Informal Fallacies

1. Generally fallacy means error or mistake in reasoning. An argument becomes fallacious when its
premises fail to support the conclusion.
2. In logic fallacies are used in a restricted sense. Logicians do not refer to any error in reasoning as
fallacious. Typical errors in reasoning that exhibits a pattern that can be identified and named are
taken into account by logicians.
3. There are two types of error in the reasoning. One error occurs in the form or pattern or structure
of the reasoning. This error is called formal fallacy. Just by looking at the structure we can
recognize whether or not an argument is correct one. For instance, if p implies q then the presence
of q will not allow us to infer the presence of p. Another type of error occurs in the reasoning
either because of improper connection between premise and conclusion or improper content i.e.,
improper use of language in the premise. This type of error is called informal fallacy.
4. There are more than 100 informal fallacies. We will discuss major informal fallacies1 which are
common in day to day arguments.

Fallacies of relevance:

This fallacy occurs when there is no (logical) relevant connection between premise and conclusion. There
are many ways where the connection between premise and conclusion become irrelevant.

1) Appeal to emotion/pity: The connection between premise and conclusion is irrelevant if the
conclusion is derived from the premise containing emotion instead of reason. In this fallacy
strong emotion is substituted for evidence or reason in the argument.
This fallacy is very common in commercial advertisement and political speeches.
Structure of this fallacy:
1. Favourable emotions are attached with X
2. Therefore, X is true.

“As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies
a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy” (Michael C. LaBossiere, 76 Fallacies)

Examples:

Professor: You failed in the end term by 15 marks.

1
All these fallacies we will be discussing here are context specific.

Page 1 of 14
 Student: You should make me pass by giving extra 15 marks.

Professor: Why?

Student: I was undergoing severe depression due to some family problem during end term and
could not concentrate on my study.

(Below 2 examples are from LOGIC AND LEGAL REASONING: A GUIDE FOR LAW
STUDENTS By Neal Ramee. Available online)

a) “It is time to put an end to these ‘creative’ accounting practices. Millions have lost their
pensions due to the excesses of these corporate elites. Hopes have been dashed. Lives have
been ruined. This cannot be allowed to continue. For all these reasons, I urge you to find
the defendant guilty as charged”

The social consequences of corporate abuses are irrelevant to the question of this particular
defendant’s purported liability. If this defendant is not liable, then she should not be
punished for the misconduct of others.

b) “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if found guilty, my client faces 20 years in prison. But I
ask you, can you in good conscience send a devoted husband and father of four children, a
man who has dedicated his life to providing for his family, who has participated actively in
his church, and who given over 1 0% of his income to charities, to prison for such a length
of time that he will not be able to watch his children grow up or support them financially
through their college years?”
Again, the defendant’s character is irrelevant to the question of his liability. Here, counsel
is appealing to the jury’s pity instead of offering a logical argument in support of her client.
2) Appeal to force/fear/stick: Rather than presenting evidence for the claim fear/force is being
presented.
Examples:
a) You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I’d like to
stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I’ll be in your
building anyways, visiting my father. He’s your dean, by the way. I’ll see you
later.
b) You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence
of God, then you will face the horror of hell.

Page 2 of 14
 c) You should not say such things against reservation policy. If the chair heard
what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better
learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it.
3) Red Herring: An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original
issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and
to another topic.
Structure:
a) Topic A is under discussion.
b) Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is
actually not relevant to topic A).
c) Topic A is abandoned.

Example:

Argument for a tax cut

You know, I have begun to think that there is some merit in the Republicans’ tax cut plan. I
suggest that you come up with something like it, because if we Democrats are going to survive as
a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what
the public wants.

4) Missing the point: The fallacy occurs when the conclusion is drawn from evidence that does
not actually support the claim but does support another claim. Example: I am troubled by the
reports of binge drinking by college students. According to the statistics I have seen, about 19%
of college students are binge drinkers and this leads to problems ranging from poor academic
performance to unplanned pregnancies. Since people often drink in response to pressure, this
shows that professors are putting their students under too much pressure and hence need to
make their classes easier.
5) Strawman: When the actual position is ignored and substituted with a distorted or exaggerated
or mis-represented version of the actual position.
Structure:
A has the position X
B presents position Y (which is the distorted version of X)
B attacks position Y
Therefore, X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Example:

Page 3 of 14
 Senator Jones: we should not fund the attack submarine programme.
Harry: I disagree entirely. I can’t understand why you want to leave us defenceless like that.
6) Argument against person: Rather than attacking the claim directly, the person attacks the
character of the opponent and the attack is taken as evidence against the claim.
Structure:
A makes the claim X.
B attacks the character of A.
Therefore, X is false.
Character or circumstance or action of a person does not have bearing on the truth or falsity of
the claim.
Examples:
A: I believe abortion is morally wrong.
B: Of course, you would say because you are a priest.

X: You are a cheat.

Y: You too are a cheat.

A: People should not hunt animal and kill them for food and cloths.
B. You are wearing a leather jacket and holding a beef sandwich.

Fallacy of weak or defective induction

 Fallacies of relevance occur when there is irrelevant connection between premises and the
conclusion. But in fallacies of weak induction there is no strong connection between premises and
the conclusion.
 Methods of argument: Deductive and inductive.
 In defective induction the connection between observation and the judgment is defective or weak.
 There are four types of fallacies of defective induction. In each type the premise provides the
shred of evidence in the support of the conclusion.
1.Appeal to inappropriate authority:- This fallacy occurs when one tries to prove the conclusion by
citing an inappropriate authority as premises. What constitutes inappropriate authority?
I. Lack requisite expertise: Case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jail Lal And Ors on 13
September, 1999.
Writing a thesis on a legal topic and major citations are from Einstein.
II. Biased or prejudiced: Empirical research, varieties of biases, example of Shaurya

Page 4 of 14
 movie
III. Motive to lie or disseminate false information:
IV. Lack of requisite ability to perceive or recall: Exa: watch the movie Ek ruka hua faisla.
2. Appeal to ignorance: - When the proposition has not yet been proved false, we are not entitled to
conclude that the proposition is true and vice-versa. If we do so, then we commit the fallacy of appeal to
ignorance. Exa:- Nobody has succeeded in providing conclusive evidence for astrology to be true.
Therefore, astrology is false.
Structure:
Premise: - Nobody has proved X to be true.
Conclusion:- Therefore, X is false.
Development of multi valued logic: There are more values lie in between p and not-p. Case of
Hiranyakashipu. This fallacy is an exception in court of law.

3. Hasty generalization: - This fallacy occurs when a claim is made about the group/whole on the basis
of a sample and the sample does not represent the group/whole. Problem arises because of two reasons
viz., either the sample is too small or randomly selected. Exa:- six Arab fundamentalists were convicted
of bombing WTC in New York. From this we jump to the conclusion that Arab has nothing but religious
fanatics prone to violence. Also this fallacy occurs when we overlook the background or context.
Read the case law of Baldev Raj Miglanivs Smt. Urmila Kumari W/O Baldev Raj on 15 December, 1978
4. False cause: - This fallacy occurs when the link between premise and the conclusion is based on an
imagined causal connection which probably does not exist.
Exa:-Cheerleaders having blue ribbon and match winning. More laws now a days and more crime. It
shows that law causes crime.
I. Mere temporal succession does not guarantee the causal connection. (Black cat crossed my road
and I met with an accident)
II. Never consider effect as the cause. (Whether poverty is the cause of lack of education or lack of
education is the cause of poverty?)
III. Mere co-incidence as the cause (I wished you well immediately before 1st day of end term exam.
And that day your test went well. The next day you look for me to receive my best wishes )
IV. Oversimplified cause (in this case we take one condition as cause) (flora died after falling from
the ladder, Students are not doing well, therefore, teaching is not good.)
Fallacy of false cause was committed in the following case:
In the case of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S. W. 2D 549 (Tex. 1995), Robinsons
sued du Pont, alleging that an adulterant contained in du Pont's Benlate fungicide, that was purchased by

Page 5 of 14
Robinsons and applied to their pecan trees, caused the trees to have chlorosis, a yellowing of the leaves.
Robinson's expert examined the trees and concluded that the chlorosis resulted from SU herbicides that
had inadvertantly contaminated the Benlate. The expert claimed that the fact that SU herbicides caused
chlorosis had been established by analysis he had conducted prior to being hired in the case. Robinson's
expert "did not conduct any soil or tissue testing, did not research relevant weather conditions, and did not
test any of the Benlate used by Robinson, even though they had one opened box of the fungicide
remaining.
5. Slippery Slope: This fallacy occurs when the arguer doesn’t know where to get a firm hold of her
claim. In other words, she slips down in her claim. The arguer asserts that some event must inevitably
follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
Examples: If you drop out of one course this semester, you will have less than a full-time load. It will
take you longer to graduate. It will delay your getting a job another year, meaning that you won’t get
promoted as fast as others who graduate on time. So, you can expect to lose approximately Rs. 50, 00000
during your life time.

 Peter Inwagen’s argument against free will.

 Donoghue v Stevenson (Lord Buckmaster’s argument)

6.Weak/false analogy: This fallacy is committed when analogical argument is not strong enough to
support its conclusion. Analogical argument has three premises and a conclusion. The first two premises
try to establish the analogy by showing that the things in question are similar in certain respects. The third
premise establishes the additional fact known about one thing and the conclusion asserts that because the
two things are alike in other respects, they are alike in this additional respect as well.
a. Premise 1: X has properties P, Q and R
b. Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q and R
c. Premise 3: X has property Z as well.
d. Conclusion: Y has property Z.

Identify weak analogy from the following cases

 The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging
the freedom of speech or the right to peaceable assembly. This “law” applies to states (and cities)
as a result of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In reliance on the First Amendment, a

Page 6 of 14
 group of gays and lesbians apply for a permit to march on Gay Freedom Day. Similar parades in
other cities have been calm and orderly, but the police chief denies a parade permit to this group.

There are three controlling cases in this jurisdiction:

Laster v. City: Police seized an art collection displayed in a public park, because it depicted
heterosexuals in nude poses. The court ruled that the display was protected by the First
Amendment.

Byron v. City: Police denied a parade permit to a Nazi group that wanted to march on Hitler’s
birthday. The court ruled that the denial violated the group’s right under the First Amendment.

Stone v. City: Police closed down a theatre showing an erotic gay film, because they claimed that
the film prompted the spread of AIDS. The court ruled that the action of the police was allowed
under the First Amendment.

 A negligent person who causes an injury to another person is liable for the latter’s injuries.
Because it is sometimes very difficult to determine the causal extent of a negligent action, courts
have developed the theory of proximate cause, which limits the scope of liability. In this
connection, Mr. X negligently failed to maintain the brakes on his car and as a result his car
crashed into one driven by Mr. Y. Mr. Y was taken to the hospital for bumps and bruises, but
while he was there, doctors mistakenly amputated his perfectly healthy leg. Mr. Y sues Mr. X for
loss of his leg.

The only issue is whether Mr. X proximately caused the loss of the leg of Mr. Y. There are two
controlling cases in this jurisdiction:

Sacco v. Lane: Lane negligently used gasoline to light his barbecue in a strong wind. The flames
from the barbecue ignited nearby trees and then spread to ten houses in the neighborhood,
burning them to the ground. The court ruled that Lane was liable for damage to the house.

Hunt v. Gomez: Hunt was a passenger in a taxi driven by Gomez. Gomez was drunk and
negligently let Hunt out at the wrong corner. While Hunt was walking home, a worker dropped a
brick from a building that was under construction, injuring Hunt. Hunt sued Gomez for injury
resulting from the falling brick. The court ruled in favor of Gomez.

Page 7 of 14
  A vagrant named Blake attempted to earn some pocket change by breaking into a soft-drink
vending machine and stealing the cash. The police apprehended Blake in the act, and the district
attorney charged him with burglary. Blake had one prior conviction for breaking into a soft-drink
machine. The first thing that any lawyer would do with this case is to recall the definition of
“burglary”. According to the traditional definition, “burglary” means “the trespassory breaking
and entering of a dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.”
Under many modern statutes, “dwelling house” has been replaced by “structure” and “at night”
has been deleted. There is little doubt that Blake has broken into a structure.

The question is, is a soft drink machine the kind of structure intended by the statute? A second
question is did Blake intend to commit a felony when he broke into the soft-drink machine? To
answer these questions a lawyer would consult additional statutes and relevant cases. Let us
suppose that our jurisdiction has a statute that defines felony theft as theft of $400 or more. Also,
let us suppose that the cash box of this particular machine contained $450 but most similar
machines can hold no more than $350. Our jurisdiction has two controlling precedents.

In People v. Harris, Harris broke into a warehouse with the intent of stealing its contents. The
warehouse contained microwave ovens valued at $10,000, and Harris was found guilty of
burglary.

In People v. Sawyer, Sawyer broke into a newspaper vending machine with the intent to steal the
cash in the cash box. The maximum capacity of the cash box was $20, and Sawyer was found not
guilty of burglary.

Fallacies of Presumption:

Fallacy of presumption occurs not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or there is weak
connection between premise and conclusion rather premise presumes what is to be proved in the
conclusion.

1. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence/Cherry picked information:

This fallacy is committed when true and relevant information is left out in the premise. Or when selected
evidence is presented to persuade the listener to accept the position of the speaker and evidence that
would go against the position of the speaker is left out in the premises.

Page 8 of 14
Logical Structure:

Evidence A and evidence B is available.

Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.

Evidence B supports the claim of person 2.

Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.

Example #1:

Employer: It says here on your resume that you are a hard worker, you pay attention to detail, and you
don’t mind working long hours.

Andy: Yes sir.

Employer: I spoke to your previous employer. He says that you constantly change things that should not
be changed, you could care less about other people’s privacy, and you had the lowest score in customer
relations.

Andy: Yes, that is all true, as well.

Employer: Great then. Welcome to our social media team!

Explanation: Resumes are a classic example of cherry picking information. A resume can be seen as an
argument as to why you are qualified for the job. Most employers are wise enough to know that resumes
are one-sided and look for more evidence in the form of interviews and recommendations to make a
decision.

Example #2:

My political candidate gives 10% of his income to the needy, goes to church every Sunday, and volunteers
one day a week at a homeless shelter. Therefore, he is honest and morally straight.

Explanation: What information was left out of the example is that this same candidate gives 10% of his
income to needy prostitutes in exchange for services, goes to the bar every Sunday after church (and
sometimes before), and only works at the homeless shelter to get clients for his drug dealing business.

Page 9 of 14
Exception: If the parts of the truth being suppressed do not affect the truth of the conclusion, or can
reasonably be assumed, they could be left out of the argument. For example, political candidates are not
committing this fallacy when they leave out the fact that they will need about 8 hours of sleep each night.

Tip: If you suspect people are only telling you a half-truth, don’t be afraid to ask, “Is there anything you
are not telling me?”

2. Begging the question: This fallacy occurs when premises include the claim that the conclusion is
true (directly or indirectly).
Structure of the fallacy:
i. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or assumed (directly or
indirectly)
ii. Claim is true.

Example

Mr. X: God must exist

Mr. Y: How do you know?
Mr. X: Because the Bible says so.
Mr. Y: Why should I believe the Bible?
Mr. X: Because the Bible was written by God

If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.

The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God.

3. Complex question: Two or more questions are presented in such a manner that it appears like a
single question. The question rests on an unwarranted assumption. By answering the question in
the form of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ creates a premise which supports the conclusion.
Structure of the fallacy:
i. Question Q is presented that is actually formed of two (or more) questions Q1 and Q2
(etc.)
ii. Question Q is based on one or more unwarranted assumption, U
iii. An answer, A is received to Q and treated as if it answers Q1 and Q2.
iv. On the basis of A, U is concluded to be true.

Examples:

Page 10 of 14
 a. How can America be saved from the socialist programs and job killing ways of the current
administration? Clearly there is only one way: vote Republican!
b. Are you against abortion and for the importance of life, or not?
c. Lawyer: The figure seems to indicate that your sales have increased as a result of misleading
advertisement. Is that correct?
Witness: They did not.
Lawyer: That means you admit that you were involved in misleading advertisement. How long
have you been engaging in such practise?
d. Lawyer: Did you take a stick ad beat your wife for serving you cold mutton curry?
Witness: No, she served me fish curry that night.
4. Accident: When a general rule is (mis)applied to specific case by ignoring the condition of
exception.
Structure
i. General rule G, which usually applies to X is presented.
ii. A is an X, but is an exception to G.
iii. G is applied to A as if it were not an exception.

This is an error in reasoning because the general rule is being incorrectly applied to the specific
case at hand. For instance, according to constitution, people have right to privacy. John beats his
wife in private. So, arresting him for that would violate his right to privacy.

5. False dichotomy: Argument is presented in disjunctive form “either…or” and in that form two
alternatives are jointly exhaustive.
Example: Either give us liberty or make us slave. We know that you don’t want to make us slave.

Fallacy of ambiguity: An argument is fallacious due to imprecise use of language.

Equivocation: When a word is used in one way in one of the premises and the same word in different
way in another premise or conclusion then the argument is called fallacy of equivocation.

Examples:

Exa-1

Nobody is perfect.

I am that Nobody.

Page 11 of 14
The word ‘nobody’ is used in two different senses.

Exa-2

Really exciting novels are rare

But rare books are expensive

Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive

Here the word ‘rare’ is used in two different senses.

Exa-3

Whom did you see crossing the road.

I saw nobody crossing this road.

Let’s follow nobody.

Again the word ‘nobody’ is used in more than one way in the single argument.

Amphiboly: This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn from premises which are ambiguous due to
their grammatical structure and context does not make it clear that which meaning is intended.

Example-1

King Croesus: Oracle, if I go to war with Cyrus-the king of Persia, then what will happen?

Oracle of Delphi: If Croesus goes to war with Cyrus he would destroy a mighty kingdom.

King Croesus: Excellent! After I destroy Cyrus, I shall make many generous offerings to the God.

Example-2

Roger: Janet told Sally that she has made a mistake.

Ted: Wow! I am impressed that Janet was willing to admit the mistake she made.

Accent: This fallacy arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoke or written emphasis. Or when
conclusion is drawn from the premise which is ambiguous due to lack of emphasis for the following
reasons:

Page 12 of 14
 a. Intended tone is not clear. For instance, “You would be lucky to get this person work for you”
(It may be a praise or sarcasm).
b. Lack of clarity regarding intended stress. For instance, “John thinks that Sally has been faithful
to him”. Or “We should not speak ill about our friends”.
c. Taken out of the context. A teetotaller captainmakes entry on log that “the mate was drunk
today”. One day captain was sick. The mate made an entry into the log that “the captain was
sober today”. The use of the word ‘sober’ may make people infer that captain was drunk all other
day.

A person after eating mutton curry in a buffet party says “I am not going to eat anything else”. It may
either mean food is not tasty or he will stick to mutton curry only.

Composition: This fallacy occurs when we infer from the attributes of part to the attribute of the whole.
For instance, chalk is composed of molecules. Each molecules are colorless. So, chalk is colorless.

Division: This fallacy occurs when we infer from the attribute of the whole to the attribute of the parts.
For instance, chalk is white. Chalk is composed of molecules. So molecules are white.

Read the following passage to understand the fallacy of composition and division.

Economist Leonard Silk warns us to be careful while moving from microeconomics to macroeconomics.
According to him, some key concepts change when we move from microeconomics to macroeconomics.
He writes,

It is often mistakenly assumed that what is true for the parts of a system is true for the
whole system as a whole. If you stand up at a football game, you can see better, but if
everybody stands up nobody can see better.

In economics, if you, as an individual, decide to save more out of your income, you will
increase your wealth. But if everyone in the nation tries to save more out of income, this
may reduce national wealth—by reducing, in succession, sales, the production of goods,
the incomes of producers and their employees and ultimately national saving and
investment.

If you as an individual are able to raise your prices, that may be a good thing for your
business. But if every business in the national economy does the same, the obvious result
will be inflation, a bad thing for the nation.

Page 13 of 14
 Balancing the budget so that outgo does not exceed income may be a sound rule for you and your
family. But budget balancing does not always make sense for the national government: for the
government to do so during a business slump when unemployment is rising would worsen the
slump and increase unemployment.2

If we don’t listen to the warning of Silk and explain macroeconomics through microeconomics then we
will commit the fallacy of composition and if we explain microeconomics through macroeconomics then
we will commit the fallacy of division.

2
Leonard Silk, Economics in Plain English, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978, Pp. 83-84.

Page 14 of 14