CHAPTER FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

 Lesson 1: Fallacy in General

 the word 'fallacy' is a general term that refers to a logical defect or flaw or
fault that a certain argument exhibits in its structural arrangement or
reasoning process, or in the contents of its statements used as premises or
a conclusion, for various reasons, other than merely false premises.
 In general, it is a violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria.
 Four general criteria of a good argument namely relevance, acceptability,
sufficiency, and reputability of the premises.
 Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a good
argument.
1.2 Types of Fallacies
 Depending on the kind of the problems or defects they contain arguments
may commit either a formal or an informal fallacy.
A fallacy committed due to a structural defect of argument is known as a
formal fallacy.
 Because the problem that causes them is a structural defect, formal fallacies
may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an
argument.
 An informal fallacy, is a fallacy which is committed due to a defect in the
very content of an argument, other than in its structure of form.
 Informal fallacies cannot be identified through mere inspection of the form
or structure of an argument.
 It needs a detail analysis to reveal the source of the trouble.
Types of Fallacies…
 Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that have
identifiable forms, such as categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms,
and hypothetical syllogisms.
Types of Fallacies…
 Formal fallacies occur only in deductive arguments.
 Informal fallacies are those mistakes in reasoning process of an argument
that cannot be recognized by analyzing the structure of an argument, but
only through analysis of the content of the argument.
 Only the meaning of the words, how the statements are constructed and
how inferences are made that reveals the faulty reasoning. E.g.
Lesson 2: Fallacies of Relevance
 The fallacies of relevance are the one that the arguments, in which they
occur, have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 In an argument that commits a fallacy of relevance, the connection
between premises and conclusion is emotional.
 Such arguments are often called non sequiturs, i.e. the conclusion does not
seem to follow from the premises.
 Also called argumentative leaps, which suggest that since no connection is
seen between the premises and the conclusion, a huge leap (jump) would
be required to move from one (the premises) to the other (the conclusion)
 To identify a fallacy of relevance, one must be able to distinguish genuine
evidence from various forms of emotional appeal
Fallacies of Relevance…
1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the 'Stick')
 occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that
person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him if he
does not accept the conclusion. E.g.
 Mr. Kebede you accused me of fraud and embezzlements. You have to drop the charge
you filed against me. You have to remember that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both
you and your family members if you do not drop your case. Got it?
 The argument can be re-written to expose the faulty reasoning most clearly
as Mr. Kebede you have to drop your charge, otherwise you will face accident.
 Appeal to force need not use sheer physical force to support a certain
conclusion
Fallacies of Relevance…
 E.g.

 Premise: You can avoid harm by accepting the conclusion that the policy is
fair and reasonable. Conclusion: Thus, the policy is fair and reasonable.
 This fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding
the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if
acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at least questionable.
 The fact that an argument mentions a threat does not necessarily make it a
fallacy.
Fallacies of Relevance…
 Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
 The appeal to pity is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by
evoking pity in one‘s audience when the statements that evoke the pity are
logically unrelated to the conclusion.
 The appeal to pity is not, very subtle. The appeal to pity fallacy has the
following form.
 Premises: You have reason to pity this person, thing or situation (or
group).
 Conclusion: You should do X for the benefit of this person (or group),
although doing X is not called for logically by the reason given.
 E.g.

 There is a tendency to take argument from pity as inherently fallacious.

But this is not always the case. E.g.

 3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

 is an attempt to persuade a person (or group) by appealing to their desires
and needs.
 E.g.

 One does not have to be addressing a large group to commit the ad

populum fallacy. E.g.
 Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: direct and
indirect.
 The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of
people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win
acceptance for his or her conclusion.
 The objective is to arouse a kind of mob-mentality. This is the strategy
used by nearly every propagandist and demagogue.
 In the indirect approach, the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd
as a whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some
aspect of their relationship to the crowd.
 The indirect approach is very common in most advertising industries.
 I. Bandwagon fallacy
 Bandwagon fallacy is a kind of fallacy that commonly appeals to the
desire of individuals to be considered as part of the group or community in
which they are living. E.g
 II. Appeal to Vanity
 The appeal to vanity often associates the product with someone who is
admired, pursued, or imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be admired
and pursued if you use it. For example, BBC may show the famous
footballer, Frank Lampard, wearing Addidas shoe, and says:
 Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected celebrities!
ADIDDAS SHOE!!!
 III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy
 Snob means a person who admires people in higher classes too much and
has no respect for people in the lower.
 Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as
superior to others.
 This fallacy appeal individuals and their desires to be regarded as different
and better. E.g.
 The newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is not for everyone to drink. But you are
different from other people, aren't you? Therefore, the newly produced Gebeta Guder
wine is for you
 Not all appeal to people arguments are inherently fallacious.
 It is generally accepted by those who live in and around polar region that penguin give
birth to their children when the winter getting stronger. Thus, most probably penguin
gives birth to their children when the winter is getting stronger.
 the argument from popular opinion is based not on a position to know
argument but on an assumption that people have deliberated on a particular
policy or practice and have come to accept it because they have found it a
useful or good thing to do. E.g.
 In both the direct and indirect approach the arousal of a mob mentality
produces an immediate feeling of belonging for each person in the crowd.
 But in indirect approach the context and technique are some what subtler.
4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
 involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a
certain argument and the other then responds by directing his or her attention
not to the first person‘s argument but to the first person himself.
 Occurs in three forms
I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy
 In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person‘s
argument by verbally abusing the first person.
 Premise: A is a person of bad character.
 Conclusion: A's argument should not be accepted. E.g.

II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

 The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem
abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the
respondent attempts to discredit the opponent‘s argument by alluding to
certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
 E.g.

 The arguer does not pay serious attention to the substance of the argument
of the king.
 Easy to recognize because it always takes this form: 'Of course, Mr. X
argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.'
III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy
 begins the same way as the other two varieties except that the second arguer
attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
 Take this form 'How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you
do (or have done) X yourself.'
 E.g. Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette
because you yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while you
yourself is smoking?
 Not all arguments against the person are fallacious.
 For instance the direct ad hominem argument can be reasonable.
 In legal argumentation in a trial, it can be legitimate for a cross examining
attorney to question the ethical character of a witness.
 The lawyer may even argue that the witness has lied in the past and use
this argument to raise questions about his character for honesty.
 The same is true in the case of circumstantial fallacy.
 Itinvolves the attempt to discredit an opponent by suggesting that the
opponent‘s judgment is distorted by some factor in his or her background
condition.
 Most often people judgment blinded by their circumstances. E.g.

5) Accident
 is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover.
E.g.
6) Straw Man
 is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent‘s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and
then concludes that the opponent‘s real argument has been demolished.
 Has three main features.
 First there are two individuals or groups discussing about some
controversial issue having opposite views.
 Second the critic, does not rationally criticize the main or the substantive
argument of the opponent.
 Rather he criticizes ideas which are the misrepresentation of the main
content of the argument.
 Third the critic concludes, by criticizing the misrepresented ideas that he
knock down the main ideas.
 Since the critic does not attack the main ideas, rather he criticized the
misrepresented argument, one can argues he did not criticize the argument
at all. E.g.

 Readers should keep in mind two things. First, identify the original
argument and second, look for what gone wrong in the misrepresentation
of the argument. Is the critic exaggerated the original argument or is he
introduced a new assumption not presumed by the original argument.
7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)- 'ignorance of the proof.'
 Missing the point, however, illustrates a special form of irrelevance.
 Occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular
conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the
correct conclusion, is drawn. E.g.

 the premises and the conclusion in this argument are not related
8) Red Herring
 closely associated with missing the point.
 iscommitted when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener
by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one and
finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by
merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.
 The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to
follow a scent.
A red herring (smoked and dried fish species) is dragged across the trail
with the aim of leading the dogs astray.
 E.g.

A second way of using the red herring effectively is to change the subject
to some flashy, eye catching topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract
the listener‘s attention. Topics of this sort include sex, crime, scandal,
immorality, death, and any other topic that might serve as the subject of
gossip.
 E.g. Professor Conway complains of inadequate parking on our campus. But did you
know that last year Conway carried on a torrid love affair with a member of the
English Department? The two used to meet every day for clandestine sex in the copier
room. Apparently they didn't realize how much you can see through that fogged glass
window. Even the students got an eyeful. Enough said about Conway.
 confused with the straw man fallacy because both have the effect of
drawing the reader/listener off the track.
 Inthe straw man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent‘s argument
and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument.
 In the red herring, on the other hand, the arguer ignores the opponent‘s
argument (if there is one) and subtly changes the subject.
 Straw man always involves two arguers, at least implicitly, whereas a red
herring often does not.
 Both red herring and straw man proceed by generating a new set of
premises, whereas missing the point does not.
 Straw man draws a conclusion from new premises that are obtained by
 Red herring, if it draws any conclusion at all, draws one from new
premises obtained by changing the subject.
 Missing the point, however, draws a conclusion from the original
premises.
 In the red herring and straw man, the conclusion is relevant to the premises
from which it is drawn; but NOT in missing the point.
 Missing the point serves in part as a kind of catchall fallacy, and a
fallacious argument should not be identified as a case of missing the point
if one of the other fallacies clearly fits.
Lesson 3: Fallacies of Weak Induction
 If premises do not support the conclusion strongly then the resulting
argument will be labeled as Weak Induction.
 The fallacy of weak induction violates the principles of sufficiency, which
states that whenever a person presents an argument for or against a
position, he/she should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons
of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to
justify the acceptance of the conclusion.
 Therefore, the fallacies of weak induction occur not because the premises
are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case with the eight
fallacies of relevance, but because the connection between premises and
conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
 Like the fallacies of relevance, the fallacies of weak induction often involve
emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.
 9) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
 The appeal to unreliable authority (or ad verecundiam fallacy) is an appeal to
an authority when the reliability of the authority may be reasonably
doubtable.
 common in advertising when celebrities who lack the relevant expertise
endorse products. E.g. The famous artists, artist Woriku said that Vera Pasta is the most nutritious
food. So Vera pasta must be the most nutritious food.
A more subtle appeal to unreliable authority occurs when a well-known
expert in one field is cited as an expert in another field even though he or she
lacks expertise in it. This will be subtle if the two fields are related.
 E.g. Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in more complex
societies, there is higher level of division of labor and in less complex societies, there is
less division of labor.
 The appeal to authorities in matters of controversy is often problematic.
10) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
 When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one
way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a
definite assertion about that thing. E.g.
 BUT, there are two exceptions to appeal to ignorance
 One, If qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any
evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about the question. E.g.

 Two, If the prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for
the defense may justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty. Example:
11) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
 Hasty generalization is a defective form of argument from inductive
generalization.
A generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a
selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
 The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is
not representative of the group. E.g.
12) False Cause Fallacy
 Argument from causality is a kind of argument which argues either from
the knowledge of causes to the knowledge of effects or from the
knowledge of the effect to the knowledge of causes. E.g.

 Another critical question is whether both things correlated with each other
are really caused by some common factor that is causing both of them.
E.g.
 E.g.

 Inthis case, there was a genuine correlation between pet ownership and health improvement, but both factors could well be the result of the better than
average social qualities of the people who acquire pets.
 There may be a genuine correlation between two factors A and B, but the reason for the correlation is by a third factor C, is causing both A and B.
 In such a case, it is not correct to draw the conclusion that A causes B.
 Many varieties of false cause fallacy.
 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means in Latin ―after this, therefore because of
this.
 This occurs whenever an arguer illegitimately assumes that because event X
preceded event Y, X caused Y. E.g. Since I came into office two years ago, the rate of violent
crime has decreased significantly. So, it is clear that the longer prison sentences we recommended
are working.
 You used the mobile and then it stopped working. You broke the phone.
 I am felling very unwell. It must have been the meal last night.
 Non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause).(Mistaken causation.)
 This variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not
really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere
temporal succession. E.g. Superstitious reasoning.
 E.g. Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $100,000. Therefore,
the best way to ensure that Ferguson will become a successful executive is to raise his
salary to at least $100,000.
 In this argument success as an executive causes increases in salary—not
the other way around-so the argument mistakes the cause for the effect.
 Oversimplified cause- probably committed more often than other forms
 Occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the
arguer selects just one of them, represents it as if it were the sole cause.
 In Ethiopia, the grades of fresh students in universities have been dropping for several
years. What accounts for this? Well, during these same years, the average time students
spend on Facebook (per day) has increased. So, the cause is obvious: students are
spending much of their time surfing on Facebook when they need to be reading instead.
13) Slippery Slope Fallacy
A slippery slope argument is a species of negative reasoning from
consequences, used where two parties are deliberating together and one
warns the other not to take a contemplated action, because it is a first step
in a sequence of events that will lead to some horrible outcome.
 Occurs when the arguer assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there
is insufficient evidence that one (or more) events in the chain will cause
the others; when there is no actual or real connection among the chain of
events. E.g.
14) Weak Analogy
 Argument from analogy is a very commonly used kind of case-based
reasoning, where one case is held to be similar to another case in a
particular respect.
 Since the one case is held to have a certain property, then the other case, it
is concluded, also has the same property.
 is committed when the analogy between things, situations and
circumstance is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
 In identifying this fallacy:
(1) Identify the attributes a, b, c,. . That the two entities A and B share in
common,
 (2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, relates to
the attributes a, b, c, . . . If some causal or systematic relation exists
between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak.
 E.g. When an individual is diagnosed as having cancer, every effort is
made to kill the cancerous growth, whether by surgery, radiation
treatment, or chemotherapy. But murderers and kidnappers are cancerous
growths on society. Therefore, when these criminals are apprehended and
convicted, they should be treated like any other cancer and eliminated by
capital punishment.
 E.g. Cars cause many more deaths than firearms do, so if we are going to
ban firearms, we should also ban cars.
Fallacies of Presumption
 These fallacies arise the premises presume what they purport to prove.
15) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)-'request for the source.'
 committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate
premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a
possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as
the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle. E.g.
 Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is
morally wrong.
 Of course humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how
similar they are.
 It's
obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the
government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.
Fallacies of Presumption
 By using Rhetorical phraseology such as ―'of course, clearly, this being
the case, and after all, the arguer hopes to create the illusion that the stated
premise, by itself, provides adequate support for the conclusion when in
fact it does not.
 The second form of petito principii occurs when the conclusion of an
argument merely restates a possibly false premise in slightly different
language. In such an argument, the premise supports the conclusion, and
the conclusion tends to reinforce the premise. Examples:
 Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping
because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death
for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
 Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future for the simple
reason that if a person has no vision of the future he could not possibly
preach revolution.
 The third form of petito principii involves circular reasoning in a chain of
inferences having a first premise that is possibly false. E.g.:
 Harar brewery clearly produces the finest beer in Ethiopia. We know they
produce the finest beer because they have the best chemist. This is because
they can afford to pay them more than other brewery. Obviously they can
afford to pay them more because they produce the finest beer in the
country.
Fallacies of Presumption
16) Complex Question
 Committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single
question and a single answer is then given to both of them.
 Every complex question presumes the existence of a certain condition.
When the respondent‘s answer is added to the complex question, an
argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition.
 Thus, although not an argument as such, a complex question involves an
implicit argument.
 This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into
acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to
acknowledge.
Fallacies of Presumption
 Have you tried to stop watching too much television?
 If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
 If not, then you must still be watching too much television.
 Therefore, you watch too much television.
 Have you stopped cheating on exams?
 Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?
 Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical fallacies
—that is, they do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting something he or she
does not want to admit.
17) False Dichotomy-'False bifurcation' and the 'Either-or fallacy.'
 committed when a disjunctive (either . . . or .) premise presents two unlikely alternatives
as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable
alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
Fallacies of Presumption
 Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive premise is false,
or at least probably false, the argument is typically unsound.
 The fallacy is often committed by children when arguing with their parents,
by advertisers, and by adults generally. E.g.
Either you are going to buy me a new car or I will divorce you.
You do not want me divorce you.
Thus, you have to buy me a new car
 The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the illusion created by the
arguer that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives.
 In most cases the arguer expresses only the disjunctive premise and leaves it
to the reader or listener to supply the missing statements.
Fallacies of Presumption
18) Suppressed Evidence
 Committed when the premises ignore some important piece of evidence that
outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.
 Creates the presumption that the premises are both true and complete when in
fact they are not.
 E.g. Somalia is a good place for investment for the following reasons. First there are
cheap raw materials. Second there is cheap labor. Third there is good market for our
product. Fourth there is a port that helps us to export our product. Thus we have to
consider investing in Somalia.
 Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them. Therefore, it would be
safe to pet the little dog that is approaching us now.
 Most commonly appears in inferences based on advertisements
 E.g. “Buy a bucket of chicken and have a barrel of fun!''
Fallacies of Presumption
 Can also be committed by ignoring important events that have occurred with
the passage of time that render an inductive conclusion improbable.
 E.g. During the past fifty years, Poland has enjoyed a rather low standard of
living. Therefore, Poland will probably have a low standard of living for the
next fifty years. (Poland as part of former USSR Vs Independent state)
 Stillcan be committed by arguers who quote passages out of context from
sources such as the Bible, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights to support
a conclusion that the passage was not intended to support.
 The Second Amendment of the American Constitution states that the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law
controlling handguns would infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Therefore, a law controlling handguns would be unconstitutional.
Fallacies of Presumption
 In fact, the Second Amendment reads, ―A well- regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.
 Hence, the amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be
infringed when the arms are necessary for the preservation of a well-
regulated militia.
 The suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to the form of begging the
question in which the arguer leaves a key premise out of the argument.
 The difference is that suppressed evidence leaves out a premise that
requires a different conclusion, while that form of begging the question
leaves out a premise that is needed to support the stated conclusion.
 There are cases where the two fallacies overlap.
Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy
 Fallacies of Ambiguity- (equivocation and amphiboly)
 arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises
or the conclusion (or both).
 An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different interpretations
in a given context.
 Occur when the conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of an
ambiguous word or phrase or on the wrong interpretation of an
ambiguous statement.
 Fallacies of grammatical analogy-(composition and division.)
 Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to
other arguments that are good in every respect.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
 19) Equivocation
 Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a
word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different
senses in the argument.
 Such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either
case they are unsound.
 E.g.Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore,
some triangles are ignorant.
 We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defense
of the innocent. Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defense of the
innocent.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
20) Amphiboly
 The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous
statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
 The ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation - a missing
comma, a dangling modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other
careless arrangement of words.
 E.g. Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that Habtom has
at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
 Save soap and waste paper.’ So soap is more valuable than paper.”
 ‘Local Children Make Nutritious bread’. I can’t believe they’re eating children now!”
 Such ambiguities are called syntactical ambiguities i.e. grammatical arrangement of
words in sentences
 Cases of amphiboly cause serious problems in contracts and wills.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
 E.g. Mrs. Zenebu stated that in her will that “I leave my house and my
clothes to Lemma and Mengistu.” Therefore, we conclude that Lemma gets
the house and Mengistu gets the car.
 Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways.
 First, equivocation is always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of a word
or phrase, whereas amphiboly involves a syntactical ambiguity in a statement
i.e. grammatical structure.
 The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by
the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else,
whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is typically the arguer‘s own creation.
 Occasionally, two fallacies occur together.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
21) Composition
 committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.
 E.g.
 Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the
team as a whole is excellent.
 Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is
invisible.
 Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly
poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
 In each case the transference is illegitimate.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 But, not every such transference is illegitimate. E.g.
 Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk
has mass.
 Every component in this picket fence is white. Therefore, the whole fence is
white.
 Composition is confused with hasty generalization. To distinguish
 Examine the conclusion of the argument.
 If the conclusion is a general statement that is, a statement in which an
attribute is predicated distributive to each and every member of a class- the
fallacy committed is hasty generalization.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 But if the conclusion is a class statement that is, a statement in which an
attribute is predicated collectively to a class as a whole- the fallacy is
composition.
 Collective Vs Distributive predictions
 Statement One: Fleas are small. The attribute of being small is predicated
distributively to each and every flea in the class.
 Statement Two: Fleas are numerous. The attribute of being numerous is
predicated collectively assigned not to the individual fleas but to the class
of fleas.
 E.g.Less gasoline is consumed by a car than by a truck. Therefore, less
gasoline is consumed in the United States by cars than by trucks.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 The conclusion states that the whole class of cars uses less gas than does
the whole class of trucks (which is false, because there are many more cars
than trucks).
 Since the attribute of using less gasoline is predicated collectively, the
fallacy committed is composition.
22) Division
 isthe exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to
whole, division goes from whole to parts.
 committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or
members).
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 E.g. Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component
elements, sodium and chlorine, are non-poisonous.
 The Royal Society is over 300 years old. General Merid Hussein is a
member of the Royal Society. Therefore, General Merid Hussein is over
300 years old.
 As with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of transference is
not always illegitimate. E.g.
 This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece
of chalk have mass.
 Division can sometimes be confused with accident.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 In such a case, division proceeds from the class to the members, while
accident proceeds from the general to the specific.
 Thus, if a class statement is mistaken for a general statement, division may
be mistaken for accident.
 To avoid such a mistake, one should analyze the premises of the argument.
If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy committed is
accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy is division.