Informal Fallacies

Roba’s Lecture Notes

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that arises from a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an
illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. There are two kinds of fallacies: formal and
informal. A formal fallacy is a fallacy that is detectable by analyzing the logical form of the
argument. An informal fallacy is a fallacy that is not detectable simply by analyzing the logical
form of the argument but is detectable only by analyzing the content of the argument.

1. Fallacies of Relevance: In this family of fallacies, the premises are not logically connected to
the conclusion but the arguer attempts to give the listener the impression that there is a logical
connection by giving a psychological or sociological reason to accept the conclusion instead.
1.1 Appeal to force (Argumentum ad Baculum: “Appeal to the Stick”): arguer attempts to
support the conclusion by threatening to harm the reader/listener.
1.2 Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam): arguer attempts to support the
conclusion by evoking pity from the reader/listener.
1.3 Appeal to the people (Argumentum ad Populum): this kind of fallacy attempts to put
social pressure, directly or indirectly, on the reader/listener. It comes in two very general
forms: direct and indirect.
1.3.1 Direct appeal to the people: arguer directly excites the emotions and enthusiasm of
a crowd to win acceptance of a conclusion. Adolf Hitler was effective in using this
approach.
Appeal to fear (“fear mongering): one specific form of the direct appeal to the
people is the appeal to fear, also called “fear mongering.” This involves the arguer
directly eliciting fear in the reader/listener (p.128).

1.3.2 Indirect appeal to the people: arguer appeals to our desire for security, love, respect.
1.3.2.1 Bandwagon argument: arguer creates the impression that you might be
socially left behind or that everyone is engaged in a certain activity and it appeals to
our desire to want to be included in the latest trend (e.g. “Everybody believes X, so
you should too.”).
1.3.2.2 Appeal to vanity: arguer associates a position or product with someone who is
admired, loved, pursued, or imitated. The impression is created that you, too, will be
admired, loved and pursued if you adopt the position or use the product.
1.3.2.3 Appeal to snobbery: arguer appeals to our desire to be a member of an elite
group (i.e. to be on, or near, the top of the social hierarchy).

1.4 Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem):

1
 1.4.2 Ad hominem circumstantial: arguer attempts to discredit an argument by presenting
the arguer as predisposed to argue as he does and, therefore, his argument should not be
taken seriously.
1.4.3 Tu quoque (“you too”): arguer attempts to discredit an argument by presenting the
opponent as a hypocrite or as arguing in bad faith.
1.5 Accident: arguer applies a general rule to a specific case that it was not intended to cover.
1.6 Straw man: arguer attacks a distorted misrepresentation of the opponent’s view and, in so
doing, implicitly attempts to mislead the listener into thinking that the opponent’s actual view
has been discredited.
1.7 Missing the point: (Ignoratio Elenchi meaning “ignorance of proof”): arguer draws a
conclusion different from the one supported by the premises.
1.8 Red herring: arguer subtly changes the topic to one that is irrelevant to original issue in
order to divert attention away from the original argument to another topic.

2. Fallacies of Weak Induction: In this family of fallacies, the premises may be relevant to the
conclusion but supply insufficient support for the conclusion.
2.1 Appeal to unqualified authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): arguer appeals to the
epistemic authority, or expertise, of an authority that is untrustworthy because of
incompetence or dishonesty.
2.2 Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): arguer infers a conclusion from lack
of evidence.
2.3 Hasty generalization: a general conclusion is inferred from an unrepresentative or
atypical sample.
2.4 False cause: conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection.
2.4.1 Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore on account of this”): presupposes
that just because one event precedes another event the first event causes the second.
2.4.2 Non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”). Something is taken to be the
cause when it is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other
than mere temporal succession (e.g. inferring causation from mere non-temporal
correlation).
2.4.3 Oversimplified cause: a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but
the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.
2.4.4 Gambler’s fallacy: argument depends on the supposition that independent events in
a game of chance are causally related.
2.5 Slippery slope: argument depends on an unlikely causal chain-reaction.
2.6 Weak analogy: conclusion depends on a defective analogy (similarity).

3. Fallacies of Presumption: In this family of fallacies, the premises presume (i.e. illegitimately
assume) what they purport to prove.
3.1 Begging the question: arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate
by: (1) leaving out a key premise, (2) restating the conclusion as a premise, or (3) reasoning
in a circle.
3.2 Complex question: multiple questions are concealed in a single question.

2
 3.3 False dichotomy: this is also called the “either…or” fallacy. It forces the reader/listener to
choose from only two options when neither option is true (e.g. there are there are additional
alternatives)
3.4 Suppressed evidence: arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different
conclusion.

4. Fallacies of Ambiguity: In this family of fallacies, the conclusion depends on some sort of
linguistic ambiguity.
4.1 Equivocation: conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.
4.2 Amphiboly: conclusion depends on an ambiguous interpretation of a statement made by
someone other than the arguer.

5. Fallacies of Illicit Transfer: an attribute is incorrectly transferred from parts of something onto
the whole or from the whole onto the parts.
5.1 Composition: an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the parts to the whole.
5.2 Division: an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the whole to the parts.