CHAPTER FIVE

LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES

Lesson 1: Fallacy in General
 N.B. argument can be good/bad, depending on the r/p b/ n the P&C
 Good argument meets all the required criteria
 A good argument:
 Structurally good form
 Has relevant , acceptable & sufficient premise
 provide an effective rebuttal to all reasonable
 An argument violates the above it becomes fallacious
 1.1 THE MEANING OF FALLACY
 In ordinary language usage, the term ‗fallacy‘ refers to a mistaken or false
belief.
 It is from Latin word, fallacia means delude, illusion, cheat.
 However, from the logician point of view, the term fallacy refers to a
logical defect, fault or flaw in reasoning process in an
argument
 Generally, fallacies can be committed b/c of
 Logical error (error in reasoning) or
o (bad) form of the argument
o (bad) defects in the contents of the statements
 The creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.
 violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria.
 Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain
fallacies
People may commit fallacy intentionally or unintentionally
 If deductive arguments are unsound or if inductive
arguments are uncogent, then they contain fallacies.
 This is because such kinds of arguments have one or more
false premises or they contain a fallacy (or both).
CAUSES OF FALLACIES
 Causes of fallacies, among others, include:
 The failure to provide genuine evidences or premises for
the conclusion;
 The failure to provide premises that provide good support
of the premises and conclusion;
 The failure to address the most important or relevant
aspects of the issue the arguer arguing for and so forth.
1.2. Types of Fallacies
 Depending on the kind of the defects they contain:
A. Formal fallacy:
 due to structural defect
 found only in deductive argument with identifiable form
 Easily identifiable by their form
 Hence, deductive arguments with invalid form
Example:
– All tigers are animals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all tigers are
mammals.
B. Informal fallacy :
 due to bad content
 found in both deductive and inductive arguments
 Cannot be identified through inspection of the form
 Identifiable through detail analysis of content
Example:
• All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain chlorophyll. Therefore,
all factories are things that contain chlorophyll
Major causes of informal fallacies
The following factors are major causes of informal fallacies when the
premise:
 becomes irrelevant to the conclusion(but the arguer presents it as if the
premise is relevant to the conclusion) see fallacies of relevance;
 becomes unacceptable to the claims of the conclusion (the arguer
however states the premise as if it is correct) see fallacies presumption;
 becomes insufficient to provide evidences to the conclusion(instead the
arguer states the premise having adequate evidence to the conclusion)
see fallacies of weak induction; and,
 is expressed by unclear language (the arguer state the idea with the
assumption that there is no problem of linguistic confusion) see
fallacies of ambiguity and grammatical analogy.
Characteristics of Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies have the following characteristics.
They are frequently backed by some motive on the part of the arguer
to deceive the reader or listener;
The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a certain
conclusion and as a result may attempt to win its acceptance by
restoring to a trick/fake/; and
Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer and may mislead him or
herself into thinking that he or she is presenting genuine evidence
when in fact he or she is not
Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the
various informal fallacies.
Aristotle himself identified thirteen and separated them into two
groups.
 Why study logical fallacies?
It is important to develop logical fallacy detection skills in your
own writing, as well as others’.

Think of this as “intellectual kung-fu: the art of

intellectual self defense.” (Logical Fallacies Handlist)
Types of Informal Fallacies
 Informal fallacies are Classified in to:
1. Fallacies of relevance
 have logically irrelevant but psychologically relevant premise to
conclusion
2. Fallacies of weak induction
 have logically relevant premise but with no sufficient evidence
3. Fallacies of presumption
 Premise contains an assumptions which isn't supported by evidence
4. Fallacies of ambiguity
 Conclusion drawn from ambiguous used words and phrases
5. Fallacies of grammatical analogy
 Structurally, looks good argument but has bad content
 Lesson 2: Fallacies of Relevance
 Premise is logically irrelevant to the conclusion
 but psychologically premise is relevant to the conclusion
 conclusion does not follow the premise logically
 Unlike in good argument(genuine evidence) in fallacy of
relevance- emotional appeal
 Hence, connection between P&C is emotional
 It includes fallacies of :
1. Appeal to force- employ threat
2. Appeal to pity- evoke pity
3. Appeal to the people – manipulate desire of people
• bandwagon –-----majority‘s choice
• vanity-------------celebrity /public figure
• snobbery - -------status/ privilege
4. Against the person

• Ad hominem abusive

• Ad hominem circumstantial

• Ad hominem tu qoque

5. Accident – misapplication of G.R to specific case

6. Straw man –distortion of original argument

7. Missing the point- C misses logical evidence of P

8. Red herring – diverting attention of L/R to ward

new issue
1.Appeal to force or stick fallacy (Argumentum ad Baculum:)

 arguer poses C by employing threats on L/R

 Always involves using threat
• physical (explicit force/threat)
• psychological (implicit force/threat)
 threat is logically irrelevant to conclusion

Threatens

Poses

Conclusion
Examples :
1. Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year.
After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I‟m sure
you wouldn‟t want her to find out what has been going on between
you and that sexpot client of yours. (Psychological threat)

2. Child to playmate: „„Seifu show on EBS‟‟ is the best show on TV;

and if you don‟t believe it, I‟m going to call my big brother over
here and he‟s going to beat you up

3. Ethiopia is the best country that has its own precious cultures. If
you don‟t accept this, I will blow your head by this pestle. (Physical
threat)
4. A teacher to his student: Aristotle has the only correct
philosophical view on this matter. If you do not think so, wait
to see what mark I give you on the final exam.
2. Appeal to Pity(Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
 support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in one ‗s
audience
 if the arguer succeeds in evoking strong feelings of pity, the
listeners may deceived to accept the conclusion with out
logical evidence
 The pity does not have any logical connection or relevance to
the conclusion.
 But it is psychologically relevant for the conclusion as the
arguer can usually succeed in getting a pitting heart from his
audience.
 The appeal to pity is quite common and frequently appears in
schools between instructors and students; court rooms
between judges and defendants and their attorneys; streets
between traffic Police and illegal driver; offices between
employer and vacancy candidates; and the likes.
Examples:
o 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.

 Student to Professor: “But, I really NEED to pass this class. I need this class in
order to graduate this semester, and I can‟t afford to pay for more classes in the
future. I already work 60 hours a week and supporting four children all by
myself, and I‟m barely scraping by as it is. You should give me a passing grade.”

 There are arguments from pity, which are reasonable and plausible which
is called argument compassion
 Most society values helping people in time of danger and
 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

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.
3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 Naturally, everyone wants to be accepted, loved, and esteemed by
others.
 However, the problem lies on how to secure this desire.
 Committed when an arguer draw a conclusion by manipulating the desire of
the people using different techniques
 Arguers illogically attempt to exploit the desire/emotion of the people
for some private motives
 claim : if you want to be member of the group , accept xyz as true

For Security etc.

R/L
 Two approaches
 Direct approach
• Arguer address a large group of people, excites the emotions and
enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion.
• Objective-----arouse mob mentality
• individuals in the audience want to share the
excitement and find themselves accepting any number of conclusions
with ever-increasing fervor
• usually employed by speakers, propagandists, politicians
 Indirect approach :
 arguer appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at individuals separately who
have relationship to the crowd
 Used by industries to advertise their product
• Using emotively charged terminologies
• Capability to attract people towards the product or issue
 Three varieties
i. appeal to bandwagon
ii. Appeal to vanity
iii. Appeal to snobbery
 i. Appeal to Bandwagon
 commonly appeals to the desire of individuals to be considered as part of
the group or community in which they are living
 community or group shares some common values and norms
 Hence, every individual is expected to manifest group conformity to these
shared values
 Bandwagon uses these emotions and feelings to get acceptance for a
certain conclusion
 Majority choice is the correct one.
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.
 In advertising ,the issue is intentionally Attached with majority section of
society– and others are urged to follow the decision of majority
Example : Chewing chat can‟t be all wrong because 70% of Hawassa
university students see nothing wrong with it.
ii. Appeal to Vanity
 Arguer associates the product with someone who is
admired, pursued and people
 Claim: if you use the product which is used by some one
respected by the people ,you will be respected too.
Example: BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank Lampard,
wearing Adidas shoe, and says: Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe,
which is worn only by few respected celebrities! ADIDDAS SHOE!!!
iii. Appeal to snobbery
 arguer associates the issue with persons who have high
social status(higher class)
 Claim: ‗if you want to be a member of the selected few,
you should accept XYZ.‘
Example: Look at the mark of this cell phone-it is Nokia and Nokia is
not for everyone. Buy Nokia and join the selected few.
4. Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
 Normally in a good argument, to achieve collaborative goals arguers are
expected to:
o observe rules of polite conversation
o to trust each other and express their arguments/position clearly
and honestly
o focus on attacking the content of the argument than personality of
opponents
 But arguers focus on attacking personality of opponents than the content
of the argument---against the person fallacy
 Occurred when an arguer discredits an argument by attacking the
personality of his opponent
 always involves two arguers
 Three forms of against the person:
i. Ad hominem abusive
ii. Ad hominem circumstantial
iii. Tu quoque (you too)
i. Fallacy of ad hominem abusive
 Committed when an arguer rejects an argument by verbally abusing the
personality of his opponent rather than the contents of his opponent‘s
argument
 second person rejects the first person ‗s argument by verbally abusing the
first person
 Premise: A is a person of bad character
 Conclusion: A‟s argument should not be accepted.
Examples:
o How a stingy person can tell us about charity. Hence, let us stop discussing about
these issue raised by Tamirat.
o Her foreign policy plans are idiotic. Don not you know that she got bad grades in
history when she was at university?
ii. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial
 committed when an arguer discredits the argument of his
opponent by alluding the argument/referring indirectly) with
certain circumstances that affect his opponents
 easy to recognize because it always take this form: ‗Of course,
Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect
him.‟
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
• Ato Mohammed has just argued to replace the public school system
with private school system. But, of course, he argues that way. He
has no kids, and he does not want to pay any more taxes for public education.
iii. tu quoque (you too) fallacy
 second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or
arguing in bad fait
 This fallacy has the following form: „How dare you argue that I should stop
doing X; why you do (have done) X yourself ?‟
 So, arguer(2nd ) discredits the argument of an opponent by claiming that
the idea he advance as false and contrary with what he has said or done
before
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 are smoking?
• Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the corner
store is no good. just a week ago You told me you, too, stole candy when you were
a kid.
 Are all arguments against the person fallacious? They are not. There are
reasonable arguments against the person
5. Accident
 committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover

Misapplied

Example:
o Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Mr. Abebe should not be arrested for his speech
that incited riot last week.

o Kidist! All good students obey the order of their teachers.

Hence, you should not refuse when your teacher invites
you for bed.
6. Straw Man
 committed when an arguer distorts an opponent‗s argument
for the purpose of more easily attacking it.
 main features of straw man fallacy
 First, there are always two individuals discussing about
controversial issues: One(1st arguer) of the arguers
presents his views about the issues and the other(2nd
arguer) is a critic
 Second, the 2nd arguer does not rationally criticize the
main argument of the opponent Rather misrepresented
ideas of original argument.
 Third the 2nd person concludes by criticizing the misrepresented idea
 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.
Example:

 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. Geographical federalism was
the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical regime
which suppress right of national nationalities and peoples of
Ethiopia.
 Mary: We must not betray the principles of justice and democracy.
Suspected
terrorists must be granted basic rights as well as legal representation
and access to a fair court.
• Tom: Mary is advocating the release of known terrorists. We
cannot afford to allow our enemies to move freely in our society.
7. Missing the point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
 premise of an argument supports a conclusion which is
different but vaguely related to the correct one (cocnclusion)
 If one suspects that such fallacy is committed, he or she
should identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the
premises logically imply

 arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her

own premises and draws a conclusion that misses the point
entirely . Premise Actually entails
Conclusion ‗‘A‘‘

Conclusion ‘’B’’
Examples

 Werabe University has a lot of problems. Students‟ services and

facilities are inadequate. Many of the instructors are inexperienced.
It follows that, the university should be entirely closed.

 Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming

rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death
penalty immediately.
8. Red Herring(Off the Truck Fallacy)
 arguer diverts the attention of the L/R by changing the
original subject in to totally different issue
 arguer ignores the main topic and shifts the attention of his
audiences to another totally different issue
 Draws conclusion from the changed issue
 arguer mislead L/R using two different techniques
 change the subject to one that is subtly related to the original
subject
 change the subject to some flashy, eye-catching topic that distract
the attention of the L/R
Example:
o Habtamu: Do you know, Abdurrahman that Tesfa has got “A” in
Introduction to Logic.
o Bewketu: It is not surprising. Tesfa always wear miniskirts and she
attracts teachers with her half- naked body. That is, it is not hers own
effort.
 To differentiate SM,RH & MP fallacies ……..
1. both red herring and straw man proceed by generating a new
set of premises
- but Missing the point draws a conclusion from the original
premises
2. In both red herring and straw man, the conclusion is relevant
to the premises from which it‘s drawn
- But in missing the point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the
premises from which it‟s drawn
Lesson 2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
 occurred due to weak connection between the P & C
 Premises is relevant to the C but doesn‟t contains sufficient
evidence
 Includes six fallacies :
 Appeal to unqualified authority
C cites statement of others
 Appeal to ignorance
lack of proof definitely supports a conclusion
 Hasty generalization
 C depends on insufficient info. and unrepresentative sample
 Fallacy of weak Analogy
 C depends on insignificant similarity b/n two events
 Slippery slope fallacy
C depends on alleged chain reaction with less probability to
happen in reality
 False cause fallacy
C depends on imagined causal connection which may not
happen in reality
9.Appeal to unqualified authority(Argumentum ad
Verecundiam)
 Arguer draws conclusion by citing the idea of unqualified
authority whose idea is untrustworthy .
 A person is unqualified authority when he/she:
 lacks the expertise/Profession
 make biased or prejudiced judgment
 Has the motive to lie or
 Has the motive to disseminate ―misinformation‖
 lacks the ability to perceive or recall things

A
Cites AU

Poses
Conclusion
Example one:
 Abebe has been suffering of heavy headache for years. But, now he
seems that he is getting better because Tolassaa, who have been
working in the local veterinary clinic for about five years, told him
to buy a particular tablet in the nearby pharmacy and take it
immediately before get asleep.
Example two:
 The famous artist, artist Worku said that Vera Pasta is
the most nutritious food. So Vera Pasta must be the most
nutritious food.
10. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
 committed when one‟s ignorance, lack of evidence and Lack of knowledge
definitely supports the conclusion
 premises state that nothing has been proved about something but
the conclusion makes a definite assertion about that thing.
 committed when Someone argues that:
 Something(X) is true because no one has proved it to be false or
 Something(X) is false because no one has proved it to be true
Premise: No body has proved
that X is True

Conclusion: X is False
Examples:
a. Nobody has ever proved the existence of UFO. Therefore, UFO
doesn‟t exist.
b. People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of
astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that the claim of astrology is true.
c. Group of people have been conducted research for decades to check
the existence of „X‟ but all failed to do so. Therefore „X‟ doesn‟t
exist.
Exceptions
1. If group of experts/scientist investigate something in their own
area of expertise and found nothing
example :
 Teams of scientists attempted over a number of decades to detect
the existence of the UFO and all failed to do so. Therefore, UFO
does not exist.
2. Legal [court room] procedure
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.
3. There are also cases where mere see and reporting are enough or
sufficient to prove something which needs no expertise
example :
 No one has ever seen Mr. Andrews drink a glass of wine, beer, or
any other alcoholic beverage. Probably Mr. Andrews is a
nondrinker.
11. Hasty Generalization
 arguer draws conclusion based on insufficient information
and unrepresentative sample or
 occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample
is not representative of the group
 Sample non representative when
 sample is too small or
 sample [large but] not selected randomly
 Committed by individuals who develop a negative attitude or
prejudice towards others
Example:
 Six Arab fundamentalists were convicted of bombing the World
Trade Center in New York City. The message is clear: Arabs are
nothing but a pack of religious fanatics prone to violence.
12. False Cause fallacy
 This fallacy occurs when an arguer gives insufficient evidence
for a claim that one thing is the cause of another.
 Conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection of
events which may not exist in reality
 Depends on ‗X‘ causes ‗Y‘ while ‗X‘ may not probably cause
‗Y‘ to happen at all
 three varieties of false cause fallacy
 Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 Non Causa pro Causa /Mere correlation fallacy/
 Oversimplified Cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy : Means After
this, on account of this
 This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without adequate reason, that
because one event precedes another, that the first event was the cause of
the second.
 Depends on temporal succession of events
 ‗Y‘ is caused by ‗X‘, because ‗X‘ exist before ‗y‘
Example
• During the past two months, every time that the cheerleaders have
worn blue ribbons in their hair, the basketball team has been
defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheerleaders
should get rid of those blue ribbons.
 occurs in cultural superstition -associate with bad luck
Example
• „„A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my
ankle. It must be that black cats really are bad luck.‟‟
 Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy : Means ‗Not the cause for the
cause‘
 This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without
adequate reason, that because two conditions or events
regularly occur together, that there must be a causal
relationship between them.
 Occurred when conclusion depends on either
 coincidental occurrence of events or
 Mistake cause for an effect
Examples
• There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before and
more HIV victims ever before; so, to eliminate the epidemic we must
abolish the church.
• Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $50,000.
Therefore, the best way to ensure that Ferguson will become a
successful executive is to raise his salary to at least $50,000.
Oversimplified Cause Fallacy
 This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without
sufficient evidence, that a single condition or event is the
sole cause of some effect, when there are in fact other
contributing causes.
 Multitude of causes are responsible for a certain effect but
the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it
as the sole cause
Example
oThe quality of education in our grade schools and
high schools has been declining for years. Clearly,
our teachers just aren‟t doing their job these days.
13. Slippery Slope fallacy
 An arguer commits this fallacy when they claim, without
sufficient reason, that a seemingly harmless action will lead
to a disastrous outcome.
 a variety of false cause fallacies
 event „X‟ is the cause of event „Y‟….. but it takes place in a series
of events or actions
 conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction but
not sufficient to think that the chain reaction will actually happen
 The first
 event is taken as cause fall all the event to happen in a

series
Innocent Disa
1st step ster

Chain Reaction (not likely to occur)

Here is an example:
• I don’t allow my students to ask questions in class. If I let one
student ask a question, then another student will ask a question.
Before you know it, our entire class period will consist of nothing
of questions.
 Teachers who allow students to ask questions generally do not spend their
entire class period dealing with questions.
Ex.2 You shouldn't eat that piece of chocolate. If you do, the next thing you
know, you will have eaten the whole box.
14. Fallacy of Weak Analogy
 arguer draws conclusion depending on insignificant similarities of
two or more things
 The similarity between two things is not strong enough to
support the conclusion
 The basic structure of the fallacy
» Entity A has attributes a, b, c and z
» Entity B has attributes a, b, c
» Therefore, entity B probably has attribute z.
Lesson 4: Fallacies of Presumption
 To presume means to take something for granted or
 to assume a given idea as true (while in fact not true)
 The assumption given in the premise is not supported by
proof but arguer invite the audiences to accept as it is.
 Arguer uses confusing expressions-to conceal the wrong assumption
 Contains fallacies of:
 Begging the question
 Complex question
 False dichotomy
 Suppressed evidence
15. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
 Arguer uses confusing phraseology
 Presumes that the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion
 Arguer creates the illusion by stating the inadequate evidence as adequate
to the conclusion by
 Leaving out a key premise- nothing more is needed to establish the
conclusion
 Restating the premise as a conclusion - using different words
 Reasoning in a circle- not clear where it begins &ends
 Chxs:
 Has a valid form
 Contains phraseology that conceal faulty reasoning
 The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent
 The Latin name for this fallacy, petitio principii, means ‗‗request for the
source.‘‘
 Leaving out a key premise
Example: Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it
follows that abortion is morally wrong
 Restating the Premise as a Conclusion
Example: 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.
o Why is Jemal a bachelor? Because he is unmarried. (The
answer to this question repeats the same information that
appears in the conclusion. We essentially have this: Why
is Jemal a bachelor? Because he is a bachelor.)
 Reasoning in a circle.
• I believe the prime minister is telling the truth since he says
he is telling the truth.
16. Complex Question/Loaded Questions/
Arguer asks a single question (that is really two or more) and
a single answer is then applied to both question
Oblige the L/R to acknowledge about something that he or
she doesn‗t want to acknowledge
Attempts to trap
by asking questions
A/L

Responds

Completed Arguments
Example:
- Have you stopped cheating on exams?
• You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on
exams. You answered ‗‗yes.‘‘ Therefore, it follows that you
have cheated in the past.
 Obviously, this question is really two questions:
1) Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in the past,
have you stopped now?
17. False Dichotomy
 Premise of an argument presents two alternatives as if they
are jointly exhaustive .
 The fallacy of false dichotomy occurs when one argues that
there are only two options from which one can choose, and
because of additional reasons one ought to choose one of the
options.
 the arguer attempt to delude the reader or listener into
thinking that there is no third alternative
 Limited alternative
Sometimes called :
 false bifurcation ;
 false dilemma;
 white thinking, and
 the ‗‗either- or fallacy‘‘
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.
• Either you buy only Ethiopian-made products or you don‘t
deserve to be called a loyal Ethiopian.
Yesterday you bought new Chinese jeans.
Therefore, you don‘t deserve to be called a loyal Ethiopian
• Either you have to accept my love request or I will commit
suicide.
18. Suppressed Evidence
arguer draws conclusion by ignoring the key premise that
outweighs the conclusion
it works by creating the presumption that the premises are
both true and complete when in fact they are not
• The correct evidence is ignored and replaced by irrelevant
ones. Ignores stronger evidence
Premise that supports a different
conclusion

Conclusion
Examples:
o 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.
o Hawassa University is one of the prominent universities in Africa,
because the color of buildings are impressive, the flowers and other
plans gets enough water and it has ample gets around the
compound.
 Lesson 5: Fallacies of Ambiguity
 conclusion of an argument depends on either
 a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or
 wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement
19. Equivocation
 conclusion depends on meaning of word which is used in two
different senses

Words or phrases
used in two senses
Examples:
 All valid deductive arguments with all true premise are
sound.
All sounds can be measured in bel or decibel.
Therefore, all valid arguments are measured in bel or decibel

 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.
20.
 arguer draw a conclusion depending on misinterpreted
statement
 The original statement- asserted by someone
 ambiguity usually arises from :
 a mistake in grammar , punctuation—a missing comma,
a dangling modifier
 an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun etc.
 So the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways.
Mention an ambiguous statement

Misinterprets that statement

example:
oAbebe told Kebede that he had made a mistake. It
follows that Abebe has at least the courage to admit
his own mistakes.

oIn this argument the pronoun ―he has an ambiguous

antecedent; it can refer either to Habtom or Megressa.
oPerhaps Abebe told Kebede that kebede had made a
mistake.
oAmbiguities of this sort are called syntactical
ambiguities.
 Difference between Amphiboly & equivocation
 Equivocation – due to ambiguity in meaning of words but
 Amphiboly – due to ambiguity in a statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Equivocation –involves a mistake made by the arguer when he
constructs an argument
 Amphiboly – involves mistake made by the arguer in
interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else
3.5 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 are grammatically similar to other arguments that are good in
every respect
 It include fallacies of
 composition
 division
21. Composition
 conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of
attribute from parts to whole
 a property of the individuals belonging to a group is
improperly transferred to the group.

Parts

Attribute is improperly
transferred.
Examples:
• 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 ‘‘invisible,’’ and ‘‘deadly poison,’’
respectively. In each case the transference is illegitimate, and so the
argument is fallacious.
 But if the transference of attribute from part – whole is
legitimate - commits no fallacy
Example:
•Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of
chalk has mass.
22. Division
 conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of
attribute from whole to part
 An illegitimate transference of attribute from whole to part

Attribute is improperly
transferred.

Parts
Examples:
• Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component
elements, sodium and chlorine are nonpoisonous.
 But when the transference of attribute from the whole to part
is legitimate , it doesn‘t commit fallacy
Example:
• This piece of chalk has a mass. Therefore, the atoms of this
piece of chalk has mass as well
 To distinguish composition & Hasty generalization , Examine
the conclusion of the argument
 If the conclusion of an argument is a general statement-
hasty generalization
 If the conclusion of an argument is class statement-
composition
 To distinguish division & accident, examine the premise of
the argument.
 If the premises contain a general statement- Accident
 if the premise contain a class statement- Division