Print Summary of I. Fallacies

Page | 1
Summary of Informal Fallacies

Fallacy: a defect in an argument 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 fallacy:
1. Formal fallacy: detectable by analyzing the form of an argument
2. Informal fallacy: detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument
A. Fallacies of relevance: the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion:
1. Appeal to force: arguer threatens the reader/listener.
2. Appeal to pity: arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener.
3. Appeal to the people:
a) direct form: arguer incites a mob mentality e.g. appeal to fear,
b) Indirect form: appeals to our desire for security, love, or respect, etc.
I. The bandwagon argument: accept the conclusion otherwise you will be left
behind or left out of the group.
II. Appeal to vanity: often associates the conclusion with someone who is
admired, pursued, or imitated; the idea being that you, too, will be admired
and pursued if you accept the conclusion.
III. Appeal to snobbery: the arguer often tries to make someone feel special just
by accepting the conclusion.
IV. Appeal to tradition: the arguer cites the fact that something has become a
tradition as grounds for some conclusion.
4. Argument against the person:
a) ad hominem abusive arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by verbally
abusing the opponent,
b) ad hominen circumstantial presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or
she does, or
c) tu quoque( you too) by presenting the opponent as a hypocrite.
Note: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers.
5. Accident: a general rule is applied to an exceptional case or to a specific case it was not
intended to cover.
6. Straw man: arguer distorts an opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted
argument. Note: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers.
7. Missing the point: arguer draws a conclusion different from the one supported by the
premises. Note: do not cite this fallacy if another fallacy fits.
8. Red herring: arguer leads the reader/listener off the track.
B. Fallacies of Weak induction: the premises may be relevant to the conclusion, but they
supply insufficient support for the conclusion:
9. Appeal to unqualified authority: arguer cites an untrustworthy authority.
10. Appeal to ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved about some
subject, and then a conclusion is drawn about that subject.
11. Hasty generalization: a general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.
Page | 2
12. False cause: conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection. this fallacy
has four forms:
a) Post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because one event precedes another event, the first event
causes the second.
b) Non causa pro causa: what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all.
c) Oversimplified cause: the arguer selects just one cause among a multitude of causes and
represents it as if it were the sole cause.
d) The gambler’s fallacy: conclusion depends on the supposition that independent events in a
game of chance are causally related.
13. Slippery slope: conclusion depends on an unlikely chain reaction of causes.
14. Weak analogy: conclusion depends on a defective analogy (similarity).
C. Fallacies of Presumption: the premises presume what they purport to prove:

15. Begging the question: arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate
by leaving out a key premise, restating the conclusion as a premise, or reasoning in a circle.
16. Complex question: multiple questions are concealed in a single question which presumes the
existence of a certain condition.
17. False dichotomy: an “either . . . or . . .” premise hides additional alternatives.
18. Suppressed evidence: arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different
conclusion.
D. Fallacies of ambiguity: the conclusion depends on some kind of linguistic ambiguity:
19. Equivocation: conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.

20. Amphiboly: conclusion depends on an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous
statement made by someone other than the arguer.
E. Fallacies of illicit transference(grammatical analogy): an attribute is incorrectly transferred
from the parts of something onto the whole or from the whole onto the parts:
21.Composition: an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the parts to the whole.
22. Division : an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the whole to the parts.
NB. Composition (proceeds from the members of the class to the class itself). But Hasty generalization
(proceeds from the specific to the general.)
Division (proceeds from the class to the members); but Accident (proceeds from the general to
the specific.)
 General statement vs. class statement
Fleas are small is a general statement and the attribute of being small is predicated distributively.
Fleas are numerous is a class statement and the attribute of being numerous is predicated
collectively.
 Fallacies that occur in real-life argumentation may be hard to detect:
They may not exactly fit the pattern of the named fallacies. They may involve two or
more fallacies woven together in a single passage.
Three factors underlie the commission of fallacies in real-life argumentation:
1. The intent of the arguer (the arguer may intend to mislead someone).
2. Mental carelessness combined with unchecked emotions.
3. Unexamined presuppositions in the arguer’s worldview.
=============================//=========================

Print Summary of I. Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Print Summary of I. Fallacies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Print Summary of I. Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page | 1

Summary of Informal Fallacies

C. Fallacies of Presumption: the premises presume what they purport to prove:

D. Fallacies of ambiguity: the conclusion depends on some kind of linguistic ambiguity:

19. Equivocation: conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.

You might also like