LECTURE 5

FALLACIES & FALLACIOUS REASONING

5.1 Introduction

This lecture is a discussion of mistakes in reasoning technically known as fallacies. While there are

formal and informal fallacies, th.is lecture will be limited to discussion of informal fallacies

5.2 Lecture objectives

By the end of this lecture, the learner should be able to:

a) Explain the meaning of the term ‘fallacy, and classify fallacies into their various categories

b) Identify and make efforts to avoid fallacies of relevance

c) Identify and make efforts to avoid fallacies of insufficient data/induction

5.3 The meaning and classification of fallacies

5.3.1 Meaning of the term fallacy

Fallacy: derived from Latin word ‘felere’which means to deceive. Fallacy can thus be defined as

argument that may seem to be correct but which, upon examination, proves not to be so. It is a mistake

in reasoning. In other words, fallacies are bad arguments that masquerade as good ones; they are

counterfeits of good arguments. Common mistakes in reasoning resulting from failure by premises to

establish the conclusion

Fallacious arguments are deceptive because they often superficially appear to be good arguments

by appealing to our emotions, prejudice, self-interest or blind faith and psychologically persuasive.

Fallacies are not mere conceptual problems they have far-reaching implications as they may:
 ❖ Misrepresent

❖ Prejudice leading to animosity

❖ Used for sloganeering and propaganda to cloud our minds and divert us from the real issues.

5.4 Classification of Fallacies

One important contribution of logic has been identification, classification, and analysis of fallacies.

Broadly speaking, fallacies can be divided into two major categories – Formal and Informal fallacies.

a) Formal fallacies - also known as logical fallacies.

These are mistakes arise through the violation of the logical rules, which govern correct arguments.

They occur when we misapply a valid rule of inference as they contravene the formal structure of a

valid argument. They are invalid deductive arguments resulting from bad deductive reasoning. They

can, therefore, be identified by a mere inspection of the argument form.

Formal fallacies are conveniently discussed in connection with certain patterns of arguments

b) Informal fallacies

Unlike the formal fallacies, the informal mistakes do not relate to the form of the argument in which

they occur. They are identified through an analysis of the content of an argument. Generally,

informal fallacies correspond to the standards of reasoning or thinking violated. Informal fallacies

are subdivided into four broad categories: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of insufficient evidence

(inductive fallacies), fallacies of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity

5.5 Fallacies of relevance

The concept of relevance

A statement is relevant to another if it counts either for or against that other statement i.e., if it provides

at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false. Thus, fallacies of relevance

occur when the premises of an argument have no bearing upon its conclusion, either positively or

negatively. Such fallacies often involve a distractive element which diverts attention away from

problem at hand. They are deceptive because of the psychological relevance that is often confused

with logical relevance.

Fallacies of relevance include:

1. Argumentum ad hominem (‘argument directed to the man’ or personal attack)

These are arguments which try to discredit a claim, proposal etc. by attacking its proponents instead

of providing a reasoned examination of the claim itself. There are several variants of this type,

common ones being ad hominem abusive, circumstantial and you too (TuQuoque)

1. a) Ad hominem abusive

This fallacy is committed when instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks

the man who made the assertion on the basis of either a person’s age, character, family, gender,

ethnicity, appearance, dress, personality, economic status, behavior or professional, political, or social

affiliations. For instance, Bacon’s philosophy is not trustworthy because he was removed from

chancellorship for dishonesty. This argument is fallacious because personal character is logically

irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he says or the correctness or incorrectness of the argument.

They are also called the genetic fallacies. The way this irrelevant argument may sometimes persuade is

through the psychological process of transference. They evoke an attitude of disapproval towards a

person. The implication is that there is no reason to take the person’s view seriously.

1. b) Ad hominem circumstantial
This fallacy uses the unique or special circumstances of a person to discredit his reasoning. e.g., guilt

by association hence “poisoning the well” argument, Vested interest or unique circumstances

considerations etc.

1. c) Ad hominem Tuquoque (look, who is talking)

This fallacy is committed when arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim because that person

fails to practice what he preaches. It is of the form:

X fails follow his or her own advice. Therefore, X’s argument or claim

should be rejected

Example: doctor: you should quit smoking

Patient: I will quit when you do.

2. Argumentum ad populum arguments (appeal to the people, masses, multitude or gallery,

bandwagon)

This fallacy occurs when we infer a conclusion merely on the grounds that most people accept it.

It tries to invoke the band wagon effect, which asks us to join forces with others often irrationally.

Hence assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct or desirable. This

fallacy is evident in populist political speeches (demagoguery) and in much of advertising. These

fallacies have this pattern:

Everybody (or a select group of people) believes or does X.

Therefore, you should believe or do X.

They usually associate things with people that arouse strong emotional approval from the masses.
-N.B. popular opinion cannot be taken as a proof that an idea is right or wrong. Remember everyone

believed that the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the universe!

3.Red Herring fallacy

This fallacy is committed when the arguer tries to divert the attention of his audience from the subject

under discussion (from the issue posed by an argument) by introducing irrelevant issue. Because it is

irrelevant, it contributes nothing to an argument, though it misleads its audience into thinking that the

original issue has been effectively settled by the irrelevant diversion. Red herring enable those who use

them to mask other defects in their arguments and thus to evade the real issue.

The name of this fallacy comes from an old trick used by farmers in Europe to keep hunters and their

dogs from galloping through crops. By dragging a smoked herring with a strong odor along the edge

of their fields, farmers threw the dogs off the track by destroying the scent of the fox.

3. Argumentum ad Misericordian (inappropriate appeal to pity).

This fallacy occurs when we arouse in the audience sense or feeling of pity or sympathy and appeal to

it to win argument. This is used mainly by defense lawyers in the prosecution of cases. However, not

all arguments that contain emotional appeals are fallacious. It is not fallacious if appeals to emotion

are both appropriate and relevant to the arguer’s legitimate purpose. The legal systems encourage this.

It becomes fallacious when appeal to emotions is meant to hinder or obscure rational thinking. They

are fallacious because the premises provide no relevant reasons to accept the conclusion.

Example of a fallacious argument

Student to teacher: I know I missed half of your classes and failed all my exams, but I had a really

tough semester. First my pet boa constrictor died. Then my girl friend told me she wants a sex- change
operation. With all I went through this semester, I do not think I really deserve E. Any chance you

might cut me some slack and change my grade form E to C?

Example of a non-fallacious argument

High school football coach: girls, this state championship is the biggest game of your lives.t5his is

what you have been working for all year. Your parents, your school as well as your community are

counting on you. Make them proud! Play like the champions you are!

4. Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force or appeal to scare tactics)

This fallacy is committed when an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener if he does not accept

the arguer’s conclusion, and this threat is irrelevant to truth of the arguer’s conclusion. It is based on

the fact that fear is so a powerful motivator that it causes us to behave or think irrationally.

Diplomat to diplomat: I am sure you will agree that we are the rightful rulers of Migingo islands.

It would be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.

This is fallacious because the scare tactics used provides no relevant evidence that supports the stated

conclusion

However, not all threats involve fallacy: e.g.

President John Kennedy to Soviet premier: if you do not remove your nuclear missiles from

Cuba, we will have no choice but to remove them by force. If we use force to remove the missiles,

that may provoke an all-out nuclear war. Neither of us wants a nuclear war. therefore, you should

remove your nuclear missiles from Cuba.

This is not a fallacy because the premises are relevant to the conclusion
 5. Straw man fallacy:

This fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or claim to make it easy to

attack. It is characterized by misrepresentation of other people’s views or arguments. It has this logical

pattern:

X’s view is false or unjustified (but where X’s view has been unfairly characterized or

misrepresented. Therefore, X’s view should be rejected.

Example: Peterson has argued that the New York Yankees are a better baseball team than the

Atlanta Braves. But the braves are not a bad team. They have a great pitching staff, and they

consistently finish at or near the top of their division. Obviously, Peterson does not know what

he is talking about.

This argument misrepresents Peterson’s view. Peterson has not said Braves is a bad team but has only

compared it with New York Yankees

6. Two wrongs make a right fallacy: (closely related to fallacy of ‘look who’s talking’)

This fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to justify wrongful act by claiming that some other act is

just as bad or worse.

Example: I do not feel guilty about cheating on Dr. Sam’s test. Half of the class cheats on his tests.

7. Ignoratio Elenchi (fallacy of irrelevant conclusion):

This fallacy occurs when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is directed to

proving a different conclusion. For instance, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is

under consideration, a legislator may rise to speak in favor of the bill and argue only that the decent

housing for all people is desirable. His remarks are irrelevant to the point at issue, for the question
concerns the particular measure at hand. Presumably, everybody agrees decent housing is desirable.

The question is: will this particular measure provide it, and if so, will it provide it better than any

other alternative? In a law court, in attempting to prove that the accused is guilty of murder, the

prosecutor may argue at length that murder is a horrible crime.

In the first place it is not always obvious that a given argument is an instance of ignoration elenchi.

What leads to this fallacy?

1. During the course of extended discussion, fatigue may lead to inattention and errors, and

irrelevancies may tend to pass unnoticed.

2 The language may serve to evoke emotion as well as to communicate information.

5.6 Inductive fallacies or fallacies of insufficient evidence

These are mistakes in reasoning in which premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide

sufficient evidence for the conclusion. In other words, they occur when the inductive probability of

an argument (i.e., the probability of its conclusion given the premises) is low or at least lower than the

arguer thinks it is.

1. Argumentum ad Vericundiun (inappropriate appeal to authority):

This fallacy is committed when an arguer cites a witness or authority who there is good reason to

believe is unreliable. It is characterized by acceptance (or rejection) of a claim merely because of the

prestige, status, or respect we accord its proponents (or opponents) e.g., Testimonials – exemplified

by celebrities who appear on adverts and commercials endorsing products, services or brands of

goods. There are some reasons why quoting authority may be inappropriate (Refer to reasons for

doubting credibility of the source under refutation of argument)

 2. Hasty generalization

This means inferring a conclusion about an entire class of things from inadequate knowledge or

unrepresentative cases of some of its members. Hasty generalizations are usually fallacious

statistical/inductive generalizations and stem from biased, unrepresentative or inadequate sampling

techniques. They mostly occur in Pollsters, Surveys, marketing gimmicks:

Example: My Pastor is insincere therefore all Christians are insincere.

Faulty/weak analogy: this occurs when an arguer compares two (or more) things that are not

comparable in relevant respects. Analogical reasoning is a powerful tool in reasoning. However,

analogical reasoning depends quite sensitively on the degree and relevance of the similarity. It

follows this pattern:

A has characteristics w, x, y and z. B has characteristics w, x and z too. Therefore, B probably

has characteristic z too.

3. Fallacy of questionable cause or false cause

We live in a complex world whereby we may not exactly tell what the cause of a certain

phenomenon is. Fallacy of questionable cause occur when an arguer claims, without sufficient

evidence that one thing is the cause of something else. This fallacy has three common variants:

4. Post hoc fallacy: (after this, therefore because of this)

Occurs when an arguer assumes without adequate evidence that because one event, A, occurred,

before another event, B, then A, must be the cause of B.

5. Mere correlation fallacy

 Occurs when an arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence that because A and B regularly occur

together, A must be the cause of B, and vice versa.

6. Oversimplified fallacy

Occurs when an arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that A is the sole cause of B when,

in fact, there are several causes of B.

7. Argumentum ad ignoratium (appeal to ignorance)

Occurs when an arguer treats lack of evidence as a reason to think that a claim is true or false.

More precisely, the fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when an arguer asserts that a claim must

be true because no one has proved it false or, conversely, that a claim is false because no one has

proved it true.

5.7 Fallacies of presumption

These arise because the premises presume what they purport to prove.

They include:

1) False dichotomy:

Also called the Either-Or fallacy or fallacy of false dilemma or fallacy of false alternatives.

Occurs when an arguer poses false either / or choice. This fallacy forces one to choose between two

alternatives when more than two alternatives exist. It oversimplifies a complex issue by reducing it to

a simple either-or choice. The alternatives it presents do not exhaust all the possibilities.

Example: Either you are with us or you are against us

You are not with us. Therefore, you must be against us.

2) Complex question
Also called the fallacy of many questions, loaded question, or fallacy of interrogation. this fallacy

occurs when an arguer asks a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted

presupposition/questionable assumption. it consists of asking questions in such a way that any single

answer involves or implies other answers as well. in a complex question usually two or more questions

are rolled into one. in the case of two questions the second presupposes that a definite answer has

already been provided to the unasked question.

Example: do you still steal from your boss? yes or no

These devices are exploited by lawyers in cross-examination to have the accused confused, incriminate

themselves. Also popular with propagandists

3) Slippery slope fallacy:

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction, suggesting that a

single step in the wrong direction will result in a disastrous or otherwise undesirable outcome. In other

words, it is a fallacy which assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be

prevented. It takes its name from the image of a boulder rolling uncontrollably down a steep hill. Once

the boulder gets started, it cannot be stopped until it reaches the bottom. A person who commits this

fallacy assumes that taking a first step will lead inevitably to a second step, and so on down the slope

to disaster, without providing evidence to support such a claim. Thus, to assume that all the later steps

will occur without proving that they will is to commit the slippery slope fallacy.

Example: passing laws to control the amount of violence on television is the first step in a process

that will result in absolute government control of the media and a total censorship of all forms of

expression

4) Petitio pricipii (begging question)

Occurs when an arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing he or she is trying to prove as a

conclusion. There are two common ways of committing this fallacy:

1. Simply restating the conclusion in slightly different words e.g., capital punishment is

morally wrong because it is ethically impermissible.

2. ‘Circular reasoning’ or ‘arguing in circle’: when an arguer offers a chain of reasons for a

conclusion, where the conclusion of the argument is stated or assumed as one of the

premises. example

Nelly: god wrote the bible

Mary: how do you know that?

Nelly: because it says so in the bible, and what the bible says is true.

Mary: how do you know that what the bible says is true?

Nelly: because god wrote the bible.

-this is circular: a because of b, b because of a.

5.8 Fallacies of ambiguity

Occurs in arguments whose formulations contain ambiguous words or phrases and whose meaning(s)

shift and change in the course of the argument and thus render them fallacious. Principally, these

involve the use of language, hence also called fallacies of clearness. They are more subtle. They include:

1. Equivocation: equivocation arises when we confuse the different senses a word or phrase may

have, when using them in different senses in the same context. In the context of an argument this is

called fallacy of equivocation. The main aim is either to hide the truth or to mislead the listener.

Examples:
 The end of a thing is its perfection. Death is the end of life. Hence death is the perfection of

life.

It is silly to fight over mere words. Discrimination is just a word. Therefore, it is silly to fight

over discrimination.

Men are the only rational creatures on planet earth. No women are men. Therefore, no

women are rational

2. Amphiboly. In language this occurs when we cannot readily determine the meaning because of

either the words being arranged awkwardly or loosely. In the context of argument fallacy of amphiboly

is committed when it is stated as premise on interpretation which makes it true and conclusion is

deduced on the basis of interpretation that makes it false. Example:

Croesus, king of Syria wanted to go to war with king Cyrus of Persia. He went to consult

the oracles who told him; if you go to war with Persia you will destroy a mighty

kingdom. He went to war with Cyrus, but he was methodically defeated. Complaining

to the oracles, they told him that what they had told him was true. It referred to

destruction of his own (croesus) kingdom.

3. Accent refers to emphases that generate multiple (and often misleading) interpretations. Fallacy of

accent is committed in an argument whose deceptive but invalid nature depends upon a change or

shift in meaning. The way the meaning shifts in this fallacy depends upon what parts of it are

emphasized or accented. That some statements have different meanings when different words are

stressed is clear. Words may be emphasized by for instance bolding, italizing, using capitals. The

accented parts give an exciting but false significance e.g., newspaper headlines, contrasts, commercial
‘giveaways’ and deceptive entry forms are frequent sources of fallacies of accent. e.g., revolution in

France (is) feared by authorities.

4. Fallacy of composition: the term ‘fallacy of composition’ this is applied to both two closely related

types of invalid arguments

4. a) reasoning fallaciously from the properties of the parts of a whole to the properties of the whole

itself.

e.g., since every part of the machine is light, the machine as a whole is light in weight.

-this is fallacious because a heavy machine may consist of many lightweight parts.

4. b) reasoning fallaciously from the properties possessed by individual elements or members of a

collection to the properties possessed by the collection or totality of those elements.

e.g., a bus uses more gasoline than automobile; therefore, all buses use more gasoline than all

automobile.

This version of fallacy of composition results from confusion between the ‘distributive’ and the

‘collective’ use of general terms. ‘Distributive’ use of the term means that we are speaking of items

taken singly or severally. Collectively- means all the items together. Thus, buses use more gasoline

than automobiles (distributive), but collectively, automobiles use more gasoline than buses, because

there are so many more of them. thus, although college students may enroll in no more than six

different classes each semester (distributive), it is also true that college students enroll in hundreds of

different classes each semester (collectively)

5. Fallacy of division: this is simply the reverse of fallacy of composition. The same confusion is

present but the inference proceeds from the opposite direction. Likewise, it has two variants:
5. a) arguing that what is true of the whole is also true of the parts e.g., it would be fallacious to argue

that since a certain corporation is important, and Mr. john is an official of that corporation. Therefore,

Mr. john is particularly important.

5. b) arguing from properties of a collection of elements to the properties of the elements themselves.

results from confusion of the collective and distributive meaning of general terms, whereby an arguer

applies what is true of a class (collectively) to each and every member of that class (distributively). e.g.,

since university students study medicine, law, engineering, and architecture, therefore, each or even

any university student studies medicine, law, engineering, and architecture. it is true that university

students, collectively, study all these various subjects, but false that university students, distributive,

do so. Instances of this fallacy of division often look like valid arguments, for what is true of a class,

distributively, is certainly true of each and every member. Thus, the argument:

Dogs are carnivorous. Japanese spaniels are dogs. Therefore, Japanese spaniels are dogs

5.9 Factors which lead into fallacious arguments?

(i) carelessness and being inattentive to detail

(ii) Use of the heart or emotions to think. They appeal to our emotions, prejudice, self-interests

or blind faith.

(iii) ambiguity in language – semantics/formulation of the argument

(iv) not acknowledging the limits of our knowledge, extent of our ignorance

(v) mental fatigue/tiredness

(vi) generally, not being critical and creative

N.B.To help us avoid being victims of fallacious reasoning we need to be guided by the thinking map

used in evaluating arguments and reasoning.

5.1.0 E-tivity: Fallacies

Title Informal fallacies

Purpose To deepen students’ understanding of fallacies

Brief Summary of the Task Students to listen this video on Informal Fallacies

Individual Task Distinguish between formal and informal fallacies

Write down standard(s) of thinking violated in each category of informal

fallacies

Interaction • Students to post their findings on the chatroom

E-moderator interventions • Ensure students are focused on the contents and context of the

discussion.

• To harmonize students’ views

• Provide feedback on the learning progress.

• Close the e-tivity

Schedule and time The individual task will take 30 minutes

Next Decision making and problem solving

5.1.1 Summary

Informal fallacies occur due to the failure of the premises to establish a conclusion in that there lacks

either relevant or sufficient or clear grounds for the conclusion drawn. In other words, informal

fallacies occur due to lack of commitment to the standards of thinking such as: relevance, adequacy

(comprehensiveness/breadth/completeness), clarity (precision/accuracy) etc. as such we have

fallacies of relevance, fallacies of insufficient data, fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of pre-Sumption.

5.1.2 Further Activity

Attempt to construct fallacious arguments of all categories of informal fallacies while clearly explaining

why they are fallacious and ways to avoid them.

5.1.3 Further Questions

1. What is fallacy?

2. What is the difference between formal and informal fallacies?

3. Using relevant examples, explain the following categories of informal fallacies

a) Fallacies of relevant

b) Fallacies of induction/insufficient data

c) Fallacies of ambiguity

d) Fallacies of pre-Sumption

References

Mbithi Julius (2020), Critical Thinking