Chapter five: Informal fallacy

The Concept and Classifications of Fallacies

The Meaning of ‘Fallacy’
In ordinary language usage, the term ‘fallacy’ refers to a mistaken or false belief. However,
from the logician’s point of view, the term fallacy refers to a defect in an argument. Generally,
fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually, they involve either logical error (error in
reasoning) or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.
 We can find fallacies in both deductive and inductive arguments.
 If deductive arguments are unsound or if inductive arguments are uncogent, then they will
contain fallacies. This is because such kinds of arguments have one or more false premises or
they contain a fallacy (or both).
 The causes of fallacies, among others, include the following:
 The failure to provide genuine evidences or premises for the conclusion
 The failure to provide premises that provide good support of the premises and conclusion;
 The failure to address the most important or relevant aspects of the issue the arguer arguing
for and so forth.
Conti…
Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal.
Formal fallacies are those fallacies that arise from an error or mistake in the form
or structure of an argument. Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive
arguments that have identifiable forms such as in categorical syllogisms,
disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.
The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals
The above argument has the following form: Letters A, B, and C represent
“tigers”, “animals”, and “mammals”, respectively.
All A are B.
 All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.
Conti…
Informal fallacies are fallacies that can be detected only through analysis of the content
of the argument.
Informal fallacies are logical errors in the content of the argument but not in the
structure or form of the argument.
Example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
The above argument has the following form: Letter A, B, and C represents “factories”,
“plants” and “chlorophyll”, respectively.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, All A are C.
Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the
argument is invalid since it has true premises and a false conclusion.
Conti…
Formal fallacies are always invalid; however informal fallacies can be valid.
Their validity is not genuine and logical.
Their validity stems from the psychological and rhetorical aspects of the
argument.
Five major classifications of informal fallacies. This includes:
Fallacies of relevance
Fallacies of weak induction
Fallacies of presumption
Fallacies of ambiguity and
Fallacies of grammatical analogy
 Fallacies of Relevance
Definition and Types of Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies that fail to provide relevant and acceptable premises
for their conclusion. In other words, they are arguments that provide irrelevant premises
to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may
seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.
In an argument that commits a fallacy of relevance the connection between
premises and conclusion is emotional or not logical.
There are eight different types of informal fallacies under fallacies of relevance.
These are as follows:-
Appeal to force
Appeal to pity
Appeal to people
Argument against the person
Straw man Fallacy
Fallacy of accident
Missing the point and
 Red-herring ( truck-off) fallacy
Conti…
Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the Stick)
The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer creates a
conclusion to another person and tells the person either implicitly or
explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not
accept the conclusion.
In an appeal to force fallacy, the premises of an argument are full of threats,
intimidation, scary words, etc. while you should accept or believe the
conclusion as correct without providing logically reliable evidence.
Examples:
1. Child to playmate: ‘‘Meet ETV’’ is the best show on ETV; and if you do
not believe it, I am going to call my big brother over here and he is going to
beat you up.
2. Mr. Kebde 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?
Conti…
3. A teacher to his student: Aristotle has the only correct philosophical view on this
matter. If you do not think so, wait to see what mark I give you on the final exam.
The above three arguments fail to provide logical evidence for the truth of their
conclusion. Instead, they provide a kind of harm or threat as a reason to accept their
conclusion. Thus, the first two examples involve a physical threat whereas the last
example is a psychological threat.
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordium)
The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by
simply evoking pity from the reader or listener to get him or her to accept the
conclusion.
The appeal to pity is quite common and frequently appears in the following:
 In schools between instructors and students;
Courtrooms between judges and defendants and their attorneys;
Streets between traffic Police and illegal drivers;
Offices between employer and vacancy candidates; and the like.
Conti…
Look at the following Examples:
A student to his instructor: Professor, this paper deserves at least a ‘B’ grade. I stayed
up all night working on it. And if I do not get a ‘B’, I will be on academic probation.
 The conclusion of the above argument is “this paper deserves at least a ‘B’ grade.” And
the student tries to support his conclusion using pitiable ideas such as ‘I stayed up all
night ‘and ‘I will be on academic probation’. These evidences are not logically relevant
to the conclusion but it is psychologically relevant.
The Headship position in the department of accounting should be given to Mr. Oumer
Abdulla. Oumer has six hungry children to feed and his wife desperately needs an
operation to save her eyesight.
 Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 The appeal to people occurs when the arguer attempts to persuade the reader or listener
about a certain issue on the ground that most people approve of it or disapprove of the
issue being in question.
In short, the appeal to people fallacy consists of arguments with language that is
calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger, or hate.
Conti…
Two approaches are involved in the appeal to people fallacy,
The direct approach and indirect approach to ad populum fallacy.
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/her
conclusion.
In the indirect approach, the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a
whole but, to some or more individuals separately, focusing up on some aspect of
their relationship to the crowd.
 There are three varieties of the indirect approach. These are as follows:-
Appeal to bandwagon
Appeal to vanity and
Appeal to snobbery.
Conti…
Appeal to Bandwagon
The bandwagon argument emphasizes that the majority choice is the correct
one and advises or informs audiences to join it.
In addition, it is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one’s peer
pressure is substituted for evidence in an argument.
Examples:
Chewing chat can not be all wrong because 70% of Haramaya University
students see nothing wrong with it.
A film is good because there are long lines of people waiting to see it.
Fiseha: “Taye, I know you think that 2 + 2 =4 but we do not accept that sort
of thing in our group.
Taye: “I was just joking; of course, I do not believe that.”
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.
Conti…
Appeal to Vanity
Appeal to vanity associates the product with certain celebrities such as artists, athletes,
footballers, respected leaders, etc., and informs the audiences that if you buy and use the
item you also will be admired.
Examples:
“Who is going to wear this new fashion T-shirt worn by the famous artist Gosaye for the
new Ethiopian Millennium?”
“Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe used by the famous Haile G/ Sellassie
in the London Marathon.”
 Appeal to Snobbery
The appeal to snobbery is an appeal to the desire to be regarded as superior to others.
The fallacy of appeal to snobbery occurs when an arguer associates a product with a
selected few persons (distinguished persons) that have an exaggerated social position,
health, and some other qualities.
Examples:
 This is not for ordinary people. If you want to be among the selected few dignitaries buy
the shoe.
Conti…
Look at the mark of this cell phone-it is Nokia and Nokia is not for everyone. Buy
a Nokia and join the selected few.
First of all, did you see the mark of the shoe-its Clark? You should know that
Clark is not for the ordinary citizens buy Clark and join the dignitaries.
Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
 This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances 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 or herself.
The argument against the person occurs in the following three forms:
The ad hominem abusive
The ad hominem circumstantial and
The tu quoque (You too).
Conti…
Ad hominem abusive
In ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by
verbally abusing the first person. The second person discredits the character of the
opponent; denies his or her intelligence or reasonableness, and so on.
Example:
How a stingy person can tell us about charity. Hence, let us stop discussing these issues
raised by Zerihun.
 Ad hominem circumstantial
The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem
abusive, but instead of focusing on verbal abuse on his or her opponent,
the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by
mentioning to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
Examples:
Kalkidan advocates a policy of increasing financial spending for higher
education. But that is not innocent advocacy, for the reason that she is a
college professor and would benefit financially from such a policy.
Conti…
Tu quoque (‘‘you too’’): it is pronounced as “too kwo_kway”
The tu quoque (you too) fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of
the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first
appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
“You also or you do it, too” implies that a person’s actions are not consistent
(contradicts) with that for which he or she is arguing.
Examples:
 Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the corner
store is not good. You told me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole candy
when you were a kid.
My doctor told me to lose some weight. Why should I listen to a doctor who is
overweight?
Conti…
Fallacy of Accident
It is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case that was not
intended to cover. In this fallacy, the general truth, law, or principle is either
applied to a particular instance whose circumstance is by accident or to a situation
to which it cannot be applied.
The general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific
case mentioned in the conclusion. Because of the “accidental’ features of the
specific case, the general rule does not fit or is misplaced.
Examples:
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Asnakech
should not be arrested for her speech that inspired the riot last week.
Conti…
 Straw Man Fallacy
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s
argument to more easily attack it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then
concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. This fallacy
occurs when the arguer attacks misrepresentation of the opponent’s view.
Example:
 Wondimu: It would be a good idea to ban advertising beer and wine on radio and
television. These advertisements encourage teenagers to drink, often with
disastrous consequences.
Sintayew: You cannot get people to give up drinking; they have been doing it for
thousands of years.
Conti…
The Fallacy of Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchii)
This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument supports one particular
conclusion. In other words, it occurs when the premise of an argument supports
one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to
the correct conclusion is drawn.
Examples:
Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately.
The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate the death penalty immediately.
Haramaya University has a lot of problems. Students’ services and facilities are
inadequate. Many of the instructors are inexperienced. It follows that the
university should be entirely closed.
In general, the fallacy of missing the point is called ignoratio elenchi which
means ‘‘ignorance of the proof. ’This means the arguer is ignorant of the logical
implications of his or her premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses
the point entirely.
Conti…
Red-Herring (Off the Truck Fallacy)
The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader
or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one.
It usually appears in the form of an appeal to humor, ridicule, or appeal to thought-
provoking questions to divert the attention of the audience, which is logically irrelevant
to the subject, issue, or topic of the debate raised first.
Examples:
 The minister’s new education policy is appreciated.
Rehima: Did you hear about his first son? He is going to marry an orphanage girl. Before
the minister talks about practical education policy; he should give a lesson for his son to
get a good wife. So, his new education policy is not appreciative.
Interviewer: Your opponent has argued for immigration reform. Do you agree with her
position?
Candidate: I think the more important question confronting this great nation is the
question of terrorism. Let me tell you how I plan to defeat it.
 Fallacies of Weak Induction
Definition
Usually fallacies of weak induction appear in inductive arguments and
contain an appeal to authority, an argument based on prediction, sign,
analogy, inductive generalization, and causal inference.
If the arguer made a kind of mistake or errors in these forms of
argumentation, the fallacies of weak induction are committed.
 Fallacies of weak induction involve those that are in some degree
relevant to their conclusion but do not provide sufficient support for
them.
like fallacies of relevance, the fallacies of weak induction involve
emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.
Conti…
Types of Fallacies of Weak Induction are as follows:-
Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignoratio)
 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
The Fallacy of False Cause
The Fallacy of Slippery Slope
Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
The appeal to unqualified authority is also called argumentum ad verecundiam in
Latin.
This fallacy is committed because of the person who presents an argument which
has not a legitimate authority on the subject or the issue which he or she is arguing
about.
More specifically, when an individual relies on to provide the information that we
seek might be unreliable due to the problems of lack of expertise in a certain
profession.
Conti…
Examples:
It is always better to drink white wine with fish. Tony Blair says so, he must know
what he is talking about, and he is the prime minister.
Tom Jones: a respected actor who plays the brilliant cardiologist Dr. John Smith
in the film Emergency, recommends Drug X for improving the overall health of
the heart. Therefore, it would be wise to take Drug X.
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignoratio)
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance, also called argumentum ad ignoratio in Latin
implies that lack of evidence or proof for something is used to support the truth of
the conclusion.
This fallacy is committed when the premises of an argument state that nothing has
been proved one way or the other about something due to lack of evidence rather
than by knowledge or tangible information.
Conti…
There are two ways for an appeal to ignorance fallacy to be committed: arguing that
something is true because no one has proved to be false, and arguing that something is
false because no one has proved to be true.
Examples:
Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.
After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove that God does not exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Appeal to ignorance has two exceptions:
The first stems from the fact that 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.
Example: Teams of scientists attempted over several decades to detect the existence of
the luminiferous aether, and all failed to do so. Therefore, the luminiferous aether does
not exist.
Teams of historians have tried for a long time to verify the proposition that King
Tewodros II of Ethiopia did not commit suicide during the British attack on Maqdella
but they failed to do so. Therefore, we must conclude that King Tewodros actually
committed suicide at Maqdella.
Conti…
The second exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom procedure.
 In the United States and Canada, among other countries, a person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty.
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:
Members of the jury, you have heard the prosecution present its case against the
defendant. Nothing, however, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conti…
 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
The fallacy of hasty generalization is just the opposite of accident.
This fallacy is committed whenever one arrives to a conclusion, on the basis of
very little evidence or whereby generalization is asserted or concluded based on
very limited information, inadequate information, and unrepresentative sample.
Examples:
I have met two people in Harar town so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all
the people I will meet in Harar will be nice to me.
Haramaya University freshman students of FS 11- FS-20 are five hundred in
number. Blood is taken out of fifty students and upon examination of all, fifty
students are found to have their blood type “B”.
Therefore, based on this, I conclude that the rest of the students will also have the
same blood type, which is “B”.
Conti…
Hasty generalization is also called a converse accident because it proceeds from
particular to general (the premises deal with a particular issue, but the conclusion
generalizes that something is true or false merely based on the knowledge of the
particular issue sample) while the accident proceeds from the general to the particular
(the premises deal with general issues, but the conclusion deals with something
particular)
The Fallacy of False Cause
The fallacy of false cause is committed when the link between premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
In this fallacy, when the arguer in his or her argument oversimplifies the cause of a
certain event, it creates a kind of confusion between the cause and effect.
There are three varieties of false cause fallacy. These are as follows:
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
Non Causa pro-Causa Fallacy
Oversimplified cause.
Conti…
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy)
The Latin expression Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy traditionally refers to “after
this, therefore because of this, or after this, therefore the consequence of this”.
Sometimes this fallacy is called Post Hoc Fallacy.
 It occurs when someone assumes that because one event happened after another, the
first event caused the second.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy occurs when it is concluded that one event causes
another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.
Example:
During the last two months, the football team has worn red ribbons on their hair, and the
team was defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the team should get rid of
those red ribbons. The assumption is that wearing red ribbons on their hair caused the
football team's defeats over the last two months. However, there is no direct causal
relationship between wearing red ribbons and losing games; it's a correlation without
proven causation.
Every time I wash the car, it starts to rain shortly afterward. Therefore, my car-washing
activities are causing outbursts of precipitation in the clouds.
Conti…
 Non-Causa Pro Causa Fallacy
The Latin phrase Non-causa pro causa fallacy has been traditionally interpreted as
“not the cause for the cause”. This variety is committed when what is taken to be
the cause of something is not the cause at all and the mistake is based on
something other than mere temporal succession.
It occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that one event is the cause of another
without any evidence to support that claim.
Example:
There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before, and more HIV
victims than ever before, so, to eliminate the pandemic we must abolish the
churches.
Successful business executives are paid salaries over $5,000. Therefore, the best
way to ensure that Ferguson will become a successful executive is to raise his
salary to at least $5,000.
"Every time I wear my lucky socks, my favorite team wins. Therefore, my lucky
socks are the reason they always win."
Conti…
 Over Simplified Cause Fallacy
 The Oversimplified cause fallacy occurs when a large number of causes are responsible
for an effect, but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it is the
sole cause of the event.
Example:
The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has been declining for
years. Thus, our teachers just are not doing their jobs these days.
"The car crashed because the driver was using a mobile phone." In reality, the accident
could have been caused by various factors such as road conditions, weather, mechanical
issues, or even another driver's actions. By attributing the crash solely to the driver using
a mobile phone, the arguer oversimplifies the situation and neglects the multiple possible
causes contributing to the event.
The Fallacy of Slippery Slope
The fallacy of slippery slope occurs when we assume that a series of events
happen, after one other event as a result of the first cause.
This fallacy occurs when a certain argument rests on chains of events and the
arguer fails to provide sufficient reasons why this chain of events is committed.
Conti…
In other words, it is committed when one affirms an unjustifiable “chain reaction”
of causes which, if it is allowed to continue leads inevitably to disaster.
Example:
 I know the impetus for the whole tragedy in her life. She was jobless and had no
other choice but to join the bar ladies. While she was working in bars, she became
infected with HIV/AIDS.
Then, she becomes a bedridden patient and in the lost her life. All these misfortune
fall on her due to her dismissal from the university in the first semesters of the first
year.
 The Fallacy of Weak Analogy
The fallacy of weak analogy is an inductive argument in which the conclusion
depends on the existence of analogy, or similarities between two things.
Arguments based on analogy would be strong when either property is cited, as
relevant between two or more things, or when relevant differences between the
objects are taken into consideration. When these requirements are failed, the
inductive argument becomes weak.
The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when important differences between
two things or more things compared are not really similar in the relevant respects
or when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Example:
Object “A” has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Object “B” has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, object B probably has attributes z also.
 Fallacies of Presumption
The fallacies of presumption arise not because the premises are not irrelevant to the
conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion.
Presumption refers to making an assumption or taking something for granted without
having definite proof or evidence. It involves accepting something as true or likely to
be true without proper verification or confirmation.
The fallacies of presumption are a type of informal logical fallacy where the
premises presume facts that are not in evidence or are not necessarily true.
These fallacies are committed when the arguer provides an argument that has
premises that try to presume what they purport to prove.
The fallacies of presumption include four different types of fallacies, namely:
Begging the question
Complex question
False dichotomy
Suppressed evidence.
Conti…
 Begging the Question Fallacy (Petito Principii)
The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to
conceal the questionably true character of a key premise.
To make it clear, this fallacy is committed when the arguer, without providing real evidence, asks the
readers or listeners to simply accept the conclusion of his or her argument.
This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion without
providing any additional support or evidence.
The Begging the Question fallacy, also known as "Petitio Principii," is a type of logical fallacy in which
the premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. Essentially, it
involves making a circular argument where the conclusion is included in the premise or vice versa,
without providing any real evidence or valid reasoning to support the argument.
Examples:
 I believe the prime minister is telling the truth since he says, he is telling the truth.
Capital punishment is justified for 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.
 In this case, the statement assumes that capital punishment is justified for crimes of murder and
kidnapping because it deems these acts as hateful and inhuman, without offering any further reasoning or
justification for why the death penalty is appropriate for these specific crimes.
 The argument essentially circles back to its conclusion without providing independent grounds to
support it.
Conti…
The Fallacy of Complex or Loaded Questions
 Questions become fallacies when only they are dealt with their answers.
The question is used as a premise and the response is a conclusion. This happens when
the conclusion (that is, the answer) is supported by confusing and tricky questions (that
is, premises).
This fallacy 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.
Examples:
 Have you stopped cheating on exams?
You answered “Yes. “ Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams.
You answered “No.” Therefore, you continue to cheat.
The questions are two questions:
1. Did you cheat on exams in the past?
2. If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?
Conti…
The Fallacy of False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy can be also known as “false bifurcation”, false
dilemma, black and white thinking, and “either…or…fallacy”.
This fallacy is committed when the premise of an argument is an either… or…
statement or a disjunctive statement that presents two alternatives as if they were
jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative was possible).
The fallacy of false dichotomy occurs when a person provides two false
alternatives as the only option in the argument and then eliminates one alternative
and it seems that we are left with only one option. The one the arguer wanted to
choose. But, there are many different alternatives that the arguer fails to provide.
Example:
 Well, it is time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund,
or are you on the side of environmental destruction?
 The fallacious nature of false dilemma lies in the attempt by the arguer to mislead
the reader or listener into thinking that the disjunctive premise jointly exhaustive
alternatives, and is therefore true by necessity.
Conti…
The Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when the inductive argument
ignores some important piece of evidence and entails an extremely different
conclusion.
Example:
Haramaya University is the best university in Ethiopia; because it has very fat and
tall teachers, the finest buildings, and several students.
Linguistic Fallacies
Linguistic fallacies are the result of a misuse of language, such as incorrect use of
words, grammatical lack of clarity, vagueness and other linguistic impressions.
There are two types of linguistic fallacies, namely;
Fallacies of ambiguity
 Fallacies of grammatical analogy.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacies of ambiguity arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either
the premises or the conclusion (or both).
They are committed when misleading or wrong conclusion of an argument is drawn
from ambiguous words or sentences.
The fallacies of ambiguity include two types of fallacies. These are as follows:
Equivocation and
Amphiboly.
 Equivocation Fallacy
 The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on the fact that one or more words are used in two different senses in the
argument.
Example:
Odd things arouse human suspicion. But seventeen is an odd number. Therefore,
seventeen arouses human suspicion.
 Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a
law.
Conti…
Amphiboly Fallacy
The fallacy of amphiboly is caused by the error in the grammatical construction of
statements that can be interpreted in two more distinctly different ways without making
clear which meaning is intended.
Example:
Hayat told Kimiya that she had made a mistake. It follows that Hayat has at least the
courage to admit her own mistakes.
 In this statement, the ambiguity arises from the interpretation of who made the mistake.
The phrase "she had made a mistake" could refer to either Hayat or Kimiya.
 While Hayat told Kimiya that she had made a mistake, it is not explicitly clear whether
"she" refers to Hayat or Kimiya.
 The statement can be interpreted in two different ways:
oHayat told Kimiya that Kimiya had made a mistake.
oHayat admitted to Kimiya that Hayat herself had made a mistake.
The ambiguity in the sentence structure leads to uncertainty about who made the
mistake, making it an example of the fallacy of amphiboly.
 Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
Fallacies of grammatical analogy are those fallacies that are caused by the wrong
association of the attributes of the parts of something onto the whole entity or
conversely.
The fallacies of grammatical analogy are caused by the erroneous association of
the attributes of the whole entity of something onto its parts.
 Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other
arguments that are good in every respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic
structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good yet bad.
The fallacies of grammatical analogy are divided into two types; these are as
follows:
Composition and
 Division
Conti…
 Fallacy of Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when the arguer wrongly transfers the
attributes of the parts of something onto the whole.
In other words, it is committed when someone argues that what is true of each
part of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself, or what is true of
some parts of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself.
Examples:
1. Every sentence in this paragraph is well written. Therefore, the paragraph is well
written.
2. Each atom in a piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
3. Each player on the football team is outstanding. Hence, the team itself is
Outstanding.
4. Each of the parts of this airplane is very light. Therefore, the airplane itself is
very light.
Conti…
 Fallacy of Division
The fallacy of division is the direct opposite or converse of composition. The
fallacy of division is committed when attributes are wrongly transferred from
whole to parts.
In other words, it is committed when someone argues that what is true of a whole
is also (necessarily) true of its parts, or what is true of a whole is also
(necessarily) true of some of its parts.
Examples:
1. This chalk is visible. Therefore, each atom in a piece of chalk is visible.
2. The USA is the wealthiest country in the world. Hence, my uncle who lives
there must be wealthy
3. The airplane is heavy. So, each of its parts is heavy.
4. The soccer team is excellent. Hence, each member of the team is excellent.
Conti…