hominem)

Appeal to the People/Masses (Argumentum ad Populum)

This argument makes an appeal to a person’s sense of belonging or wanting to

Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam)

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

It consists in asking either a multiple question as though it were a single

It is inferring that an antecedent is true because its consequent is true, or that a

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

You might also like