Logic

Define: Logic is a system of reasoning that aims to draw valid

conclusions based on given information. To use this system, a
person focuses on argumentation by defining premises or claims
that ultimately help prove their overall conclusion.
Examples: An example is the argument from the premises "it's
Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" to the
conclusion "I don't have to work.
2.If the statement is everything outside is wet because it is
raining and a person realizes he left his shoes outside, logical
reasoning would reach the conclusion that his shoes are wet.
Argument
Arguments are a set of statements (premises and conclusion).
The premises Provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the
conclusion. The conclusion is what is being argued for. An
argument attempts to draw some logical connection between the
premises and the conclusion.
Why we do argument?
Argument teaches us how to evaluate conflicting claims and
judge evidence and methods of investigation. Argument helps us
learn to clarify our thoughts and articulate them accurately.
Arguments also consider the ideas of others in a respectful and
critical manner.
Types:
1: Inductive arguments is an assertion that uses specific
premises or observations to make a broader generalization.
Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of
uncertainty. They are used to show the likelihood that a
conclusion drawn from known premises is true. Examples of
inductive reasoning include generalizations based on
observations, predictions based on past experiences, and
statistical reasoning.
Examples: One example of an inductive argument would be
reasoning that orange cats are friendly based on one's personal
experience with orange cats. While it is consistently imaginable
that an orange cat could be unfriendly, one is making a
generalization about orange cats based on a limited sample.
2:Every time I’ve dropped an apple, it falls downwards, so all
apples fall downwards.”
3:“Every time I’ve taken this route to work, it’s been faster, so it
will be faster today.”

Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.

Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my
backyard.

Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.

Hypothesis: Colds are infectious
These arguments rely on patterns or observations to make
generalizations or predictions. However, they are inherently
probabilistic and subject to exceptions.
2: Deductive argument is a logic construct with two or more
premises and a conclusion where if the premises are true then
the conclusion must also be true. In philosophy, if the truth of
the conclusion is fully established by the premises, then the
argument is called valid.
Examples: Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Premise 1:“If the store is closed, then the lights will be off.
Premise 2:The lights are on.
Conclusion: Therefore, the store is open.”

Major premise: All mammals have backbones.

Minor premise: Humans are mammals.
Conclusion: Humans have backbones.

Major premise: All birds lay eggs.

Minor premise: Pigeons are birds.
Conclusion: Pigeons lay eggs.

Major premise: All plants perform photosynthesis.

Minor premise: A cactus is a plant.
Conclusion: A cactus performs photosynthesis.
In deductive arguments, if the premises are true, the conclusion
must also be true. They are structured to ensure logical validity.
Validity of arguments:
The validity of an argument refers to its logical structure. An
argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the
premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must also be true. Here’s a breakdown:
Valid Argument: If the premises are true, the conclusion must
be true.
For example
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Premise 1: squares have four sides of equal length.

Premise 2:This shape has four sides of equal length.
Conclusion: Therefore, this shape is a square.

Premise 1:All roses are flowers.

Premise 2: This bouquet contains roses.
Conclusion: Therefore, this bouquet contains flowers.

Premise 1:If it snows heavily, then the roads will be icy.

Premise 2:The roads are icy.
Conclusion: Therefore, it snowed heavily.

In this deductive argument, if the premises are true (which they

are), the conclusion must also be true. So, it’s a valid argument.
Invalid Argument: An argument is invalid if the conclusion
does not logically follow from the premises, even if the premises
are true.
For example:
Premise 1: All cats have fur.
Premise 2: Dogs have fur.
Conclusion: Therefore, dogs are cats.
Premise 1:All birds have wings.
Premise 2: Penguins have wings.
Conclusion: Therefore, penguins can fly.

Premise All apples are fruits.

Premise 2:This is a fruit.
Conclusion: Therefore, it’s an apple.

Premise 1:If the battery is dead, the car won’t start.

Premise 2:The car won’t start.
Conclusion: Therefore, the battery is dead (even though it could
be another issue).

Here, the conclusion does not logically follow from the

premises, so it’s an invalid argument.
Propositions Statements.
In logic, claim statements are often referred to as propositions or
assertions. These are statements that express a definite claim or
assertion about the world, which can be evaluated as either true
or false. Claim statements are fundamental to logical reasoning
and argumentation, as they serve as the basis for making
arguments and drawing conclusions based on logical principles.
They can be simple, standalone statements or complex
expressions formed by combining simpler propositions using
logical connectives.
Examples:
Climate change is caused by human activity.
All politicians are corrupt.
Vaccines are safe and effective.
The Earth is flat.
Artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence.
Eating a balanced diet improves overall health.
Life exists on other planets.
Social media platforms invade users’ privacy.
Education is the key to reducing poverty.
Gun control laws reduce crime rates.
Note: Proposition could be true or either false. Deductive arguments Always
be valid or either invalid. Inductive arguments always be weak or strong. All
Premise and conclusions are Propositions. But not all Propositions are
conclusions.

Premises:
In an argument, a premise is a statement or proposition that
serves as evidence or support for the conclusion. Premises are
the building blocks of an argument, and they are used to
logically justify or explain why the conclusion should be
accepted. A valid argument typically consists of one or more
premises leading to a conclusion.
For example:
In the argument: “All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”
You Premise 1: “All humans are mortal.”
Premise 2: “Socrates is a human.”
These premises provide the basis for concluding that Socrates is
mortal.
Indicators
Premise indicators are words or phrases that often signal the
presence of a premise, or supporting statement, in an argument.
Recognizing these indicators can help identify the components
of an argument more easily. Some common premise indicators
include:
Because, Since, Given that, As, For, In as much as, Seeing that,
Considering that, As indicated by, Assuming that.
Conclusion indicators are words or phrases that often signal the
presence of a conclusion in an argument. They help identify the
main point or assertion being made. Here are some common
conclusion indicators:
Therefore, Thus, Hence, Consequently, So, Accordingly, follows
that, As a result ,In conclusion, Clearly.
Fallacy
Define: Any argument that seems to having correct reasoning but
actually it has flaws in reasoning. Fallacies are common errors
in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant
points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that
supports their claim.
Example: People have been trying for centuries to prove that
God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore,
God does not exist.
Types
Fallacies Of Relevance: The fallacy of relevance occurs when
an argument's premises are not relevant to the conclusion being
drawn. In other words, the evidence presented does not actually
support the conclusion.
Appeal to populace: Tries to persuade others by claiming that
something is true or right because a lot of people think so.
Appeal to the people fallacy are any arguments in which the
number of people supporting it are used as the convincing point.
For example:
McDonald’s claims that they have sold billions of hamburgers to
people, yet billions of hamburgers sold does not mean
McDonald’s makes the best hamburgers.

Premises:
Many people believe that climate change is a hoax.
The majority of people cannot be wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Premises:
A large number of students cheat on exams.
Since so many students cheat, it must not be unethical.
Conclusion: Therefore, cheating on exams is acceptable.

Premises:
Most people support a particular political candidate.
The candidate must be the best choice for office.
Conclusion: Therefore, the candidate should be elected.

Premises:
The majority of people use a certain brand of smartphone.
Since so many people use it, it must be the best smartphone.
Conclusion: Therefore, the brand is superior to all others.

Premises:
A significant number of individuals believe in a particular
conspiracy theory.
If so many people believe it, there must be some truth to it.
Conclusion: Therefore, the conspiracy theory is likely valid.
In each example, the conclusion is drawn based solely on the
popularity or widespread acceptance of a belief, without
considering whether it is actually true or supported by evidence.
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to emotion fallacy occurs when someone tries to win an
argument by evoking emotion, without using facts or logic.
Arguments that appeal to our emotions often attempt to
influence our viewpoints in a manipulative way. Informal fallacy
characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in
order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual
evidence.
Examples:
Premise: Think about the poor puppies in shelters, waiting to be
adopted.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should all donate to the animal
shelter.

Premise: Imagine the pain and suffering of starving children in

impoverished countries.
Conclusion: Therefore, we must increase foreign aid to alleviate
their suffering.

Premise: Consider the fear and uncertainty experienced by

families living in high-crime neighborhoods.
Conclusion: Therefore, we need stricter gun control laws to
make their communities safer.

Premise: Reflect on the devastation and loss caused by natural

disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should prioritize funding for disaster
relief efforts.

Red-Herring:
A red herring fallacy is an attempt to redirect a conversation
away from its original topic. A red herring is used by introducing
an irrelevant piece of information that distracts the reader or
listener. This can be intentional or unintentional.
Examples:
Premise 1: We should increase funding for education.
Premise 2: But what about the rising crime rates in the city?
Conclusion: Therefore, we shouldn’t increase funding for
education.

Premise 1: Eating vegetables is important for a healthy diet.

Premise 2: But did you hear about that new fast food restaurant
opening downtown?
Conclusion: Therefore, we don’t need to worry about eating
vegetables.

Premise 1: Climate change is a pressing global issue.

Premise 2: But have you seen how expensive renewable energy
sources can be?
Conclusion: Therefore, we should focus on other priorities
instead of addressing climate change.

Premise 1: Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of cancer.

Premise 2: But what about the dangers of driving cars?
Conclusion: Therefore, we shouldn’t worry too much about the
risks of smoking.
Strawman:
The strawman fallacy is when someone distorts or misrepresents
their opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack by
exaggerating and oversimplifying. Reason behind that it cannot
be denied directly.
Examples:
Premise 1: Alice says we should invest more in healthcare.
Premise 2: Bob argues that Alice wants to bankrupt the country
with excessive spending.
Conclusion: Therefore, we shouldn’t listen to Alice’s healthcare
proposals.

Premise 1: Carol advocates for stricter gun control laws.

Premise 2: Dave claims that Carol wants to confiscate all guns
from law-abiding citizens.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should reject Carol’s proposals for
gun control.

Premise 1: Emma suggests implementing environmental

regulations to reduce pollution.
Premise 2: Frank asserts that Emma wants to destroy jobs and
cripple the economy with excessive regulations.
Conclusion: Therefore, we shouldn’t support Emma’s
environmental policies.

Premise 1: Greg argues for increasing funding to public schools.

Premise 2: Helen accuses Greg of wanting to raise taxes to
unsustainable levels to fund unnecessary education programs.
Conclusion: Therefore, we shouldn’t back Greg’s education
funding proposals.

Premise 1: Ian proposes reforming immigration laws to provide

a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Premise 2: Jane insists that Ian wants to open the floodgates to
illegal immigrants, putting national security at risk.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should oppose Ian’s immigration
reform efforts.

Argument against the person:

Attacking the person. This fallacy occurs when, instead of
addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly
attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making
the argument.
Examples:

Premise 1: Person A asserts that smoking is harmful to health

and should be discouraged.
Premise 2: Person B responds by saying, “Person A is a
hypocrite because they used to smoke themselves.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Person A’s argument against smoking
should be dismissed because of their past behavior.

Premise 1: Person A argues that eating a plant-based diet is

beneficial for health and the environment.
Premise 2: Person B responds by saying, “Person A is
overweight and unhealthy, so their opinion on diet and nutrition
can’t be trusted.”
Conclusion: Therefore, we should disregard Person A’s
argument about plant-based diets because of their personal
appearance.

Premise 1: Person A proposes a new policy to address income

inequality.
Premise 2: Person B argues, “Person A comes from a wealthy
family, so they can’t understand the struggles of the working
class.”
Conclusion: Therefore, we shouldn’t consider Person A’s policy
proposal because of their privileged background.

Premise 1: Person A expresses support for a particular political

candidate.
Premise 2: Person B argues, “Person A is known to be a member
of the opposing political party, so their endorsement is biased
and untrustworthy.”
Conclusion: Therefore, we should ignore Person A’s support for
the candidate because of their political affiliation.
Appeal to Force:
A fallacy committed when an arguer appeals to force or to the
threat of force to make someone accept a conclusion by
threatening them with harm or unpleasant consequences.
(Sometimes made when rational argument has failed.)
Examples:
Premise 1: Person A refuses to lend money to Person B.
Premise 2: Person B threatens, “If you don’t lend me the money,
I’ll make sure you lose your job.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Person A agrees to lend money to Person
B out of fear of losing their job.
Premise 1: Person A disagrees with a company’s unethical
business practices.
Premise 2: The company’s CEO warns, “If you continue to
speak out against us, we’ll ruin your reputation and make sure
you never work in this industry again.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Person A refrains from criticizing the
company to avoid personal repercussions.

Premise 1: Person A is asked to participate in illegal activity by

Person B.
Premise 2: Person B threatens, “If you don’t join us, we’ll make
sure you face severe consequences with the authorities.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Person A reluctantly agrees to participate
in the illegal activity to avoid punishment.

Premise 1: Person A witnesses unethical behavior in their

workplace.
Premise 2: Their supervisor warns, “If you report this to HR, I’ll
ensure you never get promoted and face constant harassment
from your colleagues.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Person A chooses not to report the
unethical behavior to protect their career and avoid retaliation.
Premise 1: Person A refuses to support a particular political
candidate.
Premise 2: Person B threatens, “If you don’t publicly endorse
our candidate, we’ll spread false rumors about you and ruin your
reputation.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Person A reluctantly agrees to support
the candidate under the threat of personal defamation.

Missing to Point:
Occurs when an argument’s conclusion doesn’t logically follow
from its premises because the premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion.
Examples:
Premise 1: Person A argues that smoking cigarettes is bad for
health.
Premise 2: Person B responds, “But smoking helps people relax
and socialize.”
Conclusion: Therefore, smoking is socially beneficial, ignoring
the health risks associated with it.

Premise 1: Person A asserts that climate change is a significant

global issue that requires immediate action.
Premise 2: Person B counters, “But technology has advanced so
much that we can adapt to any changes.”
Conclusion: Therefore, addressing climate change is
unnecessary, ignoring the potential consequences of inaction.

Premise 1: Person A advocates for stricter gun control laws to

reduce gun violence.
Premise 2: Person B argues, “But the real issue is mental health,
not guns.”
Conclusion: Therefore, implementing gun control measures
won’t address the root cause of violence, ignoring the impact of
easy access to firearms.

Premise 1: Person A presents evidence supporting the theory of

evolution.
Premise 2: Person B responds, “But evolution is just a theory; it
doesn’t explain the origin of life.”
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is incomplete and unreliable,
ignoring its explanatory power within the context of biological
diversity.

Fallacies Of Defective Induction

Occurs when one draws a conclusion based on insufficient or
biased evidence.
Examples:
Premise 1: I’ve met a few lazy students from that school.
Premise 2: Therefore, all students from that school must be lazy.
Conclusion: The conclusion is drawn hastily based on a small
sample size, ignoring the diversity within the student population.

Premise 1: I’ve seen a couple of reports of car accidents caused

by elderly drivers.
Premise 2: Therefore, all elderly drivers must be unsafe on the
road.
Conclusion: This conclusion is reached without considering
other factors such as driving experience or individual health
conditions.

Argument from ignorance: The argument from ignorance is a

logical fallacy where a proposition is considered true simply
because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. This fallacy
arises when someone claims that a statement is true because it
hasn't been proven false, or that a statement is false because it
hasn't been proven true. Essentially, it relies on the absence of
evidence as evidence itself.
Examples:
Premise 1: We haven’t found any evidence of alien life.
Premise 2: Therefore, aliens must not exist.
Conclusion: The absence of evidence for alien life proves that
aliens do not exist.

Premise 1: Scientists haven’t explained how the pyramids were

built.
Premise 2: Therefore, ancient aliens must have constructed
them.
Conclusion: Since we can’t explain how the pyramids were
built, the only explanation is that aliens built them.

Premise 1: No one has proven that ghosts aren’t real.

Premise 2: Therefore, ghosts must exist.
Conclusion: The lack of evidence disproving the existence of
ghosts means that ghosts must be real.

Premise 1: We don’t fully understand how consciousness arises.

Premise 2: Therefore, consciousness must be supernatural.
Conclusion: Because we can’t fully explain consciousness with
natural processes, it must be caused by something supernatural.
Hasty generalization: The hasty generalization fallacy occurs
when someone draws a broad conclusion based on insufficient
evidence. The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called
the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim
based on evidence that it just too small. Essentially, you can’t
make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an
example or two as evidence.
Examples:
Premise 1: I met one rude person from that country.
Premise 2: Therefore, everyone from that country must be rude.
Conclusion: All people from that country are rude based on the
behavior of one individual.

Premise 1: I tried one brand of a product and it was of poor

quality.
Premise 2: Therefore, all products from that brand must be of
poor quality.
Conclusion: All products from that brand are assumed to be of
poor quality based on one experience.

Premise 1: I saw one student from that school cheating on an

exam.
Premise 2: Therefore, all students from that school must cheat.
Conclusion: All students from that school are generalized as
cheaters based on the behavior of one student.

Premise 1: I visited one city in that country and it was dirty.

Premise 2: Therefore, all cities in that country must be dirty.
Conclusion: All cities in that country are assumed to be dirty
based on the cleanliness of one city.

Appeal to inappropriate authority: An appeal to inappropriate

authority fallacy occurs when someone relies on the opinion or
expertise of someone who is not qualified or relevant to the
topic at hand or occurs when someone who is truly
knowledgeable about the topic under discussion makes a claim
influenced by their own prejudice or bias, rather than their
experience.
Examples:
Premise 1: A famous actor endorses a particular brand of
medicine.
Premise 2: Therefore, the medicine must be effective and safe.
Conclusion: The medicine is assumed to be effective and safe
because a famous actor endorses it, even though the actor likely
lacks expertise in medicine.
Premise 1: A celebrity chef recommends a specific diet plan.
Premise 2: Therefore, the diet plan must be the healthiest option.
Conclusion: The diet plan is assumed to be the healthiest
because a celebrity chef recommends it, despite the chef’s lack
of expertise in nutrition or medicine.

Premise 1: A popular talk show host promotes a financial

investment strategy.
Premise 2: Therefore, the investment strategy must be profitable.
Conclusion: The investment strategy is assumed to be profitable
because a talk show host promotes it, even though the host may
not be a financial expert.

Premise 1: A well-known athlete endorses a brand of sneakers.

Premise 2: Therefore, the sneakers must be the best choice for
athletic performance.
Conclusion: The sneakers are assumed to be the best choice for
athletic performance because a well-known athlete endorses
them, despite the athlete’s lack of expertise in shoe design or
material science.
False cause: A false cause fallacy occurs when someone
incorrectly assumes that a causal relation exists between two
things or events. An argument unsound and represent content-
level errors rather than structural errors. When one assumes that
because one event follows another, the first event must have
caused the second.
Examples:
Premise 1: Every time I wear my lucky socks, my team wins.
Premise 2: Therefore, my lucky socks must be the reason my
team wins.
Conclusion: Wearing the lucky socks causes the team to win,
simply because they are worn before the game.

Premise 1: After I started taking herbal supplements, my cold

went away.
Premise 2: Therefore, the herbal supplements cured my cold.
Conclusion: Taking the herbal supplements caused the cold to go
away, even though there may have been other factors at play or
the cold might have resolved on its own.

Premise 1: I had a headache, so I took a painkiller and then my

headache went away.
Premise 2: Therefore, the painkiller cured my headache.
Conclusion: Taking the painkiller caused the headache to go
away, without considering other factors such as rest or
hydration.

Premise 1: Every time I wash my car, it rains the next day.

Premise 2: Therefore, washing my car causes rain.
Conclusion: Washing the car causes rain to fall, without
considering the randomness of weather patterns.

Premise 1: Since I started using a different brand of, my hair has

become shinier.
Premise 2: Therefore, the new shampoo is responsible for
making my hair shinier.
Conclusion: Using the new shampoo caused the increase in hair
shine, without considering other factors such as changes in diet
or weather conditions. Shampoo.

Fallacies Of Presumption

The fallacy of presumption occurs when an argument relies on

an unjustified assumption. Arguments that depend on some
assumption that is typically unstated and unsupported.
Example.
Someone might assume that all black cats are bad luck and thus
conclude that it would be unlucky to have one as a pet.

Accidental:
The fallacy of accident occurs when a general rule is applied to a
particular situation without considering the unique
circumstances. This mistake occurs when assuming what is
generally true must also be true in atypical or “accidental”
circumstances.
Examples.
Premise 1: It’s wrong to kill people.
Premise 2: Soldiers kill people in war.
Conclusion: Therefore, soldiers are doing something wrong.
Error: This overlooks the context of self-defense or following
orders in a war scenario.

Premise 1: Speeding is illegal.

Premise 2: Ambulances sometimes speed to get to emergencies
quickly.
Conclusion: Therefore, ambulances are breaking the law.
Error: This ignores the necessity and legality of speeding in
emergency situations.

Premise 1: Using drugs is harmful to health.

Premise 2: Doctors prescribe drugs to patients.
Conclusion: Therefore, doctors are promoting harm to health.
Error: This disregards the legitimate use of drugs for medical
treatment under professional guidance.

Premise 1: Lying is unethical.

Premise 2: Actors lie when they perform in movies or plays.
Conclusion: Therefore, actors are behaving unethically.
Error: This fails to recognize the distinction between acting and
deception in real-life situations.

Complex question.
The complex question fallacy, also known as a loaded question
or a trick question, occurs when someone asks a question that
presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by
all the people involved. It typically traps the respondent into
answering in a way that confirms the presupposition. Essentially,
it forces the respondent to accept the assumptions embedded
within the question, regardless of whether they agree with them
or not. Fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that
presupposes a particular answer or includes multiple questions,
making it difficult or impossible to answer without accepting the
implicit assumptions.
Examples:

Premise 1: Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Premise 2: Answering “yes” implies you were cheating before,
and answering “no” implies you're still cheating.
Conclusion: Regardless of the answer, it implies guilt of past or
present cheating.

Premise 1: When are you going to apologize for your rude

behavior?
Premise 2: This assumes the person has been rude and must
apologize.
Conclusion: The question presupposes guilt and the need for an
apology without allowing for any other response.

Premise 1: Have you stopped beating your spouse?

Premise 2: Answering “yes” implies you used to beat your
spouse, and answering “no” implies you’re still beating your
spouse.
Conclusion: Regardless of the answer, it implies guilt of past or
present spousal abuse.

Premise 1: Do you still support that failed policy?

Premise 2: This assumes the policy has failed and the person
supported it previously.
Conclusion: The question presupposes that the policy was a
failure and the person supported it, without allowing for nuance
or explanation.

Begging question. The begging the question fallacy, also known

as circular reasoning , occurs when an argument’s premises
assume the truth of the conclusion, rather than supporting it. In
other words, the argument relies on the conclusion being true to
support the premises, which leads to a circular argument. It’s a
form of faulty reasoning where the argument’s validity depends
on already accepting the conclusion as true.
Examples:
Premise 1: The Bible is the word of God.
Premise 2: Whatever the Bible says must be true.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is true because it says so.

Premise 1: Ghosts must exist because people have reported

seeing them.
Premise 2: People wouldn’t report seeing ghosts if they didn’t
exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, ghosts exist because people report seeing
them.

Premise 1: The death penalty is wrong because it’s immoral.

Premise 2: Executing criminals is a moral issue because the
death penalty is wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, the death penalty is immoral because it’s
wrong.

Premise 1: I can’t be lying because I’m an honest person.

Premise 2: Honest people don’t lie.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can’t be lying because I’m an honest
person.
Premise 1: This medication is effective because it’s been shown
to work.
Premise 2: We know it works because it’s effective.
Conclusion: Therefore, this medication is effective because it’s
been shown to work.

Fallacy of ambiguity
The Fallacy of Ambiguity occurs when an argument relies on
ambiguous language or unclear terms, leading to confusion or
misinterpretation.
Example:
All beetles have six legs. John Lennon is a Beatle, so John
Lennon has six legs.

Equivocation.
A fallacy that occurs when a term in an argument is used with
two different meanings, leading to a misleading or false
conclusion. This fallacy exploits the ambiguity of language to
deceive or confuse the audience. In essence, equivocation
involves shifting the meaning of a key term within an argument,
which can result in an invalid or deceptive inference.
Examples:
Premise 1: A feather is light.
Premise 2: What is light cannot be dark.
Conclusion: Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Error: “Light” is used in the sense of weight in the first premise
and in the sense of color in the second premise.

Premise 1: Lawyers take cases.

Premise 2: Taking cases is a sign of action.
Conclusion: Therefore, lawyers are people of action.
Error: “Taking cases” is used in the sense of legal representation
in the first premise and in the sense of general activity in the
second premise.

Premise 1: The sign said “Fine for parking here.”

Premise 2: Fine means good or acceptable.
Conclusion: Therefore, it’s good to park here.
Error: “Fine” is used in the sense of a penalty in the first premise
and in the sense of quality in the second premise.

Premise 1: Only man is rational.

Premise 2: No woman is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, no woman is rational.
Error: “Man” is used in the sense of humanity in the first
premise and in the sense of male gender in the second premise.

Premise 1: Students who take notes succeed.

Premise 2: Students who succeed take notes.
Conclusion: Therefore, taking notes leads to success.
Error: “Take notes” is used in the sense of writing notes in the
first premise and in the sense of achieving success in the second
premise.

Amphiboly:
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when a sentence is ambiguous
due to its grammatical structure or wording, leading to confusion
or misinterpretation. Essentially, it exploits the multiple possible
interpretations of a statement to create a misleading conclusion.
One meaning may make the premises true, but the conclusion is
drawn from the other meaning.
Examples:
Premise 1: “I saw a man with a telescope.”
Premise 2: “He was spying on the neighbors.”
Conclusion: Therefore, the man was spying on the neighbors.
Error: The ambiguity arises from whether the man or the speaker
was using the telescope, leading to a misunderstanding of the
intended meaning.

Premise 1: “I shot an elephant in my pajamas.”

Premise 2: “How he got into my pajamas, I’ll never know.”
Conclusion: Therefore, the speaker shot an elephant while
wearing pajamas.
Error: The ambiguity arises from whether the speaker or the
elephant was wearing pajamas, leading to a misinterpretation of
the statement.

Premise 1: “Children make nutritious snacks.

Premise 2: “People should eat more fruits and vegetables.
Conclusion: Therefore, people should eat more children.
Error: The ambiguity arises from the placement of the phrase
“nutritious snacks,” leading to a misunderstanding of the
intended meaning.

Premise 1: “We saw her duck.

Premise 2: “She was at the pond.
Conclusion: Therefore, she was ducking at the pond.
Error: The ambiguity arises from whether “duck” is used as a
verb or a noun, leading to confusion about the intended meaning
of the statement.

Accent:
The fallacy of accent occurs when the meaning of a statement is
changed by emphasizing or de-emphasizing certain words or
phrases, leading to a misinterpretation of the argument. This can
happen through spoken emphasis, punctuation, or changes in
writing style. Essentially, it involves altering the intended
meaning of a statement by placing emphasis on different parts of
it.
Examples.

Premise 1: “I didn’t say he stole the money.

Premise 2: “I didn’t say he stole the money.
Conclusion: Therefore, I implied he stole the money.
Error: The emphasis on different words changes the meaning of
the statement from denying the act of speaking to denying the
accusation.

Premise 1: “I didn’t hit him yesterday.

Premise 2: “I didn’t hit him yesterday.
Conclusion: Therefore, I hit him today.
Error: The emphasis on different words changes the meaning of
the statement from denying the action of hitting yesterday to
affirming it today.

Premise 1: “He only stole the car.

Premise 2: “He only stole the car.
Conclusion: Therefore, he didn’t steal anything else.
Error: The emphasis on different words changes the meaning of
the statement from denying additional thefts to affirming the
sole theft of the car.

Premise 1: “I didn’t see him with my binoculars.”

Premise 2: “I didn’t see him with my binoculars.”
Conclusion: Therefore, I saw him without my binoculars.
Error: The emphasis on different words changes the meaning of
the statement from denying the use of binoculars to affirming
the ability to see without them.

Composition.
The fallacy of composition is the assumption that what’s true for
individual parts of something must also be true for the whole. In
reality, the whole typically has distinct characteristics. In other
words, it involves incorrectly generalizing characteristics of
individual elements to the entire group or system. This fallacy
disregards the possibility that the properties or behaviors of the
parts may not apply to the whole.
Examples:

Premise 1: Each player on the team is skilled.

Premise 2: Therefore, the entire team must be skilled.
Conclusion: The fallacy concludes that because each individual
player is skilled, the entire team must also be skilled, which may
not be true due to factors like teamwork or strategy.

Premise 1: Each ingredient in the recipe is delicious.

Premise 2: Therefore, the entire dish must be delicious.
Conclusion: The fallacy assumes that because each individual
ingredient is delicious, the entire dish must also be delicious,
ignoring how the flavors interact when combined.

Premise 1: Each member of the orchestra is talented.

Premise 2: Therefore, the entire orchestra must be talented.
Conclusion: The fallacy concludes that because each individual
member is talented, the entire orchestra must also be talented,
which may not be the case if there are issues with coordination
or leadership.

Premise 1: Each piece of wood in the house is sturdy.

Premise 2: Therefore, the entire house must be sturdy.
Conclusion: The fallacy concludes that because each individual
piece of wood is sturdy, the entire house must also be sturdy,
neglecting factors like structural integrity or construction
quality.

Division.
The fallacy of division is the erroneous belief that what is true of
a whole must also be true of its parts. In other words, it assumes
that attributes of a group or collective must apply to each
individual member. This fallacy often occurs when people
incorrectly infer that because something is true of the whole, it
must also be true of its individual components. In essence, the
fallacy of division arises from the false assumption that
characteristics of a collective entity must uniformly apply to its
individual components.
Examples:
Premise 1: The company is profitable.
Premise 2: Therefore, each employee must be well-paid.
Conclusion: The fallacy concludes that because the company as
a whole is profitable, each individual employee must be well-
paid, which may not be the case due to factors like job roles or
salary distribution.

Premise 1: The university is prestigious.

Premise 2: Therefore, every department must be excellent.
Conclusion: The fallacy assumes that because the university as a
whole is prestigious, every individual department must also be
excellent, overlooking variations in faculty, resources, and
academic focus.

Premise 1: The team won the championship.

Premise 2: Therefore, each player must be exceptional.
Conclusion: The fallacy concludes that because the team as a
whole won the championship, each individual player must be
exceptional, which may not be true due to factors like skill level
or contribution.
Premise 1: The country has a high GDP.
Premise 2: Therefore, every citizen must be wealthy.
Conclusion: The fallacy assumes that because the country as a
whole has a high GDP, every individual citizen must be wealthy,
ignoring disparities in income distribution, poverty, and socio-
economic status.

The End…