CHAPTER FIVE

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Fallacies in General
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something
other than merely false premises.

Fallacies can be committed in many ways, like

 either a mistake in reasoning
or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad
argument appear good (or both).

Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies

1
• A good argument must have relevant premises
– A premise is relevant, if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in
favor of, or makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

• Acceptable premises

– if it is a reason, or that a rational person is ought to accept, or agreed on.

• Sufficient premises

– they are sufficient enough in number, kind and weight.

• provide an effective rebuttal (refutation, or disproof) to the strongest arguments

against one‘s conclusion and also perhaps to the strongest arguments in support of
the alternative position.

• Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a good argument

2
Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal.

Formal fallacy: a formal fallacy is one that may be identified through

mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument.
Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive arguments that
have identifiable forms: categorical syllogisms, disjunctive
syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.

The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:

– all cats are animals, therefore all animals are cats

– All A are B. So all B are A

3
 This argument has the following form:

All A are B.

All C are B.

All A are C.

Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument
is invalid.
 The fact that A, B, and C stand respectively for ‘‘tigers,’’
‘‘mammals,’’ and ‘‘animals’’ is irrelevant in detecting the fallacy.
 The problem may be traced to the second premise.

 If the letters C and B are interchanged, the form becomes

valid. 4
Informal fallacies: informal fallacies are those that can be detected only

through analysis of the content of the argument.

Consider the following example:

All factories are plants.

All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.

Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

 Yet the argument is clearly invalid because it has true premises and a

false conclusion.

 An analysis of the content, the meaning of the words reveals the

source of the trouble, the word plant. 5

The word ‘‘plants’’ is used in two different senses.
 In the first premise it means a building where
something is manufactured, and
 in the second it means a life form.

Thus, the argument really has the following invalid form:

 Informal fallacies can be divided in to five groups.

 fallacies of relevance,

 fallacies of weak induction

 fallacies of presumption

 fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

6
 1. Fallacies of Relevance {The wrong kind of evidence}

The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic that

the arguments in which they occur have premise that are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 But the premises could be relevant psychologically,
so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises,
even though it does not follow logically.

 The connection between premises and conclusion is emotional.

 To identify a fallacy of relevance, one must be able to distinguish
genuine evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.
7
 1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum:
Appeal to the ‘‘Stick’’)

The fallacy of appeal to force occurs

whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another
person, and
tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some
harm will come to him/her if he or she does not accept
the conclusion.
 The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the
physical or psychological well-being of the listeners.
8
 Child to playmate: ‘‘Mr x’’ is the best show on TV; and if you don’t
believe it, I’m going to call my big brother over here and he’s going to
beat you up.
But it occurs among adults as well:

Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After
all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I’m sure you
wouldn’t want her to find out what’s been going on between you and
that sexpot client of yours.
 The 1st is a physical threat, the 2nd a psychological threat.

9
10
 2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
The appeal to pity fallacy occurs

when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the
reader or listener.

This pity may be directed toward the arguer or toward some third party.

Example:

Taxpayer to judge: Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on
my tax return, even though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my
reputation will be ruined. I’ll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have
the operation that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.

The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Surely I am not guilty.’’

Obviously, the conclusion is not logically relevant to the arguer’s set of pathetic
circumstances, although it is psychologically relevant.
11
 In this way the reader or listener may be fooled into accepting a
conclusion that is not supported by any evidence.
 The appeal to pity is sed by students on their instructors at exam
time and by lawyers on behalf of their clients before judges and
juries.

12
 3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 Is an attempt to convince a person (a group) by appealing to the
desire to be accepted by others
 Using popularity to sway the audience – {tawakenet}

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.
13
 Consider this speech
• “I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud
to belong to a party that stands for what is good for Ethiopia.
Proud to stand with men and women who can get our Ethiopia
back on its feet….”

14
 In the indirect approach the arguer
 aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more
individuals.
• Bandwagon Argument - everyone else is doing it ...”

– Ex.1. The majority of people in Ethiopia accept the opinion that child
circumcision is the right thing to do. Thus, you also should accept that child
circumcision is the right thing to do.
• Appeal to Vanity {“X is special, and they ...”} associates product with certain
celebrity who is admired/pursued
– Ex.1. You have the best soft drink of the year, Coca Cola. Even, Kanenisa
Bekele likes its taste. Never miss it!
– The message is that if you drink the coca, then you, will be respected, just
like Kanenisa
• Snobbery : “If you do it, you’ll be special like...”
• Snob means a person who admires people in higher classes too
much and has no respect for people in the lower classes
• is based on this desire to be regarded as superior to other
– Ex. 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.
16
4. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad
Hominem) : {focusing on the opponent, not the argument }

This fallacy always involves two arguers.

 One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain
argument
 the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the
first person’s argument but to the first person himself.
The argument against the person occurs in three forms:
the ad hominem abusive- personal criticism

the ad hominem circumstantial- guilt by association

the tu quoque - you do it too! 17
 A} In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to
the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person.
Example:
• Ex-1- mr X has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as cocaine
and heroin. But mrY argues, X is just another one of those upper-
crust intellectuals who is out of touch with real life. No sensible
person shows or listens to his pseudo –solutions

18
B}The ad hominem circumstantian

 the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by

alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.

Here is an example:

Bill Gates has argued at length that Microsoft Corporation does not
have a monopoly on computer disk operating systems. But gates is the
chief executive officer of Microsoft, and he desperately want to avoid
antitrust action against his company. Therefore, we should ignore
Gates’s argument.
 ‘‘Of course Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstances
that affect him.’’ 19
C}The tu quoque (‘‘you too’’)
 the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be
hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
 The second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in
the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter’s
conclusion.

Example
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.

20
 5. Accident {misapplication of a general rule to a specific case}
 committed when a general rule is applied wrongly to a
specific case
• Ex.1. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed
right. Therefore, party leaders should not be arrested for
their speech that incited the riot last October.
– The right of freedom of speech has its limits
– These rules are obviously misapplied in the above
circumstances
21
 6. Straw Man {oversimplifying your opponent’s argument in order to knock it down}

The straw man fallacy is committed

when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the

purpose of more easily attacking it,

then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been

demolished.

 The following are the main features of straw man fallacy.

Two individuals discussing about some controversial issues

Second the critic misrepresent of the main content of the
argument.
Third the critic concludes, by criticizing the misrepresented
ideas that he knock down the main ideas. 22
Ex.1. Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the
country and thus it should be replaced by geographical federalism.
But we should not accept his proposal. He just wants to take the
country back to the previous regime. Geographical federalism was
the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical regime.
We do not want to go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr.
Belay's proposal

23
• This argument involves two persons:

• Mr. Belay and his critic. This critics show that the critic do not

oppose the idea of geographical federalism.

• Rather he first misrepresented geographical federalism as

going back to the past and then he criticizes the past regime

and by doing so he believed the real argument knocked down.

• But he did not criticize the substance of the argument; he

criticizes distorted idea which do not represent his opponent.

24
7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio elenchi){ drawing the wrong conclusion from
legitimate premise}
 when the premises of an argument appear to lead up to one
particular conclusion, but then a completely different conclusion is
drawn.
 This conclusion must be significantly different from the conclusion
that is actually drawn.
Ex . Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming
rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death
penalty immediately.
At least two correct conclusions of argument:
Either ‘‘We should provide increased police protection or
‘‘We should initiate programs to eliminate the causes of 25the
crimes.’’
 8. Red Herring : changing the subject to distract the audience

The red herring fallacy is committed :

 when the arguer diverts the attention of the listener by changing the
subject to a different

 when you divert the attention of the reader/listener by addressing a

number of extraneous issues unrelated to the subject at hand, and then
assume that the issue has been addressed, and a conclusion established

 the arguer must change the original subject of the argument without
the reader or listener noticing it

26
Example 1:

There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate
pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But many of these foods
are essential to our health. Carrots are an excellent source of
vitamin A, broccoli is rich in iron, and oranges and grapefruits have
lots of vitamin C.

27
 2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
The fallacies of weak induction occur
 The premises provide at least a shared of evidence in support
of the conclusion,
 But the evidence is not nearly good enough

 Fallacies involving insufficient evidence.

 Involve emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.
 The fallacy of weak induction violates the principles of sufficiency

28
 9. Appeal to Unqualified Authority(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

 In which an arguer cites the authority of another person in

support of some conclusion.

 When the cited authority or witness is not trustworthy.

 Reasons why an authority might not be trustworthy.

lack the requisite expertise,

might be biased or prejudiced,

might have a motive to lie or ‘‘misinformation,’’ or

might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall. 29

Ex.1. Our chemistry teacher says that federalism is not the best
solution for Ethiopia. We all believe that our chemistry teacher’s
comment is quite correct that federalism must be avoided.

30
 10. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

The claim that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false

or

The claim that a statement is false simply because it has not been proven true.

– Ex.1. After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove that

reincarnation occurs. So, at this point, I think we can safely conclude that

reincarnation does not occur.

– Ex.2. After centuries of trying, no one has been able to show that

reincarnation does not occur. So, at this point, I think we can safely conclude

that reincarnation does occur.

31
32
 11. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
The fallacy occurs
when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not
representative of the group.
Such a likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small
or not randomly selected.

 Ex.1. During the past two months a pharmacy was robbed and the
suspect is a black man. Yesterday, a black teenager snatched an old
lady’s purse while she was waiting at the corner of the bus stop.

Clearly, blacks are nothing but a pack of criminals.

33
 12. False Cause {unsupported correlation of events}

The fallacy of false cause occurs

whenever the link between premises and conclusion

depends on some imagined causal connection that

probably does not exist.

Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the

false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able

to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition

that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at

all. 34
• Post Hoc Ergo propter Hoc (‘after this, therefore, on account of this’)

– the first event causes the second.

Ex.1. A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must
be that black cats are really bad luck.

• Non Causa Pro Causa (‘not the cause for the cause’)

• What is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all.

Ex.1. During the past two months, every time that the cheer leaders
have worn blue ribbons in their hair, the basket ball team has been
defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheer
leaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.
35
• Oversimplified Cause

• A multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects
just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.
• Ex.1. The quality of education in our colleges has been declining for years.
Clearly, our teachers just are not doing their job these days.
– Other possible causes can be:
– Lack of discipline in the home,
– Parental non involvement,
– Drug use by students,
– Too much Facebook.
36
 13. Slippery Slope
It occurs when
 the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction
and
 there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will
actually take place.
 This form of argumentation is called argument from consequences.

Example:

Suppose you are thinking of taking a certain medication and your doctor
says, ―You have high blood pressure, and taking this medication raises
blood pressure, so in your case there would be a bad side effect of taking
it.
37
 Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life.
If we don’t respect life, we are likely to be more and
more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder.
Soon our society will become a battlefield in which
everyone constantly fears for their lives. We should
avoid animal experimentation.

38
 14. Weak Analogy

The fallacy of weak analogy is committed

• When the analogy (Similarity between two ) is inadequate to support the

conclusion that is drawn.

 Example: Daniel’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery and gets

excellent gas mileage. Tesfaye’s new car is also bright blue and has a leather

upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas mileage too. 

In its form, this example becomes:

• Entity X has attributes ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, and ‘d ’

• Entity Y has attributes ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’

• Therefore, entity y probably has ‘d ’ also 39

 3 .Fallacies of Presumption { Confusion about what the evidence supports}

To presume means
 to take something for granted or to assume a given idea as true
or correct
 which in fact needs further proof, explanation or evidence.

And, the fallacy of presumption will be committed

when the assumption given in the premise is not
supported by proof
but the arguer maintains that it does not need proof and
she/he invites his/her audiences accept it as it is.

40
 15. Begging the question (Petitio Principii)
The fallacy of begging the question is committed
 whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate
premises provide adequate support for the conclusion
 By leaving out a key premise,
 by restating the conclusion as a premise, or
 by reasoning in a circle.

 The Latin name for this fallacy, petitio principii, means ‘‘request for
the source.’’

 After reading or hearing the argument, the observer is inclined to

ask, ‘‘But how do you know X?’’ where X is the needed support. 41
 Examples: Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows
that abortion is morally wrong
 The arguments begs the question ―How do you know that
abortion is a form of murder?

 This question indicate that something has been left out of the
original argument.

 Thus, the first argument is missing the premise, ―Abortion is a

form of murder;
42
• This fallacy involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences.

Here is an example:

God exists because the Bible says so. But how do I know that what
the Bible says is true? Because it is God’s word.

43
 16. Complex Question
The fallacy of complex question is committed
When a single question that is really two (or more)
questions is asked and
A single answer is then applied to both questions.
 Such arguments is usually intended to trap the respondent into
acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want
to acknowledge.
Examples:
Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Where did you hide the cookies you stole? 44

The following arguments emerge:

You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered ‘‘yes.’’

Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.

You were asked where you hid the cookies you stole. You replied ‘‘under the bed.’’ It follows

that you did in fact steal the cookies.

 On the other hand, if your answers ‘‘no’’ to the first question and ‘‘nowhere’’ to the

second.

We then have the following arguments:

You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered ‘‘no.’’

Therefore, you continue to cheat.

You were asked where you hid the cookies you stole. You answered ‘‘nowhere.’’ It follows

that you must have stolen them and eaten them .

45
Obviously, each of the questions is really two questions:
Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in the past,
have you stopped now?

Did you steal the cookies? If you did steal them, where did you
hide them?
 If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex
question, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a
conclusion that is supported by no evidence at all; or, they may be
tricked into providing the evidence themselves.

46
 17. False Dichotomy

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed

 when one premise of an argument is an ‘‘either . . or . .’’
statement that presents two alternatives as if they were jointly
exhaustive (as if no third alternative were possible).
 One of these alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer.
 The attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into
thinking that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive
alternatives and is therefore true by necessity.
 {A situation that cannot be avoided] {to make sb believe sth that is not true }

 False dichotomy is otherwise called ―false bifurcation 47

Example:
Classical democracy is originated either from the Gada System or
from Athens. Classical democracy did not originated from ancient
Athens Thus, it must originate from the Gada System.
 The arguer tries to convey the impression that democracy cannot
originates in other places than Athens or the Gada System and that
no other alternatives are possible.
 Either you buy me laptop, or I may not get that grade that you
want me to achieve
 The fallacy amounts to making a false or probably false premise
appear true. 48
• If one of the alternatives in the disjunctive premise is true,
then fallacy is not committed.
• For example, the following argument is valid and sound:

Either Abay River is in Ethiopia or it is in South Africa.

River Abay is not in South Africa.
Therefore, River Abay is in Ethiopia

49
 18. Suppressed Evidence

The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed

 when the argument ignores some important evidence/s that outweigh/s the

presented evidence and entails a different conclusion.

 The evidence that is suppressed must be so important that it outweighs the

presented evidence,

 The arguer deliberately omits the key evidence (premise) and

Example:

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. Forth there is a port that helps us to export our product. Thus we

have to consider investing in Somalia. 50

 If the arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in
Somalia then the argument commits a suppressed evidence fallacy.

 It is common advertisements.

51
4. Fallacies of ambiguity {Confusion about what the evidence means}

The fallacies of ambiguity 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.

52
 19. Equivocation
The fallacy of 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,

Example:

Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of

gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the

legislative authority.
53
 The argument equivocates on the word ‘‘law.’’
 In the first premise it means statutory law, and in the second it
means law of nature.
 A king moves one square in any direction

But, Solomon is a king

Therefore, Solomon moves one square in any direction
 Other relative terms that are susceptible to this same kind of
ambiguity include ‘‘small,’’ ‘‘good,’’ ‘‘bad,’’ ‘‘light,’’ ‘‘heavy,’’
‘‘difficult,’’ ‘‘easy,’’ ‘‘tall,’’ ‘‘short,’’ and so on.

54
 20. Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs
 when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is
syntactically ambiguous and proceeds to draw a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
 The original statement is usually
 asserted by someone other than the arguer, and
 the syntactical ambiguity usually arises from a mistake
in grammar or punctuation - other careless
arrangement of words.
 Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood
in two clearly distinguishable ways.
 The arguer typically selects the unintended interpretation and
proceeds to draw a conclusion based upon it. 55
Here are some examples:
John told Henry 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.

56
 In the 1st argument the pronoun ‘‘he’’ has an ambiguous
antecedent; it can refer either to John or to Henry. Perhaps John
told Henry that Henry had made a mistake.
 In the second argument the ambiguity concerns what takes place
in the biology lecture hall;
 is it the lecture or the heart failures?

 The ambiguity can be eliminated by inserting commas

 (‘‘Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture, about heart
failure, in the biology lecture hall’’)

57
 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
21. Composition

The fallacy of composition is committed

when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows

that the whole has that attribute too and

the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately

transferred from parts to whole.

Example:

Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is

invisible.

58
 Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both
deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
 In these arguments the attributes that are transferred from the
parts onto the whole are designated by the words ‘‘invisible,’’
and ‘‘deadly poison,’’ respectively.
 In each case the transference is illegitimate, and so the
argument is fallacious.

59
 22. Division
The fallacy is 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).

Examples:

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

and chlorine, are nonpoisonous.

‘‘nonpoisonous,’’ is illegitimately transferred from the whole onto the parts

60
61
62
63