CHAPTER FIVE

LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES

5.1. Fallacy in General

5.1.1. The Meaning of Fallacy

Activity # 1: Dear learners, are you familiar with the term ‘fallacy’? Have you ever used
the term for any purpose? If so, what do you mean by ‘fallacy’?
The word ‘fallacy’ is a general term that refers to a logical defect or flaw or fault that a certain argument
exhibits in its structural arrangement or reasoning process, or in the contents of its statements used as
premises or a conclusion, for various reasons, other than merely false premises. In general, it is a violation
of standard argumentative rules or criteria. Let us take a moment now and see the standard criteria or
rules of a good argument, before proceed to the detail discussion of fallacies.

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what are the standard rules of a good argument?

There are four general criteria of a good argument, which specifically evaluate the relevance,
acceptability, sufficiency, and rebuttablity of the premises. A good argument must have premises that: are
relevant to the truth of the conclusion, are acceptable to a logical person, together constitute sufficient
grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and anticipate and provide an effective rebuttal to all reasonable
challenges to the argument or to the position supported by it. A premise 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
conclusion. Otherwise, it is irrelevant. A premise 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, an argument may not be good,
even though its premises may be relevant and acceptable, unless they are sufficient enough in number,
kind and weight. Finally, a good argument should also provide an effective rebuttal (refutation, or
disproof) to the strongest arguments against one’s conclusion and also perhaps to the strongest arguments
in support of the alternative position. Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of
a good argument. That is, an argument is good as far as it meets all the general criteria set for a good
argument, and hence commits no fallacy. It, however, becomes bad, if it violates any one of them, and
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). They are often committed
because of the problem in the reasoning process or the form of the argument, or defects in the contents of

1
the statements used as premises or a conclusion. For that matter, both deductive and inductive arguments
may contain fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument.
Conversely, if an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a
fallacy (or both).

5.1.2. Types of Fallacies

Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal. Depending on the kind of the
problems or defects they contain, (i.e., the problems or defects that make them fallacious), 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. Because 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. Because 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, and 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, and C
stand respectively for ‘‘tigers,’’ ‘‘animals,’’ and ‘‘mammals’’ is irrelevant in detecting the fallacy. The
problem may be traced to the second premise. If the letters C and B are interchanged, the form becomes
valid, and the original argument, with the same change introduced, also becomes valid (but unsound).

Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a hypothetical syllogism:

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

This argument has the following form:

2
 If A, then B.
B.
----------------
A.

This type of fallacy is called affirming the consequent. In this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first
premise, the form becomes valid, and the original argument, with the same change, also becomes valid. In
this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first premise, the form 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, keep an eye
out for standard deductive argument forms such as categorical syllogisms and hypothetical syllogisms. If
such an argument is invalid because of an improper arrangement of terms or statements, it commits a
formal fallacy.

5.2. Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are those mistakes in reasoning process of an argument that cannot be recognized by
analyzing the structure of an argument, but only through analysis of the content of the argument. Only the
meaning of the words, how the statements are constructed and how inferences are made that reveals the
faulty reasoning. Consider the following 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.

3
Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies. Aristotle
himself identified thirteen and 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 twenty-two informal fallacies into five groups: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak
induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

5.2.1. Fallacies of Relevance

Activity # 1: Dear learners, do you remember the principle of relevance we have discussed in the
previous chapter? Do you relate the principle of relevance with the fallacy of relevance?

The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic- that the arguments, 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 a good
argument the premises provide genuine evidence in support of the conclusion. In an argument that
commits a fallacy of relevance, on the other hand, the connection between premises and conclusion is
emotional. Such arguments are often called non sequiturs, which means that the conclusion does not seem
to follow from the premises. They are also sometimes called argumentative leaps, which suggest that
since no connection is seen between the premises and the conclusion, a huge leap (jump) would be
required to move from one (the premises) to the other (the conclusion). To identify a fallacy of relevance,
therefore, one must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.

1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the ‘‘Stick’’)

Activity # 2: Dear learners, how do you define the fallacy of appeal to force?

Appeal to force occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either
implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion. In other
words it occurs when a conclusion defended by a threat to the well- being of those who do not accept the
conclusion.

This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well- being of the
listener. But this threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion even though it seems
psychologically relevant. Consider the following argument in which the arguer uses unjustified physical
threat on the listeners.

Mr. Kebde you accused me of fraud and 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?

4
This is a fallacious argument; the arguer is threatening the listener to abandon his charge. The above
argument can be re-written to expose the faulty reasoning most clearly.

Mr. Kebede you have to drop your charge, otherwise you will face accident.

You can see that the conclusion is supported by force. The threat “accident” has no logical bearing on the
conclusion however (you have to drop your charge).

Appeal to force need not use sheer physical force to support a certain conclusion. Consider the following
argument.

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 and
reasonable. I won’t have anybody working here who doesn’t know this.

Now this is a blatant example, which shows an explicit use of psychological force to impose a conclusion.
The arguer is trying to impose the conclusion that you (workers) should accept the dental benefit policy as
fair and reasonable. The reason given however does not support the conclusion. It says that ‘any worker
who does not accept this conclusion would be fired.’ But a threat to loss a job cannot constitute a reason
to support the proposition that the dental policy is reasonable and fair. Thus, it is unjustified appeal to
force. Such kinds of argument have the following form:

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

The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader or
listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at
least questionable. Finally, a note of caution: The fact that an argument mentions a threat does not
necessarily make it a fallacy.

2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

Activity # 3: Dear learners, how do you define the fallacy of appeal to pity?

The appeal to pity (or ad misericordiam fallacy) is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by evoking
pity in one’s audience when the statements that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion.
The appeal to pity is not, generally speaking, very subtle. But if the arguer succeeds in evoking
sufficiently strong feelings of pity, he or she may distract the audience from the logic of the situation and
create a desire to accept the conclusion. The appeal to pity fallacy has the following form.

5
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.

Consider the following argument.

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.

The conclusion of this argument is “the Headship position in the department of accounting should be
given to Oumer Abdulla”. But the conclusion is not logically relevant to the pathetic condition of the
arguer though they do psychologically. It may be pitiful to see people under these conditions; but this
does not mean that such conditions are logically relevant in every situation to decide. A certain position
should be open to people to fill when they have the necessary qualification. The relevant logical reason in
this situation for Oumer Abdulla to qualify for the position is if he fulfills the necessary educational
experience. But ‘he has six hungry children to feed and his wife needs operation’ does not lend reason to
accept the conclusion. So this is illegitimate appeal to pity.

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 and 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 and 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. Consider the following argument.

Twenty children survive earthquakes that kill most people in the village. These children lost their parents.
They are out of school, and 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.

As you can see this is argument from compassion, in which the conclusion is based on the feeling of
sympathy. The natural response of compassion and pity is a legitimate and reasonable response. 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 and sensible to show
compassion for these people.

6
In fact, this is the main justification for some social policies to help out old people, disables, orphan and
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 and argument in which the
conclusion is depend on illegitimate appeal to compassion is a fallacy - appeal to pity fallacy.

3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

Activity # 4: Dear learners, how do you define the fallacy of appeal to people?

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others.
Feeling of being part of community and belongingness are some of the most important humans needs.
The appeal to the people strikes these desires and needs to get acceptance for conclusion. Or the appeal to
the people (or ad populum fallacy) is an attempt to persuade a person (or group) by appealing to these
desires and needs. Consider the following argument.

I look out at you all, and 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 and 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 and the critics are wrong.

The speaker wants the audience to accept his conclusion that ‘the trade agreement is not a protectionist’.
But look how he supports his thesis. He appeals to the emotions of the crowd, the strong feelings of the
crowd, however, do not lend logical support to anyone’s view about trade agreements. Premises to the
effect that “I am proud to be associated with you” and “you are hard-working people” are irrelevant to the
conclusion (that “our view of trade agreements is right”). As you can see, the arguer uses the feeling of
individuals to be part of the group to accept his conclusion. And anyone who wants to be part of the
group, who does not want to be deviated from the mob mentality, accepts the conclusion as true.

However, one does not have to be addressing a large group to commit the ad populum fallacy. Any
attempt to convince by appealing to the need for acceptance (or approval) from others counts as an ad
populum fallacy. Consider the following argument.

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?

7
The mere fact that Ms. Riley is an American provides her with no logical support for the conclusion that
America’s war with Iraq was just or moral. But like most Americans, Ms. Riley may wish to avoid being
regarded as unpatriotic, and so an appeal to the people may influence her thinking.

Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: direct and indirect. 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 the
strategy used by nearly every propagandist and demagogue. Because the individuals in the audience want
to share in the camaraderie, the euphoria, and the excitement, they find themselves accepting any number
of conclusions with ever-increasing fervor.

In the indirect approach, the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more
individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach
is very common in most advertising industries. There are three recognizable forms in indirect approach:
Bandwagon, Vanity, and Snobbery.

I. Bandwagon fallacy

Bandwagon fallacy is a kind of fallacy that 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
community or group is that they share some values and norms. Not only they share but also every
individual is expected to manifest group conformity to these shared values. Bandwagon fallacy just uses
these emotions and feelings to get acceptance for a certain conclusion. For instance, consider the
following 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.

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 and pursued if you use it. For example, BBC may show the
famous footballer, Frank Lampard, wearing Addidas shoe, and says:

8
 Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected celebrities! ADIDDAS
SHOE!!!

The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too, will be admired and respected, just like the
famous footballer, Frank Lampard.

III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy

Before discussing about snobbery fallacy, let us look into the meaning of snob. Snob means a person
who admires people in higher classes too much and 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 because they
like things many people do not like.

Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as superior to others. This fallacy appeal
individuals and their desires to be regarded as different and better. Consider the following argument.

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, and it is reasonable and safe
to accept the conclusion as good. Consider the following argument.

It is generally accepted by those who live in and 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.

The implicit assumption that makes this appeal to popular opinion plausible is that since the people who
live in and around polar region are normally familiar with the area, they may be assumed to be in a
position to know whether penguin give a birth when the winter become stronger or not. Therefore, if the
people who live in and around polar region think that penguin give birth when the winter becomes
stronger, it is a plausible and reasonably safe assumption (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary)
that penguin give birth when the winter gets stronger.

9
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 and have come to accept it
because they have found it a useful or good thing to do. Consider the following argument concerning
killing of human being:

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, and almost all societies accept as an important element of
moral and 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.

Here, the assumption is that people have generally accepted the right to life and even codified it in their
systems of ethics. Such popular acceptance lends a certain weight of presumption in favor of the right to
life as an ethical principle to take seriously. It does not mean that the right to life cannot be questioned or
criticized. It only means that the right to life should be taken seriously in a discussion on ethical
principles, because people have put some thought into such matters in the past, and their unanimity on
accepting this principle indicates a presumption in its favor.

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 and security. When the crowd roars its approval of the conclusions that are then offered, anyone
who does not accept them automatically cuts himself or herself off from the crowd and risks the loss of
his or her security, strength, and acceptance. The same thing happens in the indirect approach, but the
context and technique are somewhat subtler.

4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

Activity # 5: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of argument against the person?

Argument against the person always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or
implicitly) a certain argument and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first
person’s argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit
an argument against the person. In any of the kinds of conversational frameworks in which people reason
with each other, despite the opposition and partisanship characteristic of many kinds of dialogue, there
must also be a presumption that in order to achieve collaborative goals, participants must observe rules of
polite conversation.

10
Arguers must be able to trust each other, to some extent at least, to be informative and relevant, to take
turns politely, and to express their commitments clearly and honestly. Without this kind of collaboration
in contributing to a dialogue, argument of a kind that uses reasoning to fulfill its goals of dialogue
interaction would not be possible.

Attacking the other party’s honesty or sincerity in argument is a powerful move. Such an argument leads
one to the conclusion that such a person lacks credibility as an arguer who can be trusted to play by the
rules. This argument is so powerful because it suggests that such a person cannot ever be trusted and that
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. Because they are so powerful and dangerous, ad hominem arguments have often been
treated in the past as fallacious.

The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem
circumstantial, and the tu quoque.

I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy

In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing
the first person. The following is the form of 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 premise 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, and 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 because 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. Consider the following 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 and 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.

The conclusion of the argument says that we should reject the idea of legislating a minimum legal
requirement to protect animals. But what reason is offered to support the conclusion? That Abebe is a

11
drunk and divorced person is the only reason given. But it is impossible to conclude that we should reject
legislation a minimum legal requirement to protect animals from the idea that Abebe is a drunk and
divorced person. This is just an explicit and direct personal attack.

II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping
verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by
alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that
the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously.
Consider the following example:

Haileselassie I 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 I argue in this way because he wants to resume his power once the Italian are expelled from
Ethiopia.

This argument is fallacious because the arguer does not pay serious attention to the substance of the
argument of the king. He just tried to discredit the idea of the king by association it with the circumstance
with the Italian evacuation. He did not attack directly why member states should not help the country. The
ad hominem circumstantial is easy to recognize because it always takes this form: ‘‘Of course, Mr. X
argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.’’

III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy

The tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem
argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in
bad faith. The second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first
arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion. This fallacy has the following form: ‘‘How dare you
argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself.’’ See the following example:

Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette because you
yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself is
smoking?

The argument is fallacious because whether the doctor smokes is irrelevant to whether the his premises
support the conclusion that the patient should quit smoking cigarette; and the fact tha the doctor himself

12
smokes does not make smoking right. Smoking is wrong whether the advisor himself did the action or
not.

Dear learners, what relationships do you observe between tu quoque fallacy and the standard of
consistency?

Are all arguments against the person fallacious? They are not. There are reasonable arguments against the
person. Let us consider the first two types of against the person fallacy: abusive and circumstantial. In
many textbooks, the direct ad hominem argument is called ‘abusive’, suggesting that it is a fallacious
argument and is always wrong. But it can sometimes be reasonable argument. For example, in legal
argumentation in a trial, 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 and 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, and often, character for veracity is the focus of the attack.
For example, the allegation may be, “He is a liar!” The attack is directed to destroying the person’s
credibility, so that his argument is discounted or reduced in plausibility because 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 or her background condition. In
some circumstances and conditions, the kind of belief people entertain or the kind of argument they
advance could be purely the function of their circumstances. It is mere sociological facts that societies are
segmented into many groups depend on their economic, social, religious, political and other factors. It is
also true that the kind of political, economic and religious system one belongs to determine to a certain
extent of what kind of ideas and 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 and plausible to consider some judgment of individuals as blinded and limited by their
circumstance. Capitalists and 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.

13
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 and other necessary facilities for doctors

This argument seems that it is unreasonable and thus it is a fallacy of circumstance. But close inspection
may reveals that it may not be a fallacy. This argument argues for increment of salary. Before judging
whether it is a fallacy or not, we need to consider the economic conditions of the country and the relative
income of medical doctor. If, in fact the country cannot afford salary increment and medical doctors a as
profession receives reasonably adequate income, it would be promoting self- interest to claim for
additional salary.

5) Accident

Activity # 6: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of 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 (either directly or implicitly) in the premises
and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion. Consider the following 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. Because 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

Activity # 7: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of straw man?

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, and 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 and knocked it
down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well.

14
The following are the main features of straw man fallacy. First 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 and the other is a critic. Second the critic however does not rationally criticize the
main or the substantive argument of the opponent. Rather he criticizes ideas which are the
misrepresentation of the main content of the argument. He does so for easy attacking the argument. Third
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. Consider the following argument.

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.

Dear learners, do you see any relationship between straw man fallacy and the principle of charity?

7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

Activity # 8: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of missing the point?

Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance. It 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. Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed, he or she should be
able to identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply. Ignoratio elenchi
means “ignorance of the proof.” The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own

15
premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely. Consider the following
argument.

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 premises and 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

Activity # 9: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of missing the point?

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 conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming
that some conclusion 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 and 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.

16
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, and any other topic that might serve as the subject of gossip. Here is an
example of this technique:

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 because 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 and 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) and 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 and straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the point,
because 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 premises, whereas missing the point does
not. Straw man draws a conclusion from new premises that are obtained by distorting an earlier argument,

17
and red herring, if it draws any conclusion at all, draws one from new premises obtained by changing the
subject. Missing the point, however, draws a conclusion from the original premises. Also, in the red
herring and straw man, the conclusion, if there is one, is relevant to the premises from which it is drawn;
but in missing the point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises from which it is drawn. Finally,
remember that missing the point serves in part as a kind of catchall fallacy, and a fallacious argument
should not be identified as a case of missing the point if one of the other fallacies clearly fits.

5.2.2. Fallacies of Weak Induction

Activity # 1: Dear learners, do you remember the principle of sufficiency we have

discussed in the previous chapter? Do you relate the principle of sufficient with the
fallacy of weak induction?
The fallacy of weak induction violates the principles of sufficiency, which states that whenever a person
presents an argument for or against a position, he/she should attempt to provide
relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in
number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion. Therefore, the fallacies of weak induction
occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case with the eight
fallacies of relevance, but because the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough
to support the conclusion.

There are different kinds of fallacies of weak induction and the following are the most important ones:
Appeal to Unqualified Authority, Hasty Generalization, False Cause, Weak Analogy, Slippery Slope, and
Appeal to Ignorance. In each of these fallacies, the premises provide at least a shred of evidence in
support of the conclusion, but the evidence is not nearly good enough to cause a reasonable person to
believe the conclusion. Like the fallacies of relevance, however, the fallacies of weak induction often
involve emotional grounds for believing the conclusion. In this lesson, we will discuss the above six
fallacies of weak induction.

At the end of this lesson, you Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of appeal to unqualified
authority?
We saw in the second chapter that argument from authority is inductive argument. It is discussed that
appeal to authority or otherwise called appeal to expert opinion is an argument in which the conclusion
depends on a testimony of expert or knowledgeable people.

It is frequently the case in personal, social, and political deliberations that one does not know all the
relevant facts. One may get information from another person who has the facts. For example if you want

18
to know whether the sun is the centre of the universe or not, or if you want to know whether all matters
are made of subatomic particle, you can ask people who are knowledgeable in the area. One can improve
chances of getting correct information by choosing a source that has reason to think is reliable. But to
some extent, you will have to rely on presumption or trust that your source is knowledgeable and honest
and is not misinforming you.

However, the cited authority or witness could lacks credibility for different reasons. The person might
lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might have a motive to lie or disseminate
“misinformation,” or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.

The appeal to unreliable authority (or ad verecundiam fallacy) is an appeal to an authority when the
reliability of the authority may be reasonably doubtable. When an appeal to unreliable authority is made,
the arguer assumes, without sufficient warrant, that the authority in question is reliable. When there is
legitimate doubt about whether an authority is reliable, then the appeal to authority is fallacious. Ad
verecundiam fallacies are common in advertising when celebrities who lack the relevant expertise endorse
products. Consider the following example.

The famous artists, artist Woriku said that Vera Pasta is the most nutritious food. So Vera pasta must be
the most nutritious food.

Artist Worku could be good artists but we want to know whether he is an expert on nutrition and the
argument leave us in doubt about that.

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 or she lacks expertise in it. This form of fallacy is especially subtle
if the two fields are related. Consider the following example.

Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in more complex societies, there is higher
level of division of labor and in less complex societies, there is less division of labor.

This argument as you can see is flawed. This is because the expert’s field of specialization and the
conclusion he made are unrelated. He is an expert in biology but he gives us a witness on society.

This argument also reminds us of another point to keep in mind when evaluating an appeal to authority,
namely, that 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 and moral issues it is difficult to find an

19
ultimate authority to give final decision. Whatever the expertise of the authority, it is safe not to depend
on this authority for knowledge.

9) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

Activity # 3: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance?

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about
something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits an
appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something
that has not yet been proved. Observe the following example:

People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims that Haileselassie I of
Ethiopia is the descendant of King David of Israel and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of King David of Israel.

Conversely, the following argument commits the same fallacy:

People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the
descendant of King David of Israel, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that
Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is in fact the descendant of King David of Israel. .

The premises of an argument are supposed to provide positive evidence for the conclusion. The premises
of these arguments, however, tell us nothing about the alleged relationship between Haileselassie I of
Ethiopia and Kind David of Israel; rather, they tell us about what certain unnamed and unidentified
people have tried unsuccessfully to do. This evidence may provide some slight reason for believing the
conclusion, but certainly not sufficient reason.

However, these examples do lead us to the first of two important exceptions to the appeal to ignorance.
The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their
range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by
itself constitutes positive evidence about the question. Consider, for example, the following argument:

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.

20
The premises of this argument are true. Given the circumstances, it is likely that the historian in question
would have proved if King Tewodros II did not commit suicide. Since they did not proof it, it likely that
he did commit suicide. Thus, we can say that the above argument is inductively strong.

As for the two arguments about the alleged relationship between Haileselassie I of Ethiopia and Kind
David of Israel, if the attempts to prove or disprove the historical claims had been done in a systematic
way by qualified experts, it is more likely that the arguments would be good. But as these arguments
stand, the premises state nothing about the qualifications of the investigators, and so the arguments
remain fallacious.

The second exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom procedure. In Ethiopia, a person is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the
defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defense may justifiably argue that his or her client 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.”

10) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

Activity # 4: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of hasty generalization?

Hasty generalization is a defective form of argument from inductive generalization. A generalization is an

argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic, it is argued that all the members of the
group have that same 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 face book in campuses, we could
take a poll of 10 per cent of the students. If the results of the poll showed that 80 percent of those sampled
favored the law, we might draw the conclusion that 80 percent of the entire student body favored it. These
illustrate the use of statistics in inductive argumentation.

21
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. Depending on what the population
consists of, whether machine parts or human beings, different considerations enter into determining
whether a sample is biased. These considerations include (1) whether the sample is randomly selected, (2)
the size of the sample, and (3) psychological factors.

A sample is random if and only if every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected.
The requirement that a sample be randomly selected applies to practically all samples, but sometimes it
can be taken for granted. 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.

Suppose, for example, that a public opinion poll is to be conducted on the question of environmental
protection. It would hardly do to ask such a question randomly capitalists and owner of multinational
companies. Such a sample would almost certainly be biased in favor of the corporations. A less biased
sample could be obtained by randomly selecting phone numbers from the telephone directory, but even
this procedure would not yield a completely random sample. Among other things, the time of day in
which a call is placed influences the kind of responses obtained. Most people who are employed full time
are not available during the day, and even if calls are made at night, a large percentage of the population
have unlisted numbers.

A poll conducted by mail based on the addresses listed in the city directory would also yield a fairly
random sample, but this method, too, has shortcomings. Many dwellers may not be listed, and others
move before the directory is printed. Furthermore, none of those who live in rural areas are listed. In
short, it is both difficult and expensive to conduct a large-scale public opinion poll that succeeds in
obtaining responses from anything approximating a random sample of individuals.

Size is also an important factor in determining whether a sample is representative. Given that a sample is
randomly selected, the larger the sample, the more closely it replicates the population. In statistics, this
degree of closeness is expressed in terms of sampling error. The sampling error is the difference between
the relative frequency with which some characteristic occurs in the sample and the relative frequency with
which the same characteristic occurs in the population. If, for example, a poll were taken of workers and
60 percent of the members sampled expressed their intention to vote for Gudeta but in fact only 55
percent of the whole union intended to vote for Gudeta, the sampling error would be 5 percent. If a larger
sample were taken, the error would be less.

22
Now we can discuss about hasty generalization. It is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. The
fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.
Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected. Consider the
following examples.

Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to know the reading skill among young people. It has found out
that, among ten 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 conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises that mention only a few
instances. Because such small, atypical samples are not sufficient to support a general conclusion, the
argument commits a hasty generalization.

The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily mean that it is atypical. On the
other hand, 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.

11) False Cause Fallacy

Activity # 5: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of false cause?

False cause fallacy is a defective and 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 knowledge of effects or from the
knowledge of the effect to the knowledge of causes. In such argument two things are presented as having
causal connection.

However, it seems that there is no settled scientific theory of causality. It seems that the causal
relationship is practical and contextual in nature. What it means to say that, one state of affairs A causes
another state of affairs B, is that A is something that can be brought about and when it is brought about
(or stopped), then B is also brought about (or stopped).

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 between A and B: event A and event B are
correlated. For example, if a significant statistical correlation is found between reduced incidence of heart
attacks and 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.

23
A correlation is a purely statistical relationship, determined by counting up numbers where one event
occurs in a case where another event also occurs. One problem with arguments from correlation to cause
is that there may not be a real correlation between two events, but people might believe that relation
exists. Another problem is that a statistical correlation between two events can simply be a coincidence.
Consider the following example.

A sophisticated statistical study by Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and Pro. Wakjira Negera citing studies from 141
countries found that the larger the per cent of its gross national product a country spends on weapons,
the higher is its infant death rate. Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and Pro. Wakjira concluded that there is a
plausible link between military spending and the infant death rate.

However, critics questioned whether their finding represents anything more than a coincidence. Dr. Bilal
Ahmed a statistician at the Ethiopian statistics authority said that the same statistical approach could be
used to show a causal link between infant mortality and the consumption of bananas. He questioned
whether statistical correlation between two things, in cases like these, is a reason to conclude that one
thing causes the other.

Another critical question is whether both things correlated with each other are really caused by some
common factor that is causing both of them. The following case is a classic example.

At a conference on the bond between humans and pets in Boston in 1986, researchers reported that pets
can lower blood pressure in humans, improve the survival odds of heart patients, and even penetrate the
isolation of autistic children. According to a report in Newsweek researchers at the conference reported
on the beneficial effects of pet companionship. Studies showed that women who had owned dogs as
children scored higher on self-reliance, sociability, and tolerance tests than petless women. Men who had
owned a dog “felt a greater sense of personal worth and of belonging and had better social skills.”
Children with pets also showed greater empathy.

In this case, there was a genuine correlation between pet ownership and health improvement, but both
factors could well be the result of the better than average social qualities of the people who acquire pets.
In a case like this, there may be a genuine correlation between two factors A and B, but the reason for the
correlation is that some third factor C, is causing both A and B. In such a case, it is not correct to draw the
conclusion that A causes B.

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

24
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 between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of
committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends
on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all. There are many varieties
of false cause fallacy. Perhaps the most common form is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means in Latin
“after this, therefore because of this.” This form of the false cause fallacy occurs whenever an arguer
illegitimately assumes that because event X preceded event Y, X caused Y. Here is an 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 longer prison sentences may be a causal factor, of course, but the mere fact that the longer sentences
preceded the decrease in violent crime does not prove this. Many other possible causal factors need to be
considered. For example, have economic conditions improved? Are more jobs available? Have the
demographics of the area changed so that the population of young men is smaller relative to the
population as a whole? Has there been an increase in the number of police officers on patrol? Obviously,
mere temporal succession is not sufficient to establish a causal connection. Nevertheless, this kind of
reasoning is quite common and lies behind most forms of superstition.

The second type of fallacy are called non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”). This variety is
committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is
based on something other than mere temporal succession.

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, and one that is probably committed more often than either of the
others in their pure form, 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 and represents it as if it were
the sole cause. Consider the following example.

25
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 increase in time spent surfing on face book is a likely contributor to a drop in scores of fresh students.
But insufficient evidence is provided for the conclusion that the time spent surfing on face book is the
sole cause. Other factors may be at work, such as a decrease in parental involvement or deficiencies in the
university system.

The oversimplified cause 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 or
she is affiliated. At other times, the arguer wants to heap blame on an opponent or shift blame from
himself or 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. It 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.

12) Slippery Slope Fallacy

Activity # 6: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of slippery slope?

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, because 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 premise, and the conclusion 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

26
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 and one warns the other not to take a contemplated action, because 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 and 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.

The characteristic idea of the slippery slope argument is that once you take that first action in the
sequence, it is like pushing off from the top of an Olympic ski-jump run. Once you have kicked off,
turning back becomes harder and harder. At some ill-defined point or grey area, there is no turning back.
Once you are into this area, there is only one way to go: faster and faster down the slope until you hit the
bottom. So if you don’t want to go careening down the slope out of control and hit the bottom (with
disastrous consequences of personal injury), the message is that you had better not take that first step at
all.

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. Consider the following example.

Against cultural, social and 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
and 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 and
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. This is not to say that donkey slaughter house is risk free
practice. It is only to say that, 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

27
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. But many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional conviction on the part of the
arguer that a certain action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to trump up support for his or 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.

13) Weak Analogy

Activity # 7: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of weak analogy?

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 (because the one case is similar to the other).

Two things, situations or cases could 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 between them. Consider
the following example.

After ingesting one milligram of substance alpha per day for ninety 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.

This argument compares two cases, the effects of some substances on human and mice. It argues that this
substance produce genetic abnormalities on mice, then postulates comparable consequences on humans. It
is built onto an argument from analogy; based on a comparison between the two cases. Of course, the two
cases are different in certain respects, but by comparing them, it puts forward a plausible argument.

The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy between things, situations and circumstance
is not strong enough to support the conclusion 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 and B share in
common, and (2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b,

28
c, . . . If some causal or systematic relation exists between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong;
otherwise it 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. Consider the following 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.

5.2.3. Fallacies of Presumption

The fallacies of presumption include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and
suppressed evidence. These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or
provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they
purport to prove.

14) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of begging the question?

The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate
premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise,
by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, 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 conclusion

29
is not apparent, and 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, and most common, way of committing this fallacy is by leaving a possibly false key premise out
of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion.
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 and apes look similar imply that they
evolved from common ancestors?” The third and fourth beg the questions “Just because the poor earn less
than the average citizen, does this imply that the government should give them handouts?” and “Just
because 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 premise, “Abortion is a form of murder”; the second is missing the premise, “If
humans and apes look similar, then they have common ancestors;” and so on. These premises are crucial
for the soundness of the arguments. If the arguer is unable to establish the truth of these premises, then the
arguments prove nothing. However, in most cases of begging the question, this is precisely the reason
why such premises are left unstated. The arguer is not able to establish their truth, and by employing
rhetorical phraseology such as “of course,” “clearly,” “this being the case,” and “after all,” the arguer
hopes to create the illusion that the stated premise, by itself, provides adequate support for the conclusion
when in fact it does not.

The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics to justify
conclusions about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Example:

The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created
by an intelligent God.

30
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, and
this fact suggests another reason why arguers resort to this fallacy: Such arguments tend to reinforce pre-
existing inclinations and beliefs.

The second form of petito principii occurs when the conclusion of an argument merely restates a possibly
false premise in slightly different language. In such an argument, the premise supports the conclusion,
and the conclusion tends to reinforce the premise. 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 petito principii involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first
premise that is possibly false. Here is an 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, and 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

31
arguments having premises that depend on one another in subtle ways and a possibly false key premise
that depends on the conclusion.

15) Complex Question

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of complex question?

The fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a
single question and 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?

32
If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is put to them, they
may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion 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 and 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.

16) False Dichotomy

Activity # 3: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of false dichotomy?

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”)premise presents two
unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the
undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion. Such an argument is clearly valid, but
since the disjunctive premise 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. Here are three 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. For example, in the first argument, the arguer tries
to convey the impression that democracy cannot originates in other places than Athens or the Gada
System and that no other alternatives are possible. Clearly, however, this is not the case.

33
The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the illusion created by the arguer that the disjunctive
premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives. If it did, the premise 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 premise is false, or at
least probably false. Thus, the fallacy amounts to making a false or probably false premise appear true. If
one of the alternatives in the disjunctive premise is true, then fallacy is not committed. For example, the
following argument is valid and 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” and the “either-or fallacy.”Also, in most cases the
arguer expresses only the disjunctive premise and leaves it to the reader or listener to supply the missing
statements.

17) Suppressed Evidence

Activity # 4: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of suppressed evidence?

If an inductive argument does indeed ignore some important piece of evidence, then the argument
commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Consider the following argument:

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.

Perhaps 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, an observer who sees or hears an advertisement and then draws a conclusion from
it 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.

34
The advertise fails to state that the fun does not come packaged with the chicken but must be supplied by
the buyer. Also, of course, 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. Here is an
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.

This argument ignores the fact that Poland was part of the Soviet bloc during most of the past fifty years,
and this fact accounts for its rather low standard of living. However, following the collapse of the Soviet
Union, Poland became an independent nation, and its economy is expected to improve steadily during the
next fifty years.

Yet another form of suppressed evidence is committed by arguers who quote passages out of context from
sources such as the Bible, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights to support a conclusion that the passage
was not intended to support. Consider, for example, the following argument against gun control:

The Second Amendment of the American Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would infringe the right to keep and 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 premise out of the argument. The difference is that suppressed evidence leaves out a premise that
requires a different conclusion, while that form of begging the question leaves out a premise that is
needed to support the stated conclusion. However, because both fallacies proceed by leaving a premise
out of the argument, there are cases where the two fallacies overlap.

35
5.2.4. Fallacies of Ambiguity

These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both). An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different interpretations in a given
context. When the conclusion 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 argument commits a fallacy of
ambiguity.

Activity # 1: Dear learners, do you remember the principle of clarity we have discussed in the
previous chapter? Do you relate the principle of clarity with the fallacy of ambiguity?

18) Equivocation

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of equivocation?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion 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 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.

In the first argument, “obtuse” is used in two different senses. In the first premise it describes a certain
kind of angle, while in the second it means dull or stupid. The second argument equivocates on the word
“law.” In the first premise it means statutory law, and in the second it means law of nature. The third
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 three examples given above, only the third 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,”
and “environmental protection” in one way at the beginning of a speech and in quite another way at the
end.

36
 19) Amphiboly

Activity # 3: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of amphiboly?

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The original statement is usually asserted by someone other
than the arguer, and 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. Because 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 conclusion based
upon it. Here are some 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 and
wills. The drafters of these documents often express their intentions in terms of ambiguous statements,
and alternate interpretations of these statements then lead to different conclusions.

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

37
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,’’ and if it refers to the diners it
means ‘‘intoxicated.’’ Thus, the argument also involves an equivocation.

5.2.5. 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.

20) Composition

Activity # 4: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of 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 and 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. Therefore, the team as a whole
is excellent.
Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

Sodium and 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

38
transference is illegitimate, and so the argument is fallacious. Not every such transference is illegitimate,
however. Consider the following arguments:

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), and 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 and 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.

39
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.

21) Division

Activity # 5: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of composition?

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

40
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.

41