Chapter #4

Fallacies

Fallacy :A type of argument that seems to be correct, but contains a

mistake in reasoning.

Detail : A fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound

reasoning. In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy refers to a flaw or error in an
argument that renders it invalid, misleading, or logically unsound. Fallacies
can take various forms, including errors in reasoning, misleading language,
or faulty assumptions. They can be intentional or unintentional and can
occur in various contexts, such as debates, discussions, advertisements,
and everyday reasoning. Identifying and understanding fallacies is
essential for critical thinking and effective argumentation. Common types of
fallacies include ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, appeal to
authority, false cause, slippery slope, and many others

Classification of Fallacies:
Fallacies can be categorized into two main types: formal and
informal.
Formal Fallacies:
 Formal fallacies are errors in the structure of an argument
that invalidate its logical validity. They occur when the form
or structure of the argument is flawed, regardless of the truth
or falsity of the premises.
 Examples of formal fallacies include affirming the

consequent, denying the antecedent, and the fallacy of

composition/division.
 [ Affirming the Consequent:
 This fallacy happens when someone assumes that if one thing follows another,
the first thing caused the second. However, just because two events are
connected doesn't mean one caused the other.
  For example: "If it's raining, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it must be
raining." This assumes that wet streets only happen because it's raining, ignoring
other possible causes like a sprinkler system.
 Denying the Antecedent:
 This occurs when someone assumes that if one thing doesn't happen, then
something else won't happen either. But again, just because one event doesn't
occur doesn't mean another event won't happen.
 For instance: "If it's raining, the streets are wet. It's not raining, so the streets
must not be wet." This overlooks other reasons why the streets might be wet, like
a recent spill or cleaning.
 Fallacy of Composition/Division:
 This happens when someone wrongly assumes that what's true for the parts
must be true for the whole, or vice versa.
 For example: "Each player on the team is skilled, so the entire team must be
skilled." This overlooks the possibility that the team's success depends on
teamwork or other factors, not just individual skills.
 These examples illustrate how these formal fallacies involve errors in logic and
assumptions about causality or relationships between parts and wholes .]

 These fallacies can typically be identified through formal

logic and are concerned with the technical structure of the
argument.

Informal Fallacies:
 Informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur due to
flaws in the content or context of the argument. Unlike formal
fallacies, they are not necessarily dependent on the structure
of the argument.
 Informal fallacies often rely on misleading language, faulty
assumptions, or irrelevant information to make an argument
appear valid when it is not.
 Examples of informal fallacies include ad hominem attacks,
appeal to emotion, straw man arguments, slippery slope,
and hasty generalization.
1. [Ad Hominem:
 This is when someone attacks the person making the argument instead of
addressing the argument itself. It's like saying, "You're wrong because
you're a bad person," instead of discussing the actual points being made.
  For example: "You can't trust Bob's idea about climate change because
he's always late to work."
2. Appeal to Emotion:
 This happens when someone tries to persuade others by using emotions
like fear, pity, or joy, instead of relying on facts or logic. They want you to
feel a certain way to agree with them.
 For instance: "If we don't pass this law, our children will be in danger!"
This appeals to the fear of harm to children rather than presenting
evidence about the effectiveness of the law.
3. Straw Man Argument:
 This occurs when someone misrepresents or exaggerates someone else's
argument to make it easier to attack. It's like setting up a fake opponent
made of straw that's easier to knock down.
 For example: "Opponents of the new school curriculum want our kids to be
ignorant about the world." This misrepresents the actual concerns about
the curriculum, making them seem unreasonable.
4. Slippery Slope:
 This is when someone argues that one thing will lead to another, usually
negative, without enough evidence to support this claim. It's like saying
that if you take one step in a certain direction, you'll end up falling all the
way down a slope.
 For instance: "If we allow people to own exotic pets, soon our
neighborhoods will be overrun with dangerous animals!" This assumes a
chain reaction of events without considering other factors.
5. Hasty Generalization:
 This happens when someone draws a conclusion based on insufficient or
biased evidence. They make a broad statement about a whole group
based on only a few examples.
 For example: "I met one rude person from that country, so everyone from
there must be rude." This unfairly judges an entire group based on the
actions of just one person.
These examples show how informal fallacies can sneak into arguments by
relying on emotions, misrepresentation, exaggeration, or faulty reasoning. ]

 Identifying informal fallacies often requires an understanding

of context, language usage, and the principles of critical
thinking.
Classification of each individual fallacy,
1.Fallacies of relevance. Fallacies of relevance are mistakes in
arguments where the things being said don't really have anything to
do with the point being made. Even though they might seem like
they're connected, they're not actually relevant. These mistakes are
quite common and can trick people into believing something that
isn't true. the premises of the argument are simply not relevant to
the conclusion.

2. Fallacies of defective induction.

In fallacies of defective induction, the problem comes from using
evidence that's not strong or reliable enough to support the
conclusion. Even though the evidence seems related to what's being
said, it's not good enough to actually prove the point. It's like trying
to build a sturdy bridge with weak and flimsy materials – it's bound to
fail. are so weak and ineffective

3. Fallacies of presumption.
In fallacies of presumption, people make assumptions without
enough evidence to back them up. They assume too much in their
arguments. Then, they use these assumptions to reach a conclusion,
but it's a mistake because those assumptions might not be true. It's
like building a house on a shaky foundation – it's likely to collapse.
too much is assumed

4. Fallacies of ambiguity.

In fallacies of ambiguity, people use words or phrases in a confusing

way. Sometimes, a word or phrase means one thing in one part of the
argument but means something else in another part. This makes the
argument unclear and can lead to mistakes in reasoning. It's like
trying to follow directions with mixed-up signs – you might end up
going the wrong way. equivocal use of words or phrases.

 Fallacies of Relevance: Fallacies of relevance are bald

mistakes; they might better be called fallacies of irrelevance,
because they arise when there is no real connection between
the premises and the conclusion of an argument.

R1. The Appeal to the Populace

An informal fallacy in which the support given for some
conclusion is an appeal to popular belief. Also known as
argument ad populum. Example happens when someone
argues that because many people believe something or do
something, it must be true or right. An example:
"Just because everyone else is getting the new smartphone,
you should too! It's clearly the best one out there."

R2. Appeals to Emotion

Appeal to Pity:
A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism,
or mercy, rather than on reason. Also known as argument ad
misericordiam. Example
An appeal to emotion occurs when someone tries to persuade
others by triggering emotional responses rather than
presenting logical arguments. example:
"Support this charity for starving children. Just imagine the
suffering they endure every day without food or clean water.
Your donation can make a real difference and save lives."
R3. The Red Herring:
A fallacy in which attention is deliberately deflected away from
the issue under discussion.
Example :Imagine people are talking about making rules to
keep the environment clean. But then someone says, "Wait,
what about all the businesses? If we make these rules, they
might struggle and people could lose their jobs."
This person is changing the subject away from keeping the
environment clean and making it about jobs and businesses
instead. It's like throwing a different topic into the conversation
to distract everyone from the main point.

R4. The Straw Man

A fallacy in which an opponent's position is
depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than is
justified by what was actually asserted.
Example :Imagine two friends, Alex and Taylor, are discussing
whether they should go for a hike or watch a movie. Alex
prefers hiking and says, "Let's go for a hike. It'll be great
exercise and we'll enjoy nature."
Taylor responds, "But if we go hiking, we might get lost and
end up stuck in the woods all night!"
In this situation, Taylor is exaggerating the risks of hiking to
make it seem like a worse idea than it really is. They're creating
a "straw man" by misrepresenting Alex's argument about
enjoying nature and exercise. This makes hiking seem like a
bad idea when it might not be as risky as Taylor is suggesting.
R5. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack
against the person taking a position. This fallacy is
also known as “argument ad hominem.”
A. Argumentum ad hominem, Abusive
Here's an example of argumentum ad hominem, abusive:
Imagine two students, Max and Sarah, are discussing a
school project. Max suggests an idea for the project, but
Sarah doesn't like it. Instead of discussing the idea, Sarah
says, "You're just stupid! Your ideas are always terrible."
In this example, Sarah is attacking Max personally instead
of addressing the merits of his idea. By calling Max stupid
and dismissing his ideas outright, Sarah is using an ad
hominem, abusive argument. She's not engaging with
Max's argument but instead resorting to insults to
undermine his credibility.
B. Argumentum ad hominem, Circumstantial
Here's an example of argumentum ad hominem,
circumstantial:
Imagine there's a discussion about whether a new law
should be passed to protect the environment. One person
argues in favor of the law, but another person responds
by saying, "Of course you would support this law – you
work for an environmental organization!"
In this example, instead of addressing the arguments
presented in favor of the law, the respondent attacks the
person's circumstances or affiliations. By suggesting that
the person's support for the law is biased because of their
job, the respondent is trying to undermine their credibility
rather than engaging with the substance of their
argument. This is an example of argumentum ad
hominem, circumstantial.
 Poisoning the well
A variety of abusive ad hominem argument in
which continued rational exchange is undermined by
attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the
opponent.
R6. The Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled
threat of force. Also known as “argument ad baculum.”
Example Imagine two siblings, Sarah and Tom, are arguing
over who gets to choose the TV channel. Sarah, who is
stronger, says to Tom, "If you don't let me watch what I want,
I'll take your toys away!"
In this situation, Sarah is using the threat of force to get her
way in the argument. Instead of trying to persuade Tom with
reasons or compromise, she's resorting to coercion or
intimidation. This is an appeal to force because Sarah is trying
to win the argument through threats or physical power rather
than reasoned discussion.

R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

A fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion
from the one that is proposed. Also known as “irrelevant
conclusion” and “ignoratio elenchi.”
Example of missing the point:
Imagine two friends, Alex and Taylor, are discussing where to
go for dinner. Alex suggests going to an Italian restaurant
because they're craving pasta. Taylor responds, "But I heard
Italian food is unhealthy. Let's go get burgers instead."
In this scenario, Taylor is missing the point of the discussion.
While health concerns might be valid, Alex's suggestion was
based on a craving for pasta, not on health considerations.
Instead of addressing Alex's preference, Taylor brings up a
 different issue that isn't relevant to the conversation,
suggesting burgers instead. This is an example of missing the
point.
Conclusion :
1. Fallacies of Relevance
R1. The appeal to the populace (ad populum): When correct
reasoning is replaced by devices calculated to elicit emotional
and nonrational support for the conclusion urged.
R2. The appeal to emotion: When correct reasoning is replaced
by appeals to specific emotions, such as pity, pride, or envy.
R3. The red herring: When correct reasoning is manipulated by
the introduction of some event or character that deliberately
misleads the audience and thus hinders rational inference.
R4. The straw man: When correct reasoning is undermined by
the deliberate misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
R5. The attack on the person (ad hominem): When correct
reasoning about some issue is replaced by an attack upon the
character or special circumstances of the opponent.
R6. The appeal to force (ad baculum): When reasoning is
replaced by threats in the effort to win support or assent.
R7. Missing the point (ignoratio elenchi): When correct
reasoning is replaced by the mistaken refutation of a position
that was not really at issue.

 Fallacies of Defective Induction

A fallacy in which the premises are too weak
or ineffective to warrant the conclusion.
D1. The Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam)
A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because
it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been
proven true. Also known as“argument ad ignorantiam.”
Here's an example of an argument from ignorance:
Imagine a group of friends is camping in the woods, and they
see strange lights in the sky. One person says, "Those lights
must be alien spacecraft because we can't explain what they
are."
In this example, the person is assuming that because they can't
explain the lights, they must be alien spacecraft. However, just
because something isn't understood doesn't mean it's
automatically explained by something else. This argument
relies on the lack of evidence or understanding (ignorance) to
draw a conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.

D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
This is when people believe something is true just because an
expert said so. It doesn't matter if the expert knows about the
topic or not. It's like saying something is true just because a
smart person said it.
OR
The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority is when someone tries
to prove their point by quoting someone who isn't really an
expert on the topic. It's like saying a famous actor's opinion on
medicine is reliable just because they're famous.
Or A fallacy in which a conclusion is accepted as true simply
because an expert has said that it is true. This is a fallacy
whether or not the expert’s area of expertise is relevant to the
conclusion. Also known as “argument ad verecundiam.”

Example Person A: "You should invest all your money in this

stock because Elon Musk said it's a good idea."
In this example, Person A is committing the Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority fallacy by suggesting that investing in
the stock is a good idea simply because Elon Musk said so,
even though Musk may not necessarily be an expert in finance
or investing.

D3. False Cause:

A fallacy in which something that is not really the cause of
something else is treated as its cause. Also known as non
causa pro causa.
Example: "Ever since we got that new cat, I've been feeling
sick. It must be because of the cat."
In this example, the person is committing the fallacy of Non
Causa Pro Causa (False Cause) by wrongly assuming that the
cat is the cause of their illness, even though there might be ot
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
A fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused
by a closely preceding event. Literally, “After this; therefore,
because of this.” her factors causing their sickness.
Example : Example: "I wore my lucky socks to the exam, and
then I got an A. Therefore, my lucky socks must have caused
me to do well on the exam."
In this example, the person is committing the fallacy of Post
Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc by assuming that because they wore
their lucky socks before the exam and did well, the socks must
have caused their success. However, there's no evidence to
support that the socks actually caused the good grade. It's
possible that other factors, such as studying effectively,
contributed to their success.

Slippery slope
A fallacy in which change in a particular direction is asserted to
lead inevitably to further changes (usually undesirable) in the
same direction.
Example: "If we let students retake exams once, they'll want to
redo everything. Then, our education will get worse and
everything will fall apart."
In this version, the idea is that allowing one small change
(retaking exams) will lead to a chain of bad things happening
in education without any real proof.
D4. Hasty Generalization
A fallacy of defective induction in which one moves carelessly
from a single case, or a very few cases, to a largescale
generalization about all or most cases.
Also known as “converse accident.”

This is when someone makes a big generalization based on

just one or a few examples, without considering all the other
possibilities.
Example: "I met one rude person from that city, so everyone
from there must be rude."
In this case, the person is making a big assumption about an
entire group based on just one experience, which might not be
true for everyone.
Conclusion
2. Fallacies of Defective Induction
In fallacies of defective induction, the premises may be relevant
to the conclusion, but they are far too weak to support the
conclusion. Four major fallacies are
as follows:
D1. Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam): 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.
D2. Appeal to inappropriate authority (ad verecundiam):
When the premises of an argument appeal to the judgment of
 some person o persons who have no legitimate claim to
authority in the matter at hand.
D3. False cause (non causa pro causa): When one treats as the
cause of a thing that which is not really the cause of that thing,
often relying (as in the subtype post hoc ergo propter hoc)
merely on the close temporal succession of two events.
D4. Hasty generalization (converse accident): When one
moves carelessly or too quickly from one or a very few
instances to a broad or universal claim.

 5 Fallacies of Presumption
Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit
assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.
Fallacies of presumption happen when an argument assumes
something to be true without enough evidence. It's like
building a house on shaky ground – it might seem strong, but
it's not really stable.
Example: "You're either with us or against us."
In this example, the argument presents only two options
(being with "us" or against "us"), suggesting that there are no
other possibilities or nuances to consider. This oversimplified
view ignores the potential for other positions or perspectives,
creating a false sense of binary choice.

P1. Accident
A fallacy in which a generalization is mistakenly applied to a
particular case to which the generalization does not apply.
Example: "Cars should always stop at red lights. But what if
someone is rushing to the hospital with a sick child? In that
case, they should be allowed to run the red light."
In this example, the person argues that because there might
be exceptional circumstances where running a red light could
be justified (such as a medical emergency), it's acceptable to
break the rule in all situations. However, this overlooks the
general principle that red lights are in place for safety reasons,
and exceptions should be carefully considered rather than
applied broadly.

P2. Complex Question

An informal fallacy in which a question is asked in such
a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion
buried in that question.
Example: "Have you stopped cheating on your
exams?"
In this example, the question is complex because it
assumes that the person being asked has cheated on
exams in the past, without providing any evidence or
opportunity for the person to deny the accusation. It
traps the respondent into admitting guilt by accepting
the premise embedded within the question.

P3. Begging the Question

An informal fallacy in which the conclusion of
an argument is stated or assumed in any one of
the premises.
This is when someone's argument assumes the conclusion is
true without giving real evidence.
Example: "I'm the best student because I always get the
highest grades."
Here, the person is saying they're the best student because
they get the highest grades. But that just repeats the
conclusion ("I'm the best student") without really proving why
they're the best.
Conclusion
3. Fallacies of Presumption
In fallacies of presumption, the mistake in argument arises
from relying on some
proposition that is assumed to be true but is without warrant
and is false or dubious.
Three major fallacies are as follows:
P1. Accident: When one mistakenly applies a generalization
to an individual
case that it does not properly govern.
P2. Complex question (plurium interrogationum): When one
argues by asking a question in such a way as to presuppose
the truth of some assumption buried in that question.
P3. Begging the question (petitio principii): When one
assumes in the premises of an argument the truth of what one
seeks to establish in the conclusion of that same argument.

 6 Fallacies of Ambiguity

An informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the

meanings of words or phrases within an argument.

This happens when words or phrases are used in

different ways, causing confusion in the argument.
Example: "All sharks are dangerous animals. Mary is a
loan shark. Therefore, Mary is a dangerous animal."
In this example, the word "shark" is used with different
meanings. In the first sentence, "shark" refers to a
predatory fish, while in the second sentence, it refers to a
person who lends money at high interest rates. The
confusion in meaning leads to a flawed conclusion.
A1. Equivocation
A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a
word or phrase are used, accidentally or
deliberately, in different parts of an argument.
This is when someone uses a word with different
meanings in the same argument, which can make
the argument confusing or misleading.
Example: "She's a great player because she's
always playing games. We should invite her to
our game night."
In this example, "playing games" is used first to
mean she's skilled at sports or competitions, and
then it's used to mean playing board games or
cards. The different meanings of "playing games"
can make the argument unclear.

A2. Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of
words can be interpreted in more than one way; the
argument contains a premise based upon one
interpretation, while the conclusion relies on
a different interpretation.
This happens when a sentence can be understood in
different ways, and the argument relies on one
interpretation for the premise but a different interpretation
for the conclusion.
Example: "Kids make nutritious snacks."
In this example, the sentence could be interpreted as
saying kids are nutritious snacks, which doesn't make
sense. However, the intended meaning might be that
kids can have nutritious snacks, which is a different
interpretation. The fallacy occurs when someone uses
one interpretation for the premise and another for the
conclusion.
A3. Accent
A fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when an argument
contains a premise that relies on one possible emphasis
of certain words, but the conclusion relies on a different
 emphasis that gives those same words a different
meaning.
This happens when an argument uses words that can be
understood in different ways. The premise relies on one
meaning of the words, but the conclusion uses a different
meaning of the same words.
Example: "I never said she stole my money."
In this example, the sentence can be interpreted in
different ways depending on which word is emphasized.
For instance:
 If "I" is emphasized: It means someone else said she stole the
money, not me.
 If "never" is emphasized: It means at no time did I say she stole the
money.
 If "said" is emphasized: It means I didn't speak about her stealing the
money, but maybe I wrote it or implied it.
 If "she" is emphasized: It means someone else stole the money, not
her.
 If "stole" is emphasized: It means she didn't steal the money; perhaps
she borrowed it.
 If "my" is emphasized: It means she stole someone else's money, not
mine.
This fallacy occurs when someone uses one
interpretation for the premise and another for the
conclusion.

A4. Composition

A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously

assigns attributes to a whole (or to a collection) based on
the fact that parts of that whole (or members of
that collection) have those attributes.
 This happens when someone wrongly assumes that
because some parts of something have a certain quality,
the whole thing must have that quality too.
Example: "These bricks are light, so this whole building
must be light too."
In this example, just because the bricks are light doesn't
mean the entire building made from those bricks is also
light. The fallacy occurs because the characteristics of
the parts don't necessarily apply to the whole thing.

A5. Division
A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously
assigns attributes to parts of a whole (or to members of
a collection) based on the fact that the whole
(or the collection) has those attributes

This happens when someone wrongly assumes that

because the whole thing has a certain quality, all of its
parts must have that quality too.
Example: "The football team won the championship, so
every player on the team must be amazing."
In this example, just because the team as a whole won
the championship doesn't mean every individual player
on the team is amazing. The fallacy occurs because the
characteristics of the whole don't necessarily apply to
each of its parts.

Conclusion:
Fallacies of Ambiguity
A1. Equivocation
An informal fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same
word or phrase
have been confused.
A2. Amphiboly
An informal fallacy arising from the loose, awkward, or
mistaken way in which
words are combined, leading to alternative possible meanings
of a statement.
A3. Accent
An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase has a
meaning in the conclusion
of an argument different from its meaning in one of the
premises, the difference
arising chiefly from a change in emphasis given to the words
used.
A4. Composition
An informal fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn
from the attributes
of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself.
A5. Division
An informal fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from
the attributes
of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the whole.
Unlike accident and converse accident, composition and
division are fallacies
of ambiguity, resulting from the multiple meanings of terms.
Wherever the
words or phrases used may mean one thing in one part of the
argument and another
thing in another part, and those different meanings are
deliberately or accidentally
confounded, we can expect the argument to be fallacious.