FALLACIES

FALLACY
A fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid
but in reality it is not so. It is an invalid argument
which is camouflaged and which can deceive or
mislead us by a show of truth. It is, so to speak, a
trap, something Tricky or hidden.
Being mistakes in reasoning, fallacies arises from
the violation of one or other of the principles on
which the correctness of reasoning depends.

A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or intentionally.

When the fallacy is committed unintentionally it is called
paralogism.

AND

when it is committed intentionally then it is called sophism.

Fallacies can be formal and informal.

FORMAL FALLACY
A formal fallacy is one that can be detected
by analyzing the form of an argument, such
fallacies affect only deductive argument.

INFORMAL FALLACY
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.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

THE FALLACY OF RELEVANCE

The fallacy of relevance share the common
characteristics that the argument in which they
occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to
the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant
psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to
follow from the premises, even though it does not
follow logically.

In an argument that commit fallacy of

relevance,

the

connection

between

premises and conclusion is emotional. To

identify a fallacy of relevance, one must be
able to distinguish genuine evidence from
various forms of emotional appeal.

APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM de BACULUM)

The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer
poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person
either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to
him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.
The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the
physical or psychological well being of the listener or
reader, who may be either a single person or group of
persons. Such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject
matter of the conclusion.

So any argument based on such procedure is fallacies. It occurs

when children argue with one another.
Child to play mate: wrestling is the best program on TV and if you
dont believe it, I am going to call my big brother over here hes going
to beat you up.
But it occurs among adults as well.
Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year:
after all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I am sure you
wouldn't want her to find out whats being going on between you and
that client of yours.
The first example involves physical threat, the second a psychological
threat. While neither threat provides any genuine evidence that the
conclusion is true.

APPEAL TO PITY ( ARGUMENTUM ad MISERICORDIAN)

The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to
support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or
listener. This pity may be directed towards the arguer or towards
some third party.

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

The conclusion of this argument is Surely I

am not guilty. The conclusion is not
logically

relevant,

psychologically relevant.

although

it

is

APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE (ARGUMENTUM ad

POPULum)
Nearly every one want to be
Loved
Esteemed
Admired
Valued
recognized
and
accepted by others.
The appeal to the people uses there desires to get the reader or listener to accept a
conclusion. Two approaches are involved
One is DIRECT
The other is INDIRECT

THE DIRECT APPROACH

The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing
a large group of people, excites the emotions and
enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or
her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob
mentality. This is a strategy used by nearly every
propagandist and demagogue. Politicians and some
state rulers are masters of this techniques.

INDIRECT APPROACH
In the indirect approach the arguer aims his or her appeal
not to the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals
separately. The indirect approach includes such specific
forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to
snobbery and the appeal to vanity.
All are standard techniques of the advertising industry.
Here is an example of Bandwagon argument:

Of course you want to buy zest toothpaste. Why, 90 percent of America

brushes with zest.
The idea is you will be left behind, if you don not use the product.
APPEAL TO VANITY:
It often associates the product with someone, who is admired and pursued if
you use it. Example:
The gold leaf man represents the ultimate in masculinity.
Gold leaf cigarettes For those who stand out as real men.
APPEAL TO SNOBBERY:
Depends on a similar kind of association.
A Rolls Royce is not for every one. If you qualify as one of the select few, this
distinguished classic may be seen and driven at British Motor cars. (By
appointment only, please)

ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (Argumentum ad Hominem)

This fallacy always involves two arguers, one of them

advances a certain argument, and the other then responds
by directing his or her attention not to the first persons
argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs,
the second person is said to commit an argument against
the person. This argument against the person occurs in
three forms. The ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem
circumstantial and the tu quoque. In the ad hominem
abusive, the second person responds to the first persons
argument by verbally abusing the first person. Example poet
Allen has argued in favour of abolishing censorship of
pornographic literature. But Allens arguments are nothing
but trash. Allen, You know, is a thorough going advocate of
the drug culture. This argument is irrelevant and fallacious.

The ad hominem circumstantial begins when the

respondent attempts to discredit the opponent,
argument by alluding to certain circumstances that
affect the opponent.
Bill Gates has argued at length that Microsoft
Corporation does not have a monopoly on computer
disc operating systems. But Gates is chief executive
officer of Microsoft, and he want to avoid antitrust
action against his company .Therefore we should
ignore Gates arguments the author of this passage
ignore the substance of Gates argument and
attempts instead to discredit it by calling attention to
certain circumstances that affect Gates.

The Tu quoque (you too) fallacy begins

when the second arguer attempts to make
the first appear to be hypocritical of arguing
in a bad faith. Example Child to parent:
your argument that stop stealing candy
from the shop is no good. You told me
yourself just a weak ago that you, too, stole
candy when you were a kid.

ACCIDENT
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 in the premises and then
wrongly applied to the specific case in the conclusion e.g.
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed
right.Therefor G.M syed, Radical should not be arrested for
his speech that incited the riot last week. E.g. Property
should be returned to its rightful owner. Therefore, Mr jan
who is starting a fight with his opponents at the hostel lent
you his pistol, and now it wants it back, Therefore, your,
should return it to him now.
In this first example the rule does not apply because the
speech incited the riot. In the second example also the rule
doe not apply because the return of the pistol might result
in serious injury or death.

STRAW MASS
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distort an
opponents argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it
,demolishes the distorted argument and then concludes that the
opponents real argument has been demolished By so doing, the arguer
is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down. Example Karl
Mavx has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously Karl
Marx advocates atheism But atheism is what they used to have in
Russian Atheism leads to the suppression of all religious and the
replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for
this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Karl Marxs argument is non
sense.

MISSING THE POINT ( IGNORATIO ELENCHI )

It means ( ignorance of Proofs ). This fallacy occurs when the
premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a
different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is
drawn.

Example:
Crimes of Theft and robbery have been increasing at an
alarming rate. The conclusion is obvious: we must
reinstate the death penalty immediately. Abuse of the
welfare system is rampant now a days.
Our only alternative is to abolish the system altogether at
least two correct conclusions are implied by the premise of
the first argument: either" we should increase police
protection in vulnerable areas or we should initiate
programs to eliminate the cause of the crimes.
Reinstating death penalty is not a logical conclusion at all.
In the second argument the premises logically suggest
some systematic efforts to eliminate the cheaters rather
than eliminating the system altogether.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
The fallacies of ambiguity include equivocation and
amphibology. There fallacies arises from the occurrence
of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the
conclusion (or both). A term is ambiguous, if it is
susceptible to different interpretations in a given context.
When the conclusion of an argument depends on a
certain interpretation being given to an ambiguous term
or statement, the argument commits a fallacy of
ambiguity.

EQUIVOCATION
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion
of an argument depends on fact that a word or phrase is
used in two different senses in the argument. Such
argument are either invalid or have a false premise and
in either case they are unsound.
Examples:

Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is

ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But
the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity
can be repealed by the legislative authority.
We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to
speak out in defense of the innocent. Therefore, we have
a duty to speak out in defense of the innocent.

AMPHIBOLY
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs, when the arguer misinterpret a
statement that is syntactically ambiguous and proceeds to draw a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The syntactical
ambiguity arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation.
A missing comma
A dangling modifier
An ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun
Or some other careless arguments of words
Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two
clearly distinguishable ways.
Examples:
The tour guide said that standing in Balahisar fort, the Peshawar city
could easily be seen. It follows that the Peshawar city is in Balahisar
fort.

AVOIDING FALLACIES
Three factors that underlie the commission of fallacies in
real life argumentation are the intent of the arguer, mental
carelessness combined with unchecked emotions, and
unexamined world views.
The first is intent. Many fallacies are committed intentionally.
The arguer may know well that his reasoning is defective
but goes ahead with it because of some benefit for himself
or some other persons. The key to avoiding fallacies that
are intentionally committed probably lies in some form of
moral education. The arguer must realize that using
intellectual dishonest means to acquire something he does
not deserve it is another form of cheating.

The second factor that leads to the commission of fallacy

is mental carelessness combined with unchecked
emotions. The key to avoiding such fallacies lies in
developing a thorough familiarity with the informal fallacies
combined with the habitual realization of how emotions
effect peoples reasoning. Every one should realize that
unchecked emotions are an open invitation to illogical
reasoning.
The third factor is unexamined world view. To avoid this
fallacy the arguer must acknowledge and critique his
presupposition. Doing so inclines the arguer to express his
argument in language that takes those presupposition into
account. The result is always an argument that is more
intelligently formed, and is more persuasive.