Chapter 5

INFORMAL FALLACIES

INTRODUCTION

Fallacy refers to errors of reasoning. Logicians use it to refer to arguments which are to
provide adequate evidence for their conclusions.

Fallacy comes from the Latin fallere which means to deceive. It is a type of argument
that may seem to be correct but which proves, upon examination, not to be so. A fallacy is a
false argument that has the appearance of truth. At the same time that it conceals truth, it
projects an apparent truth. This is why it has come to mean a deceptive argument, an argument
that seems to be correct but is actually incorrect.

Fallacy is also called sophism or sophistry. It is a fallacy committed with the intention to
deceive or mislead an opponent. It is called sophism because it is widely employed by the
ancient Sophists in order to impress the ordinary folks about their presumed wisdom. The
Sophist of ancient Greece were not genuine philosophers but swell-heads who made a profession
by being wise men, and loved to be taken as such by the common folks. Fallacy is also called
paralogism, which is a fallacy employed unknowingly or through the ignorance of the rules of
correct reasoning.

Fallacies taken in isolation are easily detected, but it is difficult to do so when they are
woven into a well-delivered discourse. Analyzed separately, fallacies are easy to detect.
However, they may have great deceiving force when they form a part of a speech or when they
deal with difficult questions.

Fallacy can either be Formal or Informal. Formal Fallacies are committed mainly due to
lack of skill in reasoning, and this in turn is due to lack of training in the logical process. They
present errors involving the forms of good arguments such as if the premises are true, the
conclusion cannot be false.

Informal Fallacies are typical errors or mistakes that arise commonly in ordinary
discourse. Informal Fallacies are committed when either irrelevant psychological factors are
allowed to distort the reasoning process, as when one uses pity or character assassination, or
when one is confused by linguistic ambiguities in one's premises and conclusions. They use
persuasive arguments and so, although invalid, may appeal or come across as correct. They are
then to be treated with caution in order to avoid the traps they set.

A. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

This kind of fallacy arises when something about an argument tempts us to overlook the fact
that there is no connection between the premises and the conclusion. When an argument relies
on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion and therefore cannot establish its truth, when
the connection between the premises and the conclusion is often emotional. The argument
excites us somehow, and we are misled into thinking that the premises support the conclusion,
when actually they have nothing to do with the point supposedly being proved. In a good
argument, it must be noted, the premises must provide genuine evidence for the conclusion.
1. Argumentum ad baculum – (appeal to force)

The use of threat in a form calculated to win the assent of another person or to cause him
to accept a conclusion. The threat may either be physical or psychological so it is an argument
based upon a threat. It appeals to physical force or moral pressure rather than the merit of the
point at issue. It is the discourse of power. Arguers using this type of appeal try to persuade you
by pointing out their powers over you or by warning you of the bad consequences of refusing to
accept their argument. We commit this fallacy when instead of arguing the point of issue, we
threaten whoever opposes our view. They can oppose our views, yes. But at their own risks.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you do not bring in a verdict of guilty, you may be
this killer’s next victim!
Be home by nine tonight or you can forget about the increase in allowance next week.
You better agree to my proposal or you won't see your family anymore.
Agree with me or I shall hit you with this stick.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to force, look for the presence of a threat that is either
explicit or subtly disguised.

2. Argumentum ad misericordiam – (appeal to pity)

When careful reasoning is replaced by devices contrived to cause sympathy or to evoke

pity from another to get the other to accept the conclusion. The basic structure of the argument
is this: you should accept my conclusion out of pity. The arguer urges you to believe something
by arousing your sympathy for him or his cause.
In other words, it consists in pleading for mercy and disregarding the point in question.
Note that pity or sympathy must be irrelevant to the issue. But a hungry beggar who begs for
food, or a man who on bended knees appeals to a criminal to spare his life does not commit this
fallacy. The appeal must be irrelevant to the conclusion being sought.

We cannot condemn this man because he is the only one that supports his family.

There was a youth who was tried for a particularly brutal crime - the murder of his
mother and father with an axe. Confronted with an overwhelming proof of his guilt, he
pleaded for leniency on the ground that he was an orphan.

A student should be given a passing grade because he is soon to graduate, or because if

he fails the course his parents would disown him.
 Vote for this candidate because he has already put in a lot of money and heartache in the
campaign.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to pity, look for premises that appeal to your
sympathy.
3. Argumentum ad populum – (appeal to the people or appeal to emotion)

Careful reasoning is placed with devices aimed at creating enthusiasm and emotional
support. This fallacy is committed when one attempts to win popular assent to a conclusion by
using persuasively emotive language. Faced with the task of mobilizing public sentiment for or
against a particular measure, a person (a candidate for a certain post, for instance) need not resort
to a laborious process of gathering and presenting evidence and rational argument; rather, he'll
just resort to argumentum as populum.

The basic structure of the argument is this: some statement S is true because most people
believe S. It is, in effect, an appeal to commonly or traditionally held beliefs. The main error of
this argument lies in the fact that the popular acceptance of a policy does not show it to be wise.
The fact that a great many people hold it to be true does not prove an opinion to be true.

to legalize on-line sabong or any other form of gambling because many people are
engaging in it anyway.
to say that the constitution is defective because many people want it to be amended.

a. Direct: to excite the emotion and enthusiasm of the crowd. to arouse a kind of mob mentality.
not limited to verbal argumentation but also employs emotional charged phraseology.

political campaigns. slogans and labels.

b. Indirect: the appeal is addressed to one or more individuals separately. there is the
bandwagon; the vanity – associating a product with a certain celebrity who is
admired and pursued, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you
use it; and the snobbery type.

BANDWAGON:
90% are using Kojic soap. You will be left behind or left out of the group if you do not
use the product.

VANITY:
Only the ultimate in fashion could complement the face of Rihanna. Spectrum sunglasses
- for the beautiful people in the jet set.

SNOBBERY:
A Ferrari is not for everyone. If you think you belong to the select few, this distinguished
classic may be seen and test driven at Ortigas Motor Cars. By appointment only, please!

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to the people, look for an argument in which the
conclusion is based on assertions about commonly or traditionally held beliefs.

4. Argumentum ad hominem - (attack against the person)

 When an attack is leveled not at the claim or conclusion of an opponent but at the person
of the opponent. It is an attack upon the person rather than the persons’ ideas, on the opponent’s
character implying that what he says should not be believed because of his character flaw. In
other words, this fallacy consists in attacking the person instead of proving or disproving the
point at issue, strictly speaking, this is nor a fallacy but a method of discrediting the authority of
the speaker while deviating from the real; issue. There are three common types of ad hominem
arguments:

a. abusive: (abusive ad hominem) when the attack is directly against a person seeking to defame
or discredit him. It involves two claims: first, that the opponent possesses a certain undesirable
or negative characteristic and, secondly, that the opponents’ words or abilities are not to be
trusted because of that characteristic. The structure of this fallacy is: whatever anyone with
undesirable characteristic X says is probably not true. person A has undesirable characteristic
X. therefore, whatever A says is probably not true.

Well now, you have all heard Professor Clark tell us about the theory of evolution. But I
am not surprised that he neglected to tell you that he is a godless atheist! How can this
man speak the truth, I ask you?

To identify the ad hominem abusive fallacy, look for an attack on the person’s character
rather than the person’s statements.

b. circumstantial – (circumstantial ad hominem) - when the attack is indirectly against persons

suggesting that they adopt their view chiefly because of their special circumstances or interests.
It implies that the opponent has special, usually self-interested, reasons for his or her claims.
The argument attempts to refute the person’s statements not by offering reasons against it but by
suggesting that the person himself does not have good reasons or honest motives for the position.
The structure of this fallacy may be represented as follows:

person A has self-interested reasons for asserting S. therefore, S is probably not true.

The auto industry lobbyists have been arguing that tax reform is not necessary. But just
remember this: it is the auto industry that stands to benefit the most if there is no change
in the current tax laws.

A student of A College predicts that the basketball team of B College will win the
championship match. A fellow student might raise his eyebrows and ask him, "Where
does your loyalty belong to, anyway?"

To identify the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, look for an argument that claims that
the opponent advances his or her argument not because it is true but because the opponent has
some other, usually ulterior, motive for wanting his or her argument accepted.

c. tu quoque - shifting the burden of guilt. It is an argument in which one defends oneself by
accusing one’s attacker, usually of a similar wrongdoing. “Two wrongs do not make a right” so
that even if the arguer is right in attacking his accuser, he has not defended himself against the
charge.

Yes, I admit, I did lie to you about last night. But you have lied to me also before.

You say I’m not pretty? Well, you’re not pretty as well. How can you be in the position
to say that?

To identify that tu quoque fallacy, look for an argument that attempts to offer a defense
by accusing the accuser of a similar wrongdoing.

The character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the
person says. Abusive premises may persuade by the psychological process of transference. The
field of emotional disapproval, when it is evoked, may be extended so as to include disagreement
with the assertion the person makes. The same is to be said about assigning guilt by association.
The circumstances of one who makes or rejects some claim have no bearing on the truth of that
claim.

5. Argumentum ad verecundiam - (appeal to misplaced or inappropriate authority)

When the premises of an argument appeal to some party having no legitimate claim to
authority in the matter at hand. This means, in other words, that the fallacy of appeal to authority
occurs when the authority cited is not qualified in the relevant matters or, less typically, is not
free from adverse influences, meaning he is not an authority in the field in question. This fallacy
is evident in an argument based not on the intrinsic merits of a view in question but on the
prestige or fame of the person endorsing the view. The argument in this case relies upon the
assertions of someone who is not truly in a position to know. Not every appeal to authority
commits this fallacy, but every appeal to authority with respect to matters outside his
specialization commits fallacy.

According to my physics professor, Emily Dickinson’s poetry is just good for the pigs.
That is good enough for me.

Marvis Frazier is America’s greatest boxer. I have that on the authority of Marvis’s
father, Joe Frazier.

A famous guitarist may be an expert on one type of music but this does not make her an
authority on philosophy of life. A movie star may be an authority on how to look
attractive to the opposite sex, but is not likely to be an authority on which pain reliever is
most healthful or which soap prevents pimples better.

The underlying idea of such arguments is that some statement S is true because some
authority A has said it is true. The argument’s basis structure is thus – authority A asserts that S.
therefore, S. Immediately this argument can be seen to be neither valid nor strong, since the
mere fact that someone asserts S neither makes it so nor makes it probable. Typically, however,
the arguer believes more than the mere fact that A asserts S. The arguer very likely is assuming
such things as that A is someone who knows what he is talking about regarding S. or that A is
speaking without bias, or that A is telling the truth. If those similar assumptions are well
founded, the appeal to authority A may constitute good reasoning. Again, not all appeals to
authority are fallacious. After all, we should accept the testimony of qualified and unbiased
experts for we cannot be experts in every field ourselves.

To recognize the appeal to authority, look for an argument based primarily on the
premise that some person or some publication reports that S is true. The fallacy occurs when the
person or publication is not relevantly qualified or is not speaking without bias; in other words,
whenever the truth of some proposition is assented on the basis of the authority of one who has
no special competence in that sphere, the appeal to misplaced authority is committed.

6. Argumentum ad ignorantiam – (appeal to ignorance)

When it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has not been proved false,
or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved true. The premises
tell us that nothing can be known with certainty one way or the other about a certain subject
while the conclusion states something definite. The two structures of the appeal to ignorance
are: We do not know that S is false. Therefore, S is true or We do not know that S is true.
Therefore, S is false.

Well, I have examined all the arguments for the existence of God, and I have seen that
none of them proves that God exists. That is reason enough for me: there is no God!

Angela Frank is a paragon of honesty because she has never been caught cheating by
any of her teachers.

The lack of evidence that S is true (or not true) should not, in most cases, be taken as
proof that S is not true (or true). However, there are at least two kinds of cases that resemble the
appeal to ignorance in which a lack of evidence may justify the conclusion that S is true (or not
true). In a court of law the failure to establish that a person has committed a crime is considered
sufficient to allow us to conclude that the person is not guilty. Thus, lawyers may argue that
their clients are innocent because there is no evidence of their guilt. Notice, however, that
finding a person innocent or not guilty in a court of law is not a determination that the person did
not commit the crime; it is a determination that the evidence does not justify a judgment of guilt.
But if we concluded that a defendant did not commit the crime because he was found not guilty,
we would be committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Similarly, in scientific reasoning a
failure to disconfirm or disprove a hypothesis lends support to the hypothesis, although it does
not usually justify concluding that the hypothesis is true. Rather, each failure to disconfirm the
hypothesis indicates that it is more probable.
 Our ignorance to prove either the truth or falsity of a conclusion primarily signifies our
inability and not the truth or falsity of the very conclusion. The fallacy of appeal to ignorance
occurs when the lack of evidence or proof is not relevant to the conclusion but the arguer
believes that it is.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, look for a conclusion based upon an
absence of proof or evidence.

7. Accident

Committed when a general rule is applied wrongly to a specific case. The general rule is
cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion.
Because of the accidental features of the specific case, the general rule does not fit. In other
words, the fallacy is committed when one applies a generalization to an individual case that it
does not properly govern. From general to particular.

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, that radical

communist should not be arrested for his speech that incited that riot last week.

Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken marine soldier who is
having a fight lent you his gun and he wants it back now. Therefore, you should return it
to him now.

All good soldiers should obey their superiors' orders. Therefore, they should also obey
the captain even if he is exceedingly in authority. (the second proposition is never to be
asserted because this is already an exception to the rule, a special situation to which the
general rule should not be applied.

One has to tell the truth always. Thus, if a murderer confesses his crime to a priest, it is
but proper for the priest to reveal the truth to the authority.

8. Converse accident – (hasty generalization)

Committed when a conclusion is drawn about all the members of a group from evidence
that pertains to a selected sample. The fallacy occurs when there is likelihood that the sample is
not representative of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not
randomly selected. In other words, this fallacy is committed when one moves carelessly or too
quickly from a single case to an indefensibly broad generalization.

I have spoken to the members of the campus Siglakas club, and they prefer to use the
activity fund for a film series on birds. So probably a majority of the two thousand
students would prefer a film series on birds.
 Just on the basis that one student gets a perfect score in an exam, one cannot conclude
that the whole class is good.

To identify the fallacy of hasty generalization, look for a conclusion that generalizes over
a group. Notice whether the basis for the generalization is both representative of the group and
sufficiently large to justify the generalization.

9. False cause

Committed whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that does not in fact exist. Any reasoning that relies on treating as
the cause of a thing what is not really its cause is a fallacy. In other words, this fallacy mistakes
what is not the cause of a given effect for its real cause.

A narrower version of this fallacy is called post hoc ergo, propter hoc (after this,
therefore because of this). It concludes that an event is caused by another simply because it
follows the other. Just because two events occur one after the other in a sequence does not mean
that they are causally related.

During the past two months, every time that the cheerleaders wore blue ribbons in their
hair, the basketball team was defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the
cheerleaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.

There are more laws in the books today than ever before, and more crimes are being
committed than ever before. Therefore, to reduce crime we must eliminate the laws.

There are more churches in Metro Manila than in any part of the Philippines; and more
crimes are committed in Metro Manila than anywhere else. This makes it clear that to
eliminate crimes we must abolish the church.

She is born ahead of you. Therefore, she is your mother.

Many superstitious beliefs are fallacies of this sort. But if so, why do so many people
believe in superstition? The reason is that people usually remember those cases which support
the belief, but forget the much greater number of cases that do not.

He met an accident because it was Friday the 13th.

A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that
black cats are really bad luck.

Another type of fallacy of false cause is called oversimplification. This occurs when an
arguer explains the occurrence of some event or phenomenon in terms of one or more of its least
important causes.
 I blame the television media for the epidemic of hijackings, kidnappings, and other acts
of terrorism. If we would stop televising terrorist acts, they would stop.

To identify the fallacy of false cause, look for the claim that one thing or event is caused
by or explained as the result of some other thing or event A. Then consider whether there is any
good evidence that A causes B. The variation called oversimplification can usually be spotted
when an arguer proposes a solution to a problem while at the same time overlooking other causal
factors.

10. Ignoratio elenchi – (ignorance of the proof, irrelevant conclusion or missing the point)

Committed when the premises of an argument lead up to one particular conclusion, but
then a completely different conclusion is drawn. Ignoratio elenchi means ignorance of the proof.
The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her premises and, as a result, draws a
conclusion that misses the point entirely.

Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The
conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.

The man is currently suffering from amnesia and has no recollection whatever of the
event of the past two weeks. We can only conclude that he did not commit the crime of
murdering his neighbor, as he has been accused of doing.

The author warns against numerous computational errors in his accounting text.
Therefore, he must have written it very carelessly.

11. Petitio principii – (begging the question)

Assumes the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. Phrasing the
argument so that the premise and conclusion say the same thing in two slightly different ways.
Another name for this is circular argument. The argument begs the question at issue because it
asks that the statement to be proved be granted beforehand. It assumes as true the very point in
question.

In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it somehow tales for granted
what it is supposed to prove. The premise of the argument is simply a reinstatement of the
conclusion.

Philosophers are highly intelligent individuals because if they were not highly intelligent
they would not be philosophers.

The Bible asserts that God exists. The Bible is the divine word of God. Therefore, God
exists.
 It is plain to see that suicide is morally wrong because, as any thinking person will
admit, no one is ever justified in taking his or her own life.

"Why are you here?" "Because I'm not there."

To recognize the fallacy of begging the question, look for an argument that assumes
already the very issue under debate. Be aware that a question-begging argument may appear to
offer legitimate, independent support, but on closer examination a premise in fact either itself
rests upon the conclusion or restates the conclusion in different words.

12. Complex question

When a single question that is really two or more questions is asked and the single
answer is then applied to both questions. When a question is asked in such a way as to
presuppose the truth of some assumption buried in that question.

Have you stopped cheating on your girlfriend?

Do you still cheat on your wife?

If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is
put to them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is supported
by no evidence at all.

13. False analogy

A fallacy committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that
is drawn. It draws a conclusion about something on the basis of an analogy with or resemblance
to some other thing. The assumption is that if two or more things are alike in some respects, they
are alike in some other respect. The structure of the argument is as follows: A and B are both f,
g, and h. A is also j. Therefore, probably B is j.

Bobby’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and is expensive. Crowley’s new
car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it is also expensive.

To recognize the fallacy of false analogy, look for an argument that draws a conclusion
about one thing, event, or practice on the basis of its analogy or resemblance to other. The
fallacy occurs when the analogy or resemblance is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion, as
when, for example, the resemblance is not relevant to the possession of the inferred feature or
there are relevant dissimilarities.
14. Slippery slope

This is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument
rests upon the claim that a certain event will set off a chain reaction, leading in the end to some
undesirable consequence, yet there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will
actually take place.

Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil rights and should be summarily
abandoned. If pornography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers and news magazines
is only a short step away. After that there will be censorship of textbooks, political
speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind
control by the central government will be the inevitable result.

Studying philosophy is a dangerous thing to do. It makes you critical., which in turn
makes you skeptical of your religious beliefs. And once you have begun to lose faith in
your religion, it is a small step to atheism and immorality, and a life of immorality is
damned.

To recognize the slippery slope fallacy, look for an argument claiming that a certain
practice or event will initiate a series of events ultimately leading to some undesirable
consequences.

15. Red herring

A fallacy that is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener
by addressing a number of extraneous issues and ends by presuming that some conclusion has
been established. The fallacy got its name from the practice of using a herring, a particularly
smelly fish when cooked, to divert hunting dogs from the scent of a fox. To commit the fallacy
of red herring in an argument is to draw attention away from an issue by raising some other,
seemingly related issue. In so doing, the arguer attempts to sidetrack the opponent’s argument.

Friends and neighbors I urge you to defeat the proposal to make jail sentences
mandatory for drunk drivers. My opponent claims that it will reduce the number of
accidents caused by drunk drivers. But if we really want to reduce traffic accidents, then
we should stand behind those men and women whose chief responsibility is our safety. I
am referring of course, to our valiant police officers, what we need to do is increase their
salaries, beef up the police force, and, most importantly, stop butting into their business
with troublesome people.

I agree with my opponent that pornography is a national problem, and I am almost

persuaded by his argument that women are being degraded and victimized by
pornography. I say, almost persuaded... until I remember the facts that my opponent
obviously overlooks: namely, that the people of South Africa are not merely degraded
and victimized, they are deprived of every right due a human being. And what I do not
 understand is how we convince ourselves that our so called national problem takes
precedence over genuine oppression and suffering.

To recognize the fallacy of red herring, look for an argument in which the speaker
responds by directing attention away from the issue to other seemingly related issues.
16. Suppressed evidence

A fallacy committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the
premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound. Suppressed evidence is a
fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, its occurrence
does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of
the premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were the
whole truth, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. It is
especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the
argument pertains.

The second amendment to the constitution states that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would infringe on the
right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, a law controlling hand guns would be
unconstitutional.

B. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

These fallacies, also called fallacies of clearness, occur in arguments whose formulations
contain ambiguous words or phrases, whose meanings shift and change more or less subtly in the
course of the argument and thus render it fallacious.

1. Equivocation

A fallacy committed when the conclusion of the argument depends on the fact that one or
more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. In
other words, when the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings, deliberately or
accidentally, in the formation of a n argument.

A law can be repealed by legislative authority. The law of gravity is a law. Therefore,
the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.

No designing persons are to be trusted; But, architects are people who make designs;
Therefore, architects are not to be trusted.

“Boy” rhymes with “toy”;

But you have a boy;
Therefore, you have a toy.

With the above example, we can say that this is a fallacy of four terms. The first
'designing persons' has a different sense with the second. The former means persons who hatch
evil schemes; while the second refers to those making blueprints.
 To identify the fallacy of equivocation, look for reasoning that involves a shift between
two or more senses of a key word or phrase in the argument.
2. Amphiboly

It is a fallacy committed when the awkward construction of one's sentence allows a

multiple interpretation. The grammatical construction of a sentence is not clear and is therefore
open to different interpretation.

John told Bob that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage
to admit his own mistakes.

Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology
lecture hall. It must be the case that a number of heart failures have occurred there
recently.

My mother told your mother that she should go to the SSS office.

Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways:

1) the former involves a structural defect in a statement while the latter is always traced to an
ambiguity in the meaning of one or more words;

2) Amphiboly involves a mistake made by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement

made by someone else, whereas in the latter the ambiguity is typically the arguer’s own creation.

A classic example: Croesus, the King of Lydia was contemplating a war with the
Kingdom of Persia. Being a prudent man, he did not wish to fight unless victory was
guaranteed. He consulted the Oracle of Delphi on the matter and received the oracular
reply: IF CROESUS GOES TO WAR WITH CYRUS, HE WOULD DESTROY A
MIGHTY KINGDOM. Delighted with this prediction, from which he inferred that he
would destroy the mighty kingdom of Persia, Croesus went to war and was speedily
defeated by Cyrus, king of Persia. Afterward, his life having been spared, Croesus wrote
a bitterly complaining letter to the oracle. His letter was answered by the priest of
Delphi, who claimed that the Oracle had been right. In going to war, Croesus had
destroyed a mighty kingdom - HIS OWN!

3. Fallacy of Composition

A fallacy which states that what is true of the parts of a whole is true of the whole thing.
It is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the enormous transference of a
characteristic from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs
when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has
that characteristic, too, and the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be
legitimately transferred from the parts to the whole.

It is sometimes called the part/whole fallacy because the arguer mistakenly concludes that
the whole must have some characteristics because each part or member has that characteristic.
The structure of this fallacy is: each member of W is f. Therefore, W is f. The assumption of the
argument is that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. This is often false especially in
those cases in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In other words, this fallacy consists in taking collectively what should be taken
individually.

A feather is light. Therefore, a plastic containing a billion feathers is light.

Each member of the orchestra is excellent, so the orchestra is excellent.

Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a
whole is excellent.

Since the cost for printing a book is relatively cheap, the book as a whole must also be
relatively cheap. (This is not always the case.)

But not all part-to-whole inferences are fallacious. For example: Each student in that
class has superior intelligence; Hence, all students in that class have superior
intelligence.

To recognize the fallacy of composition, look for an argument that moves from a claim
about the parts or members of a group to a conclusion about the whole. Consider then whether it
is justifiable to attribute what is true of the parts to the whole.

4. Fallacy of Division

A fallacy that is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to
whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of a characteristic from a whole onto its parts.
Its structure is: W is f. Therefore, each member of W is f. In other words, this fallacy consists in
taking individually what should be taken collectively. We use a term first in its collective sense
and then in its distributive sense. It states that what is true of the whole is true of the parts of the
whole.

Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and

chlorine, are non poisonous.

The union voted to strike. Therefore, every member of the union voted to strike.

Humans are the only animals capable of philosophical thinking. Thus, every person is
capable of philosophical thinking.

Since a nation is powerful, every individual citizen of that nation is powerful.

 To recognize the fallacy of division, look for an argument that moves from a claim about
a whole or a group to a conclusion about one or all of the members of the whole. Then consider
whether it is justifiable to attribute what is true of the whole to its parts.

5. Accent

A fallacy that arises from the mistaken interpretation of a statement but the mistake is due
to the ambiguity in the way the statement is spoken. It occurs when the arguer illegitimately
stresses one or more words in the given statement and then proceeds to draw a conclusion based
on the resultant interpretation.

This fallacy arises from a false accent or from a false emphasis in speech. A false stress
of voice is placed upon a given word in order to mislead, confuse, or produce a wrong
interpretation.

Catherine said (she) did not (drive) (her) (car) (today). Therefore: 1. Somebody else
must have driven it; 2. She may have washed it; 3. She must have driven someone else’s;
4. She must have driven her truck; 5. She must have driven it yesterday.

Poster: "Recycle clothes and waste paper." The sentence would mean that one should
recycle clothes but can use paper unnecessarily if stress is placed on the italicized words. If the
stress is placed on the verb recycle, the sentence would mean that clothes and waste paper (used
paper) are to be recycled.

A variation of the fallacy of accent occurs when the person who makes the original
statement entices the arguer into a certain misinterpretation and thereby tricks him into
construction a fallacious argument.
[The chief mate did not drink yesterday] [The captain is sober today.]