CHAPTER - 5

LOGICAL
REASONING
&
FALLACIES
 CHAPTER 5
LOGICAL REASONING & FALLACIES

Chapter Overview
 As discussed in chapter-2, an argument can be good or bad, depending on the r/p b/n the Ps & a C.
 An argument is good if it meets all the general criteria set for a good argument.
 If it fails to do so, or violates the criteria, it becomes bad, & hence, fallacious.
 Fallacy: refers to a defect in an argument (or, a mistake frequently committed in
reasoning) that consists in something other than merely false Ps.
 It can be committed in many ways, but usually it involves
 either a mistake in reasoning, or
 the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good; or both.
 That is, a fallacy is often committed b/z of the
 problem in the reasoning process or
 problem in the form of the argument, or
 defects in the contents of the statements used as Ps or a C.
 Both deductive & inductive arguments may contain fallacies.
 Depending on the kind of the problems or defects they contain, arguments may commit either
a formal or an informal fallacy.
 Fallacies are often grouped in two:
1. Formal fallacies &
2. Informal fallacies.
 Formal fallacy: committed if an argument contains a structural defect or problem &
violates the standard form of a good argument.
 A formal fallacy 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.
 Informal fallacy: occurred if the defect of an argument is on the very content of the
argument.
 Informal fallacies cannot be identified through mere inspection of the form or
structure of an argument.
 B/z they have the ability to hide their true argumentative forms
 Informal fallacies can be revealed only through a detail analysis on the content of an
argument (to identify the source of the trouble).
Lesson 1: Fallacy in General

Lesson overview:
 Fallacy is generally defined as a deficiency or logical problem that occurs in an argument for
various reasons, other than merely false Ps.
 It can be committed in different forms, depending on the particular defect of an argument.

1.1 The Meaning of Fallacy

 The word „Fallacy‟ is a general term that refers to a logical defect or flaw or error/fault that a
certain argument exhibits in its structural arrangement or reasoning process, or in the contents
of its statements used as Ps or a C, for various reasons, other than merely false premises.
 In general, it is a violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria.
 There are FOUR general criteria of a GA, which specifically evaluate the relevance,
acceptability, sufficiency, & rebuttablity of the Ps.
 Good argument must have Ps that:
1. are relevant to the truth of the C,
2. are acceptable to a logical person,
3. together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the C, &
4. anticipate & provide an effective rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to
the argument or to the position supported by it.
 A P 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 C.
 Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
 A P is acceptable, if it is a reason that the skeptic is likely to accept, or that a rational
person is ought to accept, or agreed on.
 However, even though its Ps may be relevant & acceptable, an argument may not be good
if the Ps are not sufficient enough in number, kind & weight.
 [A Ps are sufficient, if they are sufficient enough in number, kind & weight.]
 A GA should also provide an effective rebuttal (refutation, or disproof) to
 the strongest arguments against one‟s C &
 the strongest arguments in support of the alternative position.
 Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a GA.
 That is, an argument is good as far as it
 meets all the general criteria set for a GA, & hence
 commits no fallacy.
 But, an argument becomes bad if it violates any one of the criteria, & hence fallacious.
 Fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually it involves either a mistake in
reasoning or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both).
 Fallacies are often committed b/z of the
 problem in the reasoning process or
 problem in the form of the argument, or
 defects in the contents of the statements used as Ps or a C.
 Both deductive & inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if they do,
 they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument.
 They are unsound (in case of a deductive argument)
 They are uncogent (in case of an inductive argument).
 Conversely, if an argument is unsound or uncogent,
 it has one or more false Ps, or/&
 it contains a fallacy, or
 both.

1.2 Types of Fallacies

 Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: Formal & Informal.
 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.
 B/z 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, on the other hand, is a fallacy, which is committed due to a defect in
the very content of an argument, other than in its structure of form.
 B/z they have the ability to hide their true argumentative forms, informal fallacies
cannot be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument.
 Only a detail analysis to be applied on the content of an argument can reveal the
source of the trouble.
 Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms, such as
categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, & hypothetical syllogisms.
 The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.

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, & C stand respectively for „„tigers,‟‟ „„animals,‟‟ & „„mammals‟‟ is irrelevant in detecting the fallacy.
 The problem may be traced to the second P.

Example for a formal fallacy:

If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.

This argument has the following form:

If A, then B.
B.
----------------
A.

 This type of fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

 In this case, if A & B are interchanged in the first P,
 the form becomes valid, &
 the original argument also becomes valid.
 In distinguishing formal from informal fallacies, remember that formal fallacies occur only in
deductive arguments.
 Thus, if a given argument is inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy.
 Also, look for standard deductive argument forms, such as categorical & hypothetical
syllogisms.
 If such an argument is invalid b/z of an improper arrangement of terms or statements, it
commits a formal fallacy.
 Informal Fallacies
 Informal fallacies are those mistakes in reasoning process of an argument that can be
recognized only through analyzing the content of the argument.
 Only the meaning of the words, how the statements are constructed & how inferences are
made that reveals the faulty reasoning.
Example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one to think that it has the following form:
All A are B.
All B are C.
----------------
All A are C.

Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the argument is clearly invalid because it has
true premises and a false conclusion. An analysis of the content- that is, the meaning of the words- reveals the source of the
trouble. 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:

All A are B.
All C are D.
------------------
All A are D.

 Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies.
 Aristotle himself identified thirteen & separated them into two groups.
 The work of subsequent logicians has produced dozens more, rendering the task of
classifying them even more difficult.
 The presentation that follows divides 22 informal fallacies into five groups:
1. Fallacies of Relevance, (8F)
2. Fallacies of Weak induction, (6F)
3. Fallacies of Presumption, (4F)
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity, (2F)
5. Fallacies of Grammatical analogy (2F)
Lesson 2: Fallacies of Relevance

Lesson overview:
 Fallacies of relevance are those, (except missing the point) which are committed chiefly due
to a provision premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 Unlike the others, the fallacy of missing the point is committed due to an irrelevant
conclusion.
 In this lesson, we will discuss 8 fallacies of relevance:
1. Appeal to Force,
2. Appeal to Pity,
Direct
3. Appeal to People, Bandwagon
Indirect Vanity
Snobbery

Abusive
4. Argument Against the person, Circumstantial
You too (Tu Quoque)
5. Accident,
6. Straw man,
7. Missing the point, &
8. Red Herring.

Activity # 1: Do you remember the principle of relevance discussed in Chapter2?

 The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic- that the arguments have Ps that
are logically irrelevant to the C.
 The Ps are logically irrelevant to the C;
 Ps are relevant psychologically to the C. So that:-
 the C may seem to follow from the Ps, but does not follow logically.
 the Ps don’t provide genuine evidence in support of the C.
 [Such arguments involve various forms of emotional appeals.]

 In an argument committed this fallacy, the connection b/n Ps & C is emotional.

 Such arguments are often called non sequiturs, I.e.,
 the C does not seem to follow from the Ps.
 They are also sometimes called argumentative leaps,
 which suggest that since no connection is seen b/n the Ps & the C, a huge leap
(jump) would be required to move from one (the Ps) to the other (the C).
  To identify a fallacy of relevance, therefore, one must be able to distinguish genuine
evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.
 [All Fallacies of Relevance commonly share the following THREE basic features:
1. The Ps are logically irrelevant to the C;
2. The Ps may be psychologically relevant to the C, as they seem to correct, good or logical;
3. There is only emotional (but not logical) connection b/n the Ps & the C.]

1) Appeal to Force (Appeal to the ‘‘Stick’’)

 Arguer threatens reader/listener.
 Appeal to force fallacy occurs when an arguer poses a C & tells that either implicitly or
explicitly that some harm will come to reader or listener (R/L) if he does not accept the C.
 In other words, it occurs when a C defended by a threat to those who do not accept it.
 This fallacy always involves physical or psychological threat on the R/L.
 But this threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the C even though it seems
psychologically relevant.
Examples (a physical threat):
Mr. Kebde you accused me of fraud & 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?
In the above argument, the C is supported by force.
Example (psychological threat):
Lately there has been a lot of negative criticism of our policy on dental benefits. Let me tell
you something, people. If you want to keep working here, you need to know that our policy is
fair & reasonable. I won’t have anybody working here who doesn’t know this.

The above example uses an explicit psychological force to impose a C.

Such kinds of argument have the following form:

Premise: You can avoid harm by accepting the C that the policy is fair & reasonable.
Conclusion: Thus, the policy is fair & reasonable.

 The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the
R/L from acknowledging a missing P that, if acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at
least questionable.
NOTE that: The fact that an argument mentions a threat does not necessarily make it a fallacy.
 2) Appeal to Pity
 Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener.
 This fallacy attempts to support a C merely by evoking pity on the R/L when the statements
that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the C.
 If the arguer succeeds in evoking sufficiently strong feelings of pity, he/she may distract
the audience from the logic of the situation & create a desire to accept the C.
 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.

Example:
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.
 There is a tendency to take argument from pity as inherently fallacious, but this is not always
the case.
 There are arguments from pity, which are reasonable & plausible.
 There are situations where compassion or sympathy could be a legitimate response for
some situations.
 Most society values helping people in time of danger; showing compassion & sympathy is a
natural response in some situation.
 If some group of people are in danger, helping out may require appeal to the compassion
or pity of other people.
Example: Twenty children survive earthquakes that kill most people in the village. These
children lost their parents. They are out of school, & home in the street. Unless we each
of us contribute money their life will be in danger in the coming days. We should help
these children as much as we can.
In this argument from compassion,…. These children deserve special consideration or compassion; they deserve help from
the community. One of the main reasons for this deservingness is that the situation in which they found themselves in is due
to factor beyond their control. They are not responsible for the situation in which they are in.

 If people are not responsible for the situation in which they are in; it is perfectly reasonable &
sensible to show compassion for these people.
 In fact, this is the main justification for some social policies to help out old people,
disables, orphan & other people who are in bad situation due to factor which is beyond
their control.
 Helping people in problem when they are not responsible is reasonable.
 But if the people are in bad situation in which they are responsible as a cause, showing of
compassion may be illegitimate; &
  argument in which the C is depend on illegitimate appeal to compassion is a fallacious.

3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

 (Direct): Arguer arouses mob mentality.
(Indirect): Arguer appeals to reader/ listener's desire for security, love, respect, etc.
 Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, & accepted by
others.
 Feeling of being part of community & belongingness are some of the most important
humans needs.
 The appeal to the people strikes these desires & needs to get acceptance for C. Or
 It is an attempt to persuade a person (or group) by appealing to these desires & needs.
Example: I look out at you all, & I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to belong to a party that stands
for what is good for the country. Proud to cast my lot with the kind of people who make this nation great.
Proud to stand with men & women who can get our nation back on its feet. Yes, there are those who
criticize us, who label our view of trade agreements as “protectionist.” But when I look at you hard-
working people, I know we’re right & the critics are wrong.
 However, one does not have to be addressing a large group to commit the appeal to the people fallacy.
 Any attempt to convince by appealing to the need for acceptance (or approval) from
others counts as an appeal to the people fallacy.
Example: Mrs. Riley, are you saying that President Bush made a moral error when he decided to go
to war with Iraq? I can’t believe my ears. That’s not how Americans feel. Not true Americans, anyway.
You are an American, aren’t you, Mrs. Riley?

 Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: Direct & Indirect.
 The Direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites
the emotions & enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his/her C.
 The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality.
 This is the strategy used by nearly every propagandist & demagogue.
 B/z the individuals in the audience want to share in the camaraderie, the euphoria, &
the excitement, they find themselves accepting any number of Cs with ever-
increasing fervor.
 In the Indirect approach, the arguer aims his/her appeal at one or more individuals
separately (but not at the crowd as a whole), focusing on some aspect of their r/p to the crowd.
 This approach is very common in most advertising industries.
 There are THREE forms in indirect approach:
I. Bandwagon,
II. Vanity, &
III. Snobbery.
 I. Bandwagon fallacy
 Bandwagon fallacy commonly appeals to the desire of individuals to be considered as part of
the group or community in which they are living.
 One of the characteristics of group or community is that they share some values & norms.
 Besides, every individual are also expected to manifest group conformity to these shared values.
 Bandwagon fallacy just uses these emotions & feelings to get acceptance for a certain C.
Example: 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.
This argument presents appeal to bandwagon and if the person considers that child circumcision is the right thing to do
because the majority of people accepts it, then this argument commits the fallacy of bandwagon.

Dear learners, do you see any r/p b/n sociocentrism & bandwagon fallacy?

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 & pursued if you use it.
Example: BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank Lampard, wearing Addidas shoe, & says:
Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected celebrities! ADDIDAS SHOE!
The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too, will be admired & respected, just like Frank Lampard.

III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy

Snob means a person who admires people in higher classes too much & has no respect for people in the lower classes or a person who
thinks individuals from higher social classes are much better than other people b/z they like things many people do not like.

 Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on a desire to be regarded as superior to others.

 This fallacy appeal individuals & their desires to be regarded as different & better.
Example: 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.
As you can see, it is a kind of advertisement and it appeal to the desire of, particularly of those who are most famous and successful people,
to be different from the mass; it appeals their desire to be different from the demos. And if the individuals want to be part of those who
perceive themselves as different from the mass, then he can easily be cheated by this advertisement .

 Are all appeal to people arguments inherently fallacious?

 Not all appeal to people arguments are inherently fallacious.
 There are arguments from people, which are plausible, & are reasonable & safe to accept
the C as good.
Example: It is generally accepted by those who live in & 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.
 In still other cases, 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
& have come to accept it b/z they have found it a useful or good thing to do.
Example: Everyone in society should accept the proposal that killing of human being, at least within
one’s own community, is wrong. The right to life is an important right in which all other rights are
based. The right to life is one of the basic rights in all societies, & almost all societies accept as an
important element of moral & legal law. Thus, the right to life should be considered as an established
moral principle that has some weight of practical justification as a policy.
 To sum up, in the direct approach the arousal of a mob mentality produces an immediate
feeling of belonging for each person in the crowd.
 Each person feels united with the crowd, which evokes a sense of strength & security.
 When the crowd roars its approval of the Cs that are then offered, anyone who does not
accept them automatically cuts himself/herself off from the crowd & risks the loss of
his/her security, strength, & acceptance.
 In the indirect approach the same thing happens, but the context & technique are somewhat
subtler.

4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

 This fallacy always involves two arguers.
 Arguer tries to rejects the opponent‟s argument by calling to question certain personal characteristics of
that arguer, but not to the person‟s argument.
 The first arguer advances an argument & the other responds by directing his/her attention
not to the person‟s argument but to the first person himself.
 When this occurs, the second person is said to commit this fallacy.
 Arguers must be able to trust each other & to express their commitments clearly & honestly.
 Attacking the other party‟s honesty or sincerity in argument is a powerful move.
 Such an argument leads one to the C that such a person lacks credibility as an arguer who
can be trusted to play by the rules.
 This argument is so powerful & dangerous b/z it suggests that
 such a person cannot ever be trusted &
 therefore whichever argument they use, it may simply be discounted as worthless.
 Thus, the person attacked cannot meaningfully take part in the dialogue any longer, no
matter how many good arguments they seem to have.
 The argument against the person occurs in THREE forms:
i. Abusive Fallacy (the ad hominem abusive)
ii. Circumstantial Fallacy (the ad hominem circumstantial) &
iii. You too Fallacy (the tu quoque).
 I. Abusive Fallacy (Ad Hominem)
 Abusive: Arguer verbally abuses the other arguer.
 In the abusive, the 2nd person responds to the 1st person‟s argument by verbally abusing the 1st person.
 The following is the form of abusive (ad hominem) argument:

Premise: A is a person of bad character.

Conclusion: A’s argument should not be accepted.

 In this type of argument, A is the proponent of an argument that has been put forward.
 The P that is alleged is that A is a person of bad character.
 What is normally cited is some aspect of A‟s character as a person, &
 often character for veracity is the focus of the attack.
 The attack is directed to destroying the person‟s credibility, so that his argument is
discounted or reduced in plausibility b/Z of the reduction in credibility.
 Thus, this type of attack is particularly effective where a person‟s argument depends on
his presumed honesty or good character for its plausibility.
Example: In defending animal rights, Mr. Abebe argues that the government should
legislate a minimum legal requirement to any individuals or groups who want to farm
animals. He argues that this is the first step in avoiding unnecessary pain on animals &
protecting them from abuse. But we should not accept his argument because he is a
divorced drunk person who is unable to protect even his own family.

II. Circumstantial Fallacy (Ad Hominem)

 Circumstantial: Arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to argue this way.
 In the circumstantial, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent‟s argument by
alluding to (mentioning) certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
 By doing so the respondent tries to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the
way he or she does & should therefore not be taken seriously.
 [the 2nd arguer does not pay serious attention to the content of the argument of the
1st arguer] &
 [tries to discredit the idea of the1st arguer by association it with certain circumstances.]
Example: Haileselassie of Ethiopia argued in the League of Nations that member states
should give hand to Ethiopia to expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the member
states should not listen to the king. Haileselassie argues in this way because he wants to
resume his power once the Italian are expelled from Ethiopia.
 The is easy to recognize b/z it always takes the following form:

“Of course, Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.”
 III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy
 Tu quoque: Arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite.
 In the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, the 2nd arguer attempts to make the first appear to be
hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
 The 2nd arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the
1st arguer that conflict with his/her C.
 This fallacy has the following form:

“How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself.”

Example: Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking
cigarette b/z you yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while you
yourself is smoking?
What relationships do you observe b/n tu quoque fallacy & the standard of consistency?

 Are all arguments against the person fallacious?

 All arguments against the person are not fallacious.
 There are reasonable arguments against the person.
 In legal argumentation in a trial, for example, 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 & use this
argument to raise questions about his character for honesty.
 In such kind of argument, what is normally cited is some aspect of the person
character, & often, character for veracity is the focus of the attack.
For example, the allegation may be, “He is a liar!”
 This verbal attack is directed to destroying the person‟s credibility, so that his
argument is discounted or reduced in plausibility b/z of the reduction in
credibility of the arguer.
 Thus, this type of attack is particularly effective where a person‟s argument depends on
his presumed honesty or good character for its plausibility.
 The same is true in the case of circumstantial fallacy.
 It involves the attempt to discredit an opponent by suggesting that the opponent‟s
judgment is distorted by some factor in his/her background condition.
 In some circumstances & conditions, the kind of belief people entertain or the kind of
argument they advance could be purely the function of their circumstances.
 It is true that the kind of political, economic & religious system one belongs to determine
to a certain extent of what kind of ideas & beliefs people advocate.
  In general, what people accept as true to a greater or lesser degree determine by the
particular position they assume in the society.
 In other word, most often people judgment blinded by their circumstances.
 Thus, it is not always false that ad hominem fallacies are inherently unacceptable.
 Sometimes it could be reasonable & plausible to consider some judgment of individuals
as blinded & limited by their circumstance.
 Capitalists & rich people want a free market economy where they can easily produce as
much fortune as possible.
 They do not see the consequence of their action on the environment or on other people.
 Workers also want increase of salary without regard to its effects on the economy of the
country or to the company.
 This shows that the circumstance of people affects their idea.
 Consider the following argument, which is advanced by director of medical association.

Example: Mr. Abdella argued that medical doctors in the country burden many
responsibilities. They are working day and night to satisfy the demand for good health.
Thus, the government should increase the salary, housing & other necessary facilities for
doctors

5) Accident
 Accident: General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
 The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it
was not intended to cover.
 Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the Ps & then wrongly
applied to the specific case mentioned in the C.
Example: Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John Q.
Radical should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.
 In this example, the general rule is that freedom of speech is normally guaranteed, and the
specific case is the speech made by John Q. Radical. B/Z the speech incited a riot, the rule
does not apply.
 The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the
specific case make it an exception to the rule. In the example, the accidental feature is that the
movement transgress the right to private property.
 6) Straw Man
 Straw man: Arguer distorts opponent's argument & then attacks the distorted argument.
 The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent‟s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, & then concludes that
the opponent‟s real argument has been demolished.
 By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man & knocked it down, only to
conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well.
 The following are the main features of straw man fallacy.
 1st --There are two individuals or groups discussing about some controversial issues; the
two has opposite views.
 One of the arguers presents his views about the issues & the other is a critic.
 2nd --The critic does not rationally criticize the main or the substantive argument of the
opponent.
 Rather he/she criticizes ideas which are the misrepresentation of the main content of
the argument.
 He/she does so for easy attacking the argument.
rd
 3 --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.

Example: 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.
 This argument involves two persons: Mr. Belay and his critic. Mr. Belay argues for
geographical federalism and his critic opposing the view. This critics show that the critic do
not refute or 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. This is an
example of how straw man fallacy is committed.
 When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should keep in mind two things.
 First, they have to try to identify the original argument, which is misrepresented by the
critic.
 Second, they should 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
which is not presumed by the original argument.
Do you see any relationship between straw man fallacy and the principle of charity?

7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

 Missing the point: Arguer draws C different from that supported by Ps.
 All the fallacies we have discussed thus far have been instances of cases where the Ps of an
argument are irrelevant to the C.
 Missing the point, however, illustrates a special form of irrelevance.
 It occurs when the Ps of an argument support one particular C, but then a different C,
often vaguely related to the correct C, is drawn.
 Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed, he or she should be able to
identify the correct C, the C that the Ps logically imply.
 Ignoratio elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.”
 The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own Ps &, as a result,
draws a C that misses the point entirely.
Example: The world is in the process of globalizing more than ever. The world economy is
becoming more and more interconnected. Multinational companies and supra national
institutions are taking power from local companies and national governments. The livelihood
of people is randomly affected by action and decision made on the other side of the planet and
this process benefits only the rich nations at the expense of the poor. What should be done?
The answer is obvious: poor nations should detach themselves from the process.
 Are the Ps & the conclusion in this argument related? It is unrelated. The correct conclusion
would be to redirect globalization in a way that is beneficial for both the poor and the rich, not
to detach countries from the process. The above conclusion however is logically not related
with the premises. After all, detachment from globalization process is more costly for poor
countries. It is better to regulate the process of globalization than to detach altogether from the
system if that is possible.

8) Red Herring
 Red herring: Arguer leads reader/listener off track.
 This fallacy is closely associated with missing the point.
 It 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.
 He or she then finishes by either drawing a C about this d/t issue or by merely presuming
that some C has been established.
 By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the argument.
 The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent.
 A red herring (smoked & dried fish species) is dragged across the trail with the aim of
leading the dogs astray.
  Since red herrings have an especially potent scent (caused in part by the smoking process
used to preserve them), only the best dogs will follow the original scent.
 To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the
argument without the reader or listener noticing it.
 One way of doing this is to change the subject to one that is subtly related to the original
subject.
 Consider the following argument to understand the point clearly.
 The editors of Addis Flower newspaper have accused our company of being one of the city’s
worst water polluters. But Addis flower newspaper is responsible for much more pollution
than we are. After all, they own a Paper Company, and that company discharges tons of
chemical residues into the city’s river every day.
 Dear learners, do you think this is a good argument. Let us analyze this argument. There are
two individuals here: a certain editor accusing a certain company about its impact on water
quality and the response of representative of the company. The editor accused the company as
a worst water polluter. But the response from the representative is not about why it is not a
worst polluter; rather it changes the topic into the activity of the paper company in which the
editor is working and accused the company as a worst water polluter. In other words, attention
is diverted from the original topic into a new topic.
 Now the question is: is it a right response? The answer is no; because even if the paper
company is the worst water polluters that does not mean that the editor accusation is wrong.
The editor‟s accusation is wrong only if evidence is given which proof to the contrary. But no
evidence is given to proof it; rather the activity of another company is discussed which is
logically irrelevant with the original topic. So it is called red herring fallacy because the topic
is slightly changed into another but closely related topic. But if the readers do not have
experience in following ideas, they will not notice that there is change of the topic.
 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, & any other topic that
might serve as the subject of gossip.
 Here is an example of this technique:
Example: 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.
 The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy b/Z both have the effect of
drawing the reader/listener off the track.
 This confusion can usually be avoided by remembering the unique ways in which they
accomplish this purpose.
 In the straw man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent‟s argument & 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) & subtly changes the subject.
 Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies, one should attempt to determine whether the arguer
has knocked down a distorted argument or simply changed the subject.
 Also keep in mind that straw man always involves two arguers, at least implicitly,
whereas a red herring often does not.
 Both the red herring & straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the
point, b/Z all three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy.
 To avoid this confusion, one should note that both red herring and straw man proceed by
generating a new set of Ps, whereas missing the point does not.
 Straw man draws a C from new Ps that are obtained by distorting an earlier argument, &
red herring, if it draws any C at all, draws one from new Ps obtained by changing the
subject.
 Missing the point, however, draws a C from the original Ps.
 Also, in the red herring and straw man, the C, if there is one, is relevant to the Ps from
which it is drawn; but in missing the point, the C is irrelevant to the Ps from which it is
drawn.
 Finally, remember that missing the point serves in part as a kind of catchall fallacy, & 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 (FWI)

Activity # 1: Do you remember the principle of sufficiency discussed in the previous chapter?

Lesson overview
 The main function of Ps in an argument is to provide reasons so that a reasonable person
would accept the truth of the C.
 As a rule, a GA contains relevant & acceptable Ps that together constitute sufficient
grounds for the truth of the C.
 The Ps must provide sufficient reasons for a rational person to accept the C as true.
 In some arguments, Ps provide strong reason for the C to be acceptable.
 Sometimes, however, Ps may not successfully support the C.
 If Ps don‟t strongly support the C, then the resulting argument will be labeled as Weak
Induction.
 The fallacy of weak induction (FWI) violates the principles of sufficiency,
 Principles of sufficiency states that whenever a person presents an argumen, he/she
should provide relevant & acceptable reasons that together are sufficient in number &
weight to justify the C.
  Thus, the FWI occur b/z the connection b/n Ps & C is not strong enough to support the C,
but not b/z the Ps are logically irrelevant to the C

 The 6 kinds of fallacies of weak induction are:

 Appeal to Unqualified Authority,
 Hasty Generalization,
 False Cause,
 Weak Analogy,
 Slippery Slope, &
 Appeal to Ignorance.
 All of these 6 FWI, commonly share the following basic features:
 the Ps provide some slight or a shred of evidence in support of the C, but
 the evidence is not nearly good enough to cause a reasonable person to believe the C. i.e.,
 The Ps provide insufficient support for the C; or
 The evidence provide some slight reason for believing the C, but not sufficient.
 Often they involve emotional grounds for believing the C.

9) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

 Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites untrustworthy authority.
 As discussed in the chapter-2, argument from authority is inductive argument.
 Appeal to authority (also called appeal to expert opinion) is an argument in which the C
depends on a testimony of expert or knowledgeable people.
 It is frequently the case in personal, social, & political deliberations that one does not know all
the relevant facts, & he/she may get information from another person who has the facts.
 But, you will have to rely on presumption or trust that your source is knowledgeable &
honest & is not misinforming you.
 However, the cited authority or witness could lacks credibility for different reasons.
 The cited person might
 lack the requisite expertise, or
 be biased or prejudiced, or
 have a motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation” or
 lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.
 The appeal to unreliable/unqualified authority fallacy occurs when the reliability of the
authority may be reasonably doubtable.
 When there is legitimate doubt about whether an authority is reliable, then the appeal to
authority is fallacious.
  This fallacy is common in advertising when celebrities who lack the relevant expertise
endorse products.
Example: 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/she lacks expertise in it.
 This form of fallacy is especially subtle if the two fields are related.
Example: Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in more complex societies,
there is higher level of division of labor & in less complex societies, there is less division of labor.
The expert‟s field of specialization & the conclusion he made are unrelated. He is an expert in biology but he gives us a witness on society.

 When evaluating an appeal to authority, the appeal to authorities in matters of controversy is

often problematic.
 After all, in such matters, the authorities themselves often disagree. And when this occurs, if we have no good reason to suppose that
one authority is more likely to be correct than another, then the appeal to authority should be unconvincing.

 For instance, in matters involving religious & moral issues it is difficult to find an
ultimate authority to give final decision.

10) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

 Appeal to ignorance: Ps report that nothing is known or proved, & then a C is drawn.
 An appeal to ignorance committed when the Ps of an argument state that nothing has been
proved about something, & the C then makes a definite assertion about that thing.
 The issue usually involves something that
 is incapable of being proved or
 has not yet been proved.
Example: People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims that
Haileselassie of Ethiopia is the descendant of King David of Israel & no one has ever succeeded.
Therefore, we must conclude that Haileselassie is not the descendant of King David of Israel.

Example: People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims that Haileselassie of
Ethiopia is not the descendant of King David of Israel, & no one has ever succeeded. Therefore,
we must conclude that Haileselassie is in fact the descendant of King David of Israel.
Both arguments commit the same fallacy:
The Ps of an argument are supposed to provide positive evidence for the C. The Ps of these arguments, however,
tell us nothing about the alleged r/p b/n Haileselassie & King David.
 In fact, there are TWO exceptions to the appeal to ignorance.
The 1st exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to scientific investigations.
 If qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise
& fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, it will not be fallacious.
 Example: Teams of historian have tried for long time to verify the proposition that King Tewodros II
of Ethiopia did not commit suicide during the British attack of Maqdella but they failed to do so.
Therefore, we must conclude that King Tewodros actually committed suicide at Maqdella.
The Ps of this argument are true. …. it likely that he did commit suicide. Thus, we can say that the
above argument is inductively strong.

 The 2nd exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom procedure.

 If the prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond
reasonable doubt, counsel for the defence may justifiably argue that he/she 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. Therefore, under
the law, the defendant is not guilty.
This argument commits no fallacy because “not guilty” means, in the legal sense, that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has not
been proved. The defendant may indeed have committed the crime of which he or she is accused, but if the prosecutor fails to
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered “not guilty.”

11) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

 Hasty generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.
 Hasty generalization is a defective form of inductive generalization.
 A generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample
to some claim about the whole group.
 It is argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic b/z the
members of the sample have a certain characteristic.
For example, if we wanted to know the opinion of the student body at a certain university about whether to adopt
a law prohibiting the use of facebook in campuses, we could take a poll of 10% of the students.

 The problem that arises with the use of samples has to do with whether the sample is
representative of the population.
 Samples that are not representative are said to be biased.
 To determining whether a sample is biased or not, we should consider the followings:
(1) whether the sample is randomly selected,
(2) the size of the sample, &
(3) psychological factors.
 A sample is random if every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected.
 The randomness requirement must be given more attention when the population consists of discrete units.
 The randomness requirement presents even greater problems when the population consists of human beings.
 Size is also an important factor in determining whether a sample is representative.
 The larger the sample, the more closely it replicates the population.
 In statistics, this degree of closeness is expressed in terms of sampling error.
  Sampling error is the difference b/n the relative frequency with which some characteristic
occurs in the sample & the relative frequency with which the same characteristic occurs in the
population.
For example, If a poll were taken of workers & 60% of the members sampled expressed their intention to vote for
Gudeta but in fact only 55% of the whole union intended to vote for Gudeta, the sampling error would be 5%.

 If a larger sample were taken, the error would be less.

 Given that, Hasty generalization is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations.

 The fallacy occurs when the sample is not representative of the group.
 Such likelihood may arise if the sample is
 either too small or
 not randomly selected.
Examples. Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to know the reading skill among young people. It
has found out that, among 10 young people it interviewed, none of them read a book for the last two years.
The conclusion is obvious: all young people in the country do not have the culture of reading books.
In these arguments, a C about a whole group is drawn from Ps that mention only a few instances. B/z such
small, atypical samples are not sufficient to support a general C, the argument commits a hasty generalization.
 The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily mean that it is
atypical (not typical).
 Conversely, the mere fact that a sample may be large does not guarantee that it is typical.
 In the case of small samples, various factors may intervene that render such a sample
typical of the larger group.

12) False Cause Fallacy

 False cause: Conclusion depends on non-existent or minor causal connection.
 False cause fallacy occurs whenever the link b/n Ps & C depends on some imagined causal
connection that probably does not exist.
 False cause fallacy is a defective & flawed form of argument from causality.

 Before discussing about false cause, we need to discuss about causal inference first.
 Argument from causality is a kind of argument which argues either from
 the knowledge of causes to the effects or
 the knowledge of the effect to the causes.
 In such argument two things are presented as having causal connection.
 However, there is no settled scientific theory of causality.
 It seems that the causal r/p is practical & contextual in nature.
 i.e., one state of affairs “A” causes another state of affairs “B”, is that “A” is something that can
be brought about & when it is brought about, then “B” is also brought about.
 Whatever causality means, the most important kind of evidence that event “A” causes event “B” in any
particular case, is that there is a statistical correlation b/n “A” & “B”: event “A” & event “B” are
correlated.
For example, if a significant statistical correlation is found b/n reduced incidence of heart attacks &
drinking of red wine, the tentative conclusion may be drawn as a hypothesis is that drinking red wine
is the cause of the reduction in heart attacks.
 Correlation is a purely statistical r/p, determined by counting up numbers where one event occurs in a
case where another event also occurs.
 The problem with arguments from correlation to cause is that
i. there may not be a real correlation b/n two events, but people might believe that relation exists.
ii. a statistical correlation b/n two events can simply be a coincidence.
Example. A sophisticated statistical study by Dr. Zemenu Ahmed & Pro. Wakjira Negera citing studies from
141 countries found that the larger the percent of its gross national product a country spends on weapons, the
higher is its infant death rate. Dr. Zemenu & Pro. Wakjira concluded that there is a plausible link between
military spending & the infant death rate.
However, critics questioned whether their finding represents anything more than a coincidence .
 Argument from correlation to cause is extremely useful for practical purposes in guiding action in practical matters.
 But in many cases, there is a natural human tendency to leap too quickly to a causal conclusion once a correlation has apparently been
observed.

 In such cases, it is better to ask appropriate critical questions before placing too much weight on an argument from correlation to
cause.

 The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link b/n Ps & C depends on some imagined
causal connection that probably does not exist.
 An argument commits the false cause fallacy, whenever the conclusion depends on the
supposition that “X” causes “Y”, whereas “X” probably does not cause “Y” at all.
 There are THREE forms of false cause fallacy.
 Post hoc ergo propter hoc;- two things are causal connected b/c one happen after the other
 Non causa pro causa:- picking the wrong thing as a cause

 Oversimplified cause:- selecting one out of the multiple causes & treating it as if it is the only cause.

 The most common form is Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, i.e., “after this, therefore because of this.”
 This form of the false cause fallacy occurs whenever an arguer illegitimately assumes
that “X” caused “Y” b/z event “X” preceded event “Y”.
Example: 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.
 The second type of fallacy are called Non causa pro causa (“Not the cause for the cause”).
 It is committed when what is taken as the cause of something is not really the cause at all
& the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession.
 Example: 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.
 A third variety of the false cause fallacy is Oversimplified cause.
 This variety occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the
arguer selects just one of these causes & represents it as if it were the sole cause.
 It is probably committed more often than the others.
Example. 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.
 The oversimplified fallacy is usually motivated by self-serving interests.
 Sometimes the arguer wants to
 take undeserved credit for himself or
 give undeserved credit to some movement with which he/she is affiliated.
Or
 heap blame on an opponent or
 shift blame from himself/herself onto some convenient occurrence.
 Instances of the fallacy can resemble either the post hoc or the non causa pro causa varieties in
that the alleged cause can occurs either prior to or concurrently with the effect.
 The oversimplified fallacy differs from the other varieties of false cause fallacy in that the
single factor selected for credit or blame is often partly responsible for the effect, but
responsible to only a minor degree.

13) Slippery Slope Fallacy

 Slippery slope: Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
 Slippery slope fallacy is a defective form of argument from slippery slope.

 Before discussing about slippery slope fallacy, some points should be raised about slippery
slope argument.
 One very common form of argumentation is used when one party in a dialogue says to
the other, “This action would not be good, b/z it could have bad consequences.”
For 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.”
  This form of argumentation is called argument from consequences.
 It cites allegedly foreseeable consequences of a proposed action as the P, & the C is then
inferred that this course of action is or is not recommended.
 This form of reasoning can be used in a positive or negative way, as an argument to
respond to a proposal that has been put forward when two parties are having a dialogue
on what to do.
 In argument from positive consequences, a policy or course of action is supported by
citing positive consequences of carrying out this policy or course of action.
 In argument from negative consequences, a policy or course of action is argued against
by citing negative consequences of carrying it out.
 A slippery slope argument is a species of negative reasoning from consequences, used where
two parties are deliberating together & one warns the other not to take a contemplated action,
b/z it is a first step in a sequence of events that will lead to some horrible outcome.
 What is distinctive about the slippery slope argument as a special subtype of argument from
consequences is that there is said to be a connected sequence of actions, such that once the first
action in the series is carried out, a sequence of other actions will follow, so that once the
sequence starts there is no stopping it, until (eventually) the horrible outcome comes about.
 This particularly horrible outcome is the final event in the sequence & represents something that
would very definitely go against goals that are important for the participant in the deliberation
who is being warned, for example, it might be his personal safety or security.

 Slippery slope fallacy 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.
 The chains of causes are supposedly like a steep slope - if you take one step on the slope;
you‟ll slide all the way down.
 And since you don‟t want to slide all the way down, don‟t take the first step.
Example. Against cultural, social & religious norms of Ethiopia, a Chinese firm was authorized
to run donkey slaughter house in Bishoftu. But this company should be closed. If donkeys are
continuously slaughtered & exported, then Ethiopian who works in the abattoir will start to eat
donkey meat. Then members of the family of these workers will be the next to eat donkey meat.
This gradually leads their neighbors & the village to accept the same practice. Finally, the whole
country will follow which in turn leads to the total collapse of Ethiopian food culture.
The links in this alleged chain are weak. Logically speaking, when causal connections are
claimed, there needs to be sufficient evidence that the connections are genuine. And to claim that
opening donkey slaughter house in the country necessary leads to adopting donkey meat as a culture is plainly to make a
claim that is insufficiently supported by the evidence.

 The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy.

 Deciding whether a slippery slope fallacy has been committed can be difficult when there
is uncertainty whether the alleged chain reaction will or will not occur.
 Many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional conviction on the part of the arguer that a
certain action or policy is bad, &
 the arguer attempts to trump up support for his/her position by citing all sorts of dire
consequences that will result if the action is taken or the policy followed.
 In such cases there is usually little problem in identifying the argument as a slippery slope.

14) Weak Analogy

 Weak analogy: Conclusion depends on defective (not strong) analogy.

 The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy b/n things, situations &
circumstance is not strong enough to support the C that is drawn.

 Weak analogy is a defective or flawed argument from 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 (b/z the one case is similar to the other).
 Two things, situations or cases may be similar to each other in certain respects, but dissimilar
in other respects.
 While one case may be generally similar to another, it does not mean that the two cases
will be similar in every respect.
 If they were similar in every respect, they would be identical case.
 However, two cases can be generally similar, even though there are quite important
differences b/n them.
Example. After ingesting one milligram of substance alpha per day for 90 days, white mice
developed genetic abnormalities. Since white mice are similar in many ways to humans, it follows
that substance alpha probably produces genetic abnormalities in humans.

 The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy b/n things, situations &
circumstance is not strong enough to support the C that is drawn.
 Evaluating an argument having this form requires a two-step procedure:
(1) Identify the attributes a, b, c,... that the two entities “A” & “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 b/n z & a, b, or c, the argument is strong;
 If there is no such causal relation b/n z & a, b, or c, the argument is weak.
 In the example above about the similarity between mice and human being, it was evaluated as strong argument because there
is systematic relation between the two. For example both are mammals and as such they share common similarities that
belong to all mammals. In addition to this, being animals is the bases for further similarities. Since they share similarity in
 terms of biological metabolism, this tendency will provide a strong reason for the conclusion to be true. Most probably both
will respond in similar way for the substance alpha.

Example, weak analogy argument:

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.
This argument is based on a similarity between the growth of cancer in human body and the existence of criminals in society. It is true that
when a certain cell is identified as cancer every effort would be made to kill it because it is impossible to rehabilitate the cell and the only
safe measure is to kill the cell. But this is not true in human being. Even if a criminal is bad for society, society avoids crime not by killing
criminals but by educating and rehabilitating individual criminals. Thus this analogy is fallacy because the conclusion is based on weak or
inadequate analogy between a human being and a cell.

Lesson 4: Fallacies of Presumption

Lesson overview

 The fallacies of presumption include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy,
& suppressed evidence.
 These fallacies arise b/z the Ps presume what they purport to prove.
 but not b/z the Ps are irrelevant to the C or provide insufficient reason for believing the C.
 Begging the question: presumes that the Ps provide adequate support for the C when in
fact they do not.
 Complex question: presumes that a question can be answered by a simple “yes,”“no,” or
other brief answer when a more sophisticated answer is needed.
 False dichotomy: presumes that an “either . . . or . . .” statement presents jointly
exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not.
 Suppressed evidence: presumes that no important evidence has been overlooked by the
Ps when in fact it has. In this lesson, we will discuss the fallacies of presumption.

15) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

 Begging the question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate Ps are adequate by
leaving out a key P, by restating the C as a P, or by reasoning in a circle.
 This fallacy is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate Ps provide
adequate support for the C by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key P, by restating a
possibly false P as the C, or by reasoning in a circle.
 The Latin name for this fallacy, petition principii, means “request for the source.”
 The actual source of support for the C is not apparent, & so the argument is said to beg
the question.
  After reading or hearing the argument, the observer is inclined to ask, “But how do you
know X?” where X is the needed support.
 The first form this fallacy: is by leaving a possibly false key P out of the argument while
creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the C.
 It is the most common way of committing this fallacy.
Examples: 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.
Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor-assisted suicide. After all, many
of these people are unable to commit suicide by themselves.
 The first of these arguments begs the question “How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?”
 The second begs the question “Does the mere fact that humans & apes look similar imply
that they evolved from common ancestors?”
 The third & fourth beg the questions “Just b/z the poor earn less than the average citizen,
does this imply that the government should give them handouts?” & “Just b/z terminally
ill patients cannot commit suicide by themselves, does it follow that they have a right to a
doctor‟s assistance?”
 These questions indicate that something has been left out of the original arguments. Thus,
the first argument is missing the P, “Abortion is a form of murder”;
the second is missing the P, “If humans & apes look similar, then they have common
ancestors;” & so on.
 These Ps are crucial for the soundness of the arguments.
 If the arguer is unable to establish the truth of these Ps, then the arguments prove nothing.
 However, in most cases of begging the question, this is precisely the reason why such Ps
are left unstated.
 The arguer is not able to establish their truth, & by employing rhetorical phraseology
such as “of course,” “clearly,” “this being the case,” & “after all,” the arguer hopes to
create the illusion that the stated P, by itself, provides adequate support for the C when in
fact it does not.
 The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics
to justify Cs about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, & so on.
Example: The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously
this world was created by an intelligent God.
 This argument begs the question, “How do you know that the organization in the world could
only have come from an intelligent creator?” Of course the claim that it did come from an
intelligent creator may well be true, but the burden is on the arguer to prove it. Without
supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing.
  Yet most people who are predisposed to believe the conclusion are likely to accept the
argument as a good one.
 The same can be said of most arguments that beg the question, & this fact suggests
another reason why arguers resort to this fallacy:
 Such arguments tend to reinforce pre-existing inclinations & beliefs.
 The second form of this fallacy: occurs when the C of an argument merely restates a
possibly false P in slightly different language.
 In such an argument, the P supports the C, & the C tends to reinforce the P.
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.
 In the first argument, saying that capital punishment is “justified” means the same thing as
saying that it is “legitimate and appropriate,” and in the second argument, the premise and the
conclusion say exactly the same thing. However, by repeating the same thing in slightly
different language, the arguer creates the illusion that independent evidence is being presented
in support of the conclusion, when in fact it is not. Both arguments contain rhetorical
phraseology (“hateful and inhuman,” “simple reason,” and “could not possibly”) that help
effect the illusion. The first argument begs the question, “How do you know that capital
punishment really is legitimate and appropriate?” and the second beg the question, “How do
you know that people who preach revolution really do have a vision of the future?”
 The third form of this fallacy: involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a
first P that is possibly false.
Example: 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.
 Upon encountering this argument, the attentive reader is inclined to ask, “Where does this
reasoning begin? What is its source?” Since the argument goes in a circle, it has no beginning
or source, & as a result it proves nothing. Of course, in this example the circularity is rather
apparent, so the argument is not likely to convince anyone. Cases in which circular reasoning
may convince involve long and complex arguments having premises that depend on one
another in subtle ways and a possibly false key premise that depends on the conclusion.

16) Complex Question

 Complex question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single question.

 The fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the
guise of a single question & 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.
Examples:
Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?
Let us suppose the respondent answers “yes” to the first question and “under the bed” to the
second. 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 hide the body of the person you killed. You replied “under the
bed.” It follows that you were in fact killed the person.
On the other hand, let us suppose that the respondent 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 hide the body of the person you killed. You answered “nowhere.”It
follows that you have destroyed the corpse.
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?
Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed? If you were killed it, where did you
hide it?
 If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is put to
them, they may answer quite innocently & be trapped by a C that is supported by no evidence
at all; or, they may be tricked into providing the evidence themselves.
 The correct response lies in resolving the complex question into its component questions
& answering each separately.
 The fallacy of complex question should be distinguished from another kind of question known
in law as a leading question.
 A leading question is one in which the answer is in some way suggested in the question.
 Whether or not a question is a leading one is important in the direct examination of a
witness by counsel.
Example: Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot the deceased?
 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. To distinguish the two, however, it is sometimes necessary to know whether
prior questions have been asked.

17) False Dichotomy

 False dichotomy: Either ...or statement hides additional alternatives.

 This fallacy is committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”) P presents two unlikely
alternatives as if they were the only ones available, & the arguer then eliminates the
undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the C.
 Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive P 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.
Examples:
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.
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.
In none of these arguments does the disjunctive premise present the only alternatives available, but in each case,
the arguer tries to convey that impression.
 The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the illusion created that the disjunctive P
presents jointly exhaustive alternatives.
 If it did, the P would be true of necessity.
For example, the statement “Either Awash River is in Afar, or it is not in Afar” presents
jointly exhaustive alternatives and is true of necessity.
 But in the fallacy of false dichotomy, the two alternatives not only fail to be jointly
exhaustive, but they are not even likely.
 As a result, the disjunctive P is false, or at least probably false.
 Thus, the fallacy amounts to making a false or probably false P appear true.
 If one of the alternatives in the disjunctive P is true, then fallacy is not committed.
For example, the following argument is valid & 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.
 False dichotomy is otherwise called “false bifurcation” & the “either-or fallacy.”
  Also, in most cases the arguer expresses only the disjunctive P & leaves it to the reader or
listener to supply the missing statements.

18) Suppressed Evidence

 Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a d/ft C.

 As discussed, a cogent argument is an inductive argument with good reasoning & true Ps.
 The requirement of true Ps includes the proviso that the Ps not ignore some important
piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence & entails a very different C.
 If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument
commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
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.
 If the arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in Somalia then the argument commits a suppressed evidence
fallacy. This fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the presumption that the premises
are both true and complete when in fact they are not.

 The most common occurrence of the suppressed evidence fallacy appears in inferences based
on advertisements.
 Nearly every advertising neglect to mention certain negative features of the product
advertised.
 As a result, anyone who draws a C from an advertisement may commit the fallacy of
suppressed evidence.
Example: The advertise for Kentucky Fried Chicken says, “Buy a bucket of chicken and have a
barrel of fun!” Therefore, if we buy a bucket of that chicken, we will be guaranteed to have lots of fun.
The advertise fails to state that the chicken is loaded with fat and that the buyer‟s resultant weight gain may not
amount to a barrel of fun. By ignoring these facts, the argument based on the advertising is fallacious.
 Another way that an arguer can commit the suppressed evidence fallacy is by ignoring
important events that have occurred with the passage of time that render an inductive
conclusion improbable.
Example: 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.
 Another form of suppressed evidence is committed by arguers who quote passages out of
context from sources such as the Bible & the Constitution to support a C that the passage was not
intended to support.
Example: The Second Amendment of the American Constitution states that the right of the
people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would
infringe the right to keep & bear arms. Therefore, a law controlling handguns would be
unconstitutional.
 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.”In other words, 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. Because a law controlling handguns (pistols) would have little effect on the
preservation of a well-regulated militia, it is unlikely that such a law would be unconstitutional.

 The suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to the form of begging the question in which the
arguer leaves a key P out of the argument.
 The difference is that suppressed evidence leaves out a P that requires a different C, while
that form of begging the question leaves out a P that is needed to support the stated C.
 However, b/z both fallacies proceed by leaving a P out of the argument, there are cases
where the two fallacies overlap.

Lesson 5: Fallacies of Ambiguity & Grammatical Analogy

Lesson overview
 The fallacies of ambiguity includes equivocation & amphiboly.
 These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the Ps or
the C (or both).
 An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to d/ft interpretations in a given context.
 Fallacy of ambiguity committed when the C of an argument depends
 on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or
 on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement.
 The fallacies of grammatical analogy include Fallacy of composition, & Fallacy of division.
 These fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every
respect.
 B/z of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good
yet be bad.

5.1 Fallacies of Ambiguity

 These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the Ps or the C
(or both).
 An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to d/ft interpretations in a given context.
 Fallacy of ambiguity committed when the C of an argument depends
 on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or
 on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

Activity # 1: Do you remember the principle of clarity we have discussed in the previous chapter?
 19) Equivocation

 Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.

 The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the C 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 P, & in either case they are unsound.
Examples: 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 defence of the innocent.
Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defence of the innocent.
In the first argument, “obtuse” is used in two different senses. The second argument uses “right” in two senses. In
the first premise “right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a just claim or power .

 To be convincing, an argument that commits an equivocation must use the equivocal word in
ways that are subtly related.
 Of the two examples given above, only the second might fulfill this requirement. Since
both uses of the word “right” are related to ethics, the unalert observer may not notice the
shift in meaning.
 Another technique is to spread the shift in meaning out over the course of a lengthy
argument.
 Political speechmakers often use phrases such as “equal opportunity,” “gun control,”
“national security,” & “environmental protection” in one way at the beginning of a
speech and in quite another way at the end.

20) Amphiboly

 Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement.

 The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement &
then draws a C based on this faulty interpretation.
 The original statement is usually asserted by someone other than the arguer, & 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.
 B/z 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 C based
upon it.
Examples:
The tour guide said that standing in Mesqel Square, the new federal police building could easily be seen.
It follows that the Empire State Building is in Greenwich Village.

Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that Habtom has at least the courage to
admit his own mistakes.

The premise of the first argument contains a dangling modifier. Is it the observer or the building that is supposed to be standing in Greenwich
Village? The factually correct interpretation is the former. In the second argument the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer
either to Habtom or Megressa. Perhaps Habtom told Megressa that Megreesa had made a mistake. Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical

ambiguities.

 Two areas where cases of amphiboly cause serious problems involve contracts & wills.
 The drafters of these documents often express their intentions in terms of ambiguous
statements, & alternate interpretations of these statements then lead to different Cs.
Examples:

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.

In the first example, the conclusion obviously favors Lemma. Mengistu is almost certain to argue that the gift of the clothes and the house should
be shared equally by her and Lemma. Mrs. Zenebu could have avoided the dispute by adding either “respectively” or “collectively” to the end of

the sentence.

 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.
 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.
 If these distinctions are kept in mind, it is usually easy to distinguish amphiboly from
equivocation.
 Occasionally, however, the two fallacies occur together, as the following example
illustrates:
The Great Western Cookbook recommends that we serve the oysters when thoroughly stewed.
Apparently the delicate flavor is enhanced by the intoxicated condition of the diners.
 First, it is unclear whether „„stewed‟‟ refers to the oysters or to the diners, and so the argument
commits an amphiboly.
 But if „„stewed‟‟ refers to the oysters it means „„cooked,‟‟ & if it refers to the diners it
means „„intoxicated.‟‟
  Thus, the argument also involves an equivocation.

5.2 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

 The fallacies of grammatical analogy 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 be bad.

21) Composition

 The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.
 In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain
attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too & the situation is such that the
attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.
Examples:

Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Thus, the team as a whole is excellent.
Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
Sodium & 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 “excellent,” “invisible” and

“deadly poison,” respectively. In each case the transference is illegitimate, and so the argument is fallacious .

 However, not every such transference is illegitimate.

Examples:
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..

In each case, an attribute (having mass, being white) is transferred from the parts onto the whole, but these transferences are quite legitimate.
Indeed, the fact that the atoms have mass is the very reason why the chalk has mass. The same reasoning extends to the fence. Thus, the

acceptability of these arguments is attributable, at least in part, to the legitimate transference of an attribute from parts onto the whole.

 Further caution is required by the fact that composition is sometimes confused with hasty
generalization.
 The only time this confusion is possible is when the “whole” is a class (such as the class of
people in a city or the class of trees in a forest), & the “parts” are the members of the class.
  In such a case, composition proceeds from the members of the class to the class itself.
 Hasty generalization, on the other hand, proceeds from the specific to the general.
 Because it is sometimes easy to mistake a statement about a class for a general statement,
composition can be mistaken for hasty generalization.
 Such a mistake can be avoided if one is careful to keep in mind the distinction between
these two kinds of statements.
 This distinction falls back on the difference between the collective & the distributive
predication of an attribute.
Consider the following statements:
Statement One: Fleas are small.

Statement Two: Fleas are numerous.

The first statement is a general statement. The attribute of being small is predicated
distributively; that is, it is assigned (or distributed) to each and every flea in the class. Each and
every flea in the class is said to be small. The second statement, on the other hand, is a statement
about a class as a whole, or what we will call a „„class statement.‟‟ The attribute of being
numerous is predicated collectively; in other words, it is assigned not to the individual fleas but
to the class of fleas. The meaning of the statement is not that each and every flea is numerous but
that the class of fleas is large.

To distinguish composition from hasty generalization, therefore, the following procedure should
be followed. Examine the conclusion of the argument. If the conclusion is a general statement-
that is, a statement in which an attribute is predicated distributively to each and every member of
a class- the fallacy committed is hasty generalization. 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.

Example:

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.

At first sight this argument might appear to proceed from the specific to the general and,
consequently, to commit a hasty generalization. But in fact the conclusion is not a general
statement at all but a class statement. 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

The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to
whole, division goes from whole to parts. 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 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.

In each case the attribute, designated respectively by the terms “non-poisonous,” and “over 300
years old,” is illegitimately transferred from the whole or class onto the parts or members. As
with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of transference is not always illegitimate. The
following argument contains no fallacy:

This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have mass.

Just as composition can sometimes be confused with hasty generalization (converse

accident), division can sometimes be confused with accident. As with composition, this
confusion can occur only when the “whole” is a class. 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.
 Chapter Summary

A fallacy is a mistake in an argument that arises from something other than merely false premises.
Usually fallacies involve defects in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument
appear good. Fallacies can be either formal or informal. A formal fallacy is one that can be detected by
analyzing the form of an argument; such fallacies affect only deductive arguments. An informal fallacy
is one that can be identified only by analyzing the content of an argument; such fallacies can affect both
deductive and inductive arguments.
The fallacies of relevance occur when the premises of an argument are not relevant to the conclusion.
Cases of such irrelevance occur in premises that threaten the observer, elicit pity from the observer,
create a mob mentality in a group of observers, appeal to the observer‟s desire for security, verbally
abuse an opposing arguer, present an opposing arguer as predisposed to argue as he does, present an
opposing arguer as a hypocrite, misapply a general rule, distort an opponent‟s argument, or lead the
observer off the track. A kind of catch-all fallacy, missing the point, occurs when an arguer draws a
conclusion different from the one implied by the premises.
The fallacies of weak induction occur when the premises, although possibly relevant to the conclusion,
provide insufficient support for the conclusion. Cases of such inadequate support occur when the arguer
cites an authority who is not qualified, draws a conclusion from premises that give no positive evidence,
draws a conclusion from an atypical sample, depends on a non - existent or minor causal connection,
depends on a chain reaction that is unlikely to occur, or draws a conclusion from an analogy that is not
close enough to support it.
The fallacies of presumption occur when the premises presume what they purport to prove. Such
presumptions occur when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate, asks a
question that comprises two or more questions, uses a disjunctive statement that falsely claims to
exhaust the available alternatives, or ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.
The fallacies of ambiguity occur when the conclusion depends on some form of linguistic ambiguity.
Either a word or phrase is used in more than one sense or the wrong interpretation is given to an
ambiguous statement.
The fallacies of grammatical analogy occur when a defective argument appears good owing to a
grammatical similarity to some argument that is not fallacious. Such grammatical similarities occur in
arguments that wrongly transfer an attribute from parts to a whole or from a whole to its parts.
 1. Fallacies of Relevance

 All those 8 Fallacies of Relevance commonly share the following THREE basic features:
1. The premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion in the argument; But,
2. The premises may be psychologically relevant, as they seem to correct, good or logical.
3. There is only emotional (but not logical) connection b/n the premises & the conclusion.
Appeal to force: Arguer threatens reader/listener.
Appeal to pity: Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener.
Appeal to the people (direct): Arguer arouses mob mentality.
(indirect): Arguer appeals to reader/ listener's desire for security, love, respect, etc.
Argument against the person: arguer tries to discredit/rejects another argument by calling to
question certain personal characteristics of that arguer
 Abusive: Arguer verbally abuses other arguer.
 Circumstantial: Arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to argue this way.
 Tu quoque: Arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite.
Accident: General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
Straw man: Arguer distorts opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument.
Missing the point: Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by premises.
Red herring: Arguer leads reader/listener off track.

2. Fallacies of Weak Induction

 All those 6 Fallacies of Weak Induction commonly share the following TWO basic features:
1. The premises provide insufficient support for the conclusion;
2. Involve emotional appeal
Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites untrustworthy authority.
Appeal to ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved, & then a conclusion is drawn.
Hasty generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.

False cause: Conclusion depends on non-existent or minor causal connection.

 Post hoc ergo propter hoc;- two things are causal connected b/c one happen after the other
 Non causa pro causa:- picking the wrong thing as a cause
 Oversimplified cause:- selecting one out of the multiple causes and treating it as if it is the
only cause.
Slippery slope: Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
Weak analogy: Conclusion depends on defective (not strong) analogy.
 3. Fallacies of Presumption

 4 of them commonly share TWO basic features:-

1. Take something for granted/assume a given premise as if true, correct or proved; but, in fact
 The premise is incomplete or questionable,
 The premise thus needs further proof, explanation or evidence
2. Involves tricky & confusing expressions for concealing the wrong assumptions stated in the P.

Begging the question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are
adequate by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or
by reasoning in a circle.
Complex question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single question.

False dichotomy: Either ...or statement hides additional alternatives.

Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.

4. Fallacies of Ambiguity

 All those 2 Fallacies of Ambiguity commonly share the following TWO basic features:
1. Involves an ambiguous use of word in the argument;
Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.

Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous

statement.

5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Composition: Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.

Division: Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts.