CHAPTER FIVE

LOGICAL FALLACIES
An argument is good as far as it meets all the general criteria set for a good argument. If,
however, it fails to do so, or violates them, it becomes bad, and hence, fallacious. A fallacy is,
therefore, a defect in an argument.

Depending on the kind of the problems or defects they contain, arguments may commit either a
formal or an informal fallacy. As a result, they are often grouped in two: Formal fallacies and
informal fallacies.

There may be various sources of fallacies in our daily life such as: a lack of complete knowledge
about the context, making false assumptions, misinterpretations, lack of attentiveness, a tendency
to make generalized conclusions without considering sufficient number of cases, distractions of
the mind, having some preconceived notions and prejudices, being swayed away by emotions, so
on and so forth. We must use logic to identify such errors in reasoning and follow appropriate
methods to tackle them.

Classification of Fallacies
There are two major types of fallacies.
a) Formal Fallacies
b) Informal Fallacies

Formal Fallacies
If an argument contains a structural defect or problem and violates the standard form of a good
argument because of that, it commits a formal fallacy. Because the defect that causes it is
structural, a formal fallacy may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of
an argument. Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable
forms.

Informal Fallacies
If, however, the defect of a certain argument goes far beyond a structural problem and attacks the
very content of the argument, then that particular argument commits an informal fallacy.
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.

Page 1
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.

Fallacies of relevance
Fallacies of Relevance arise when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion
for some reason. The premises may appear to be relevant to the conclusion initially, but on close
analysis and examination, they are found to be inadequate. In this case, the premises of the
argument may appear to be psychologically relevant but for a sound argument, the premises must
be logically relevant rather than psychologically.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the Stick)

This fallacy arises when an arguer threatens his opponent with some undesirable or unpleasant
consequences if his viewpoint is not accepted. This appeal to force doesn‟t necessarily involve
physical force or threat but can also use subtle threats to persuade the other person. In logic,
accepting a conclusion merely based on threat is not sound.

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.

The auto drivers often threaten the authorities that if their demands are not met, they will
go on strike.

Give me your wallet or else look at the knife in my hand.

2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

The appeal to pity 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.

Page 2
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.

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.

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)

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.

The Appeal to the Populace (Argumentum ad Populum)

This fallacy is sometimes defined as the fallacy committed in making an emotional appeal; but
this definition is so broad as to include most of the fallacies of relevance. It is defined more
narrowly as the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feelings of the
multitude. The argument ad populum (“to the populace”) is the baldest of all fallacies, and yet it
is one of the most common. It is the instrument on which every demagogue and propagandist
relies when faced with the task of mobilizing public sentiment. It is a fallacy because, instead of
evidence and rational argument, the speaker relies on expressive language and other devices
calculated to excite enthusiasm for or against some cause. Patriotism is one common cause about
which it is easy to stir emotions, and we know that terrible abuses and injustices have been
perpetrated in the name of patriotism.

Page 3
The oratory of Adolf Hitler, whipping up the racist enthusiasms of his German listeners, is a
classic example. Love of country is an honorable emotion, but the appeal to that emotion in order
to manipulate and mislead one‟s audience is intellectually disreputable. “Patriotism,” Samuel
Johnson observed, “is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The patriotic argument may be used when
the national cause is good and the argument‟s author is no scoundrel. An emotional defense of
belief lacks intellectual merit, but the conclusion of that bad argument may be supportable by
other premises of a more rational sort.

Consider the following argument.

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty
or give me death!
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.

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 are 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.

Page 4
 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.
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:

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

Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy

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.

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.

Are all appeal to people arguments inherently fallacious? Not all appeal to people arguments is
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.

Page 5
 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.

Argument against the Person

Argument against the person is another type of relevance fallacy. This fallacy 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.

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.

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:

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

Page 6
should not accept his argument because he is a divorced drunk person who is unable to protect
even his own family.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

The second type of against the person fallacy is ad hominem circumstantial. 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.

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.

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 are smoking?
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:

Page 7
 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.

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.

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. Third the critic
concludes, by criticizing the misrepresented ideas that he knock down the main ideas.

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.

Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

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.

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

Page 8
 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.

Red Herring
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.

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.

Fallacies of Weak Induction

The main function of premises in an argument is to provide reasons so that a reasonable person
would accept the truth of the conclusion. It is a rule of a good argument to contain premises that
together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion. They must provide
sufficient reasons for a rational person to accept the conclusion as true. In some arguments,
premises provide strong reason for the conclusion to be acceptable.

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.

Page 9
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.

Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

This fallacy arises when the authority who is cited, does not have enough credibility to judge the
issue at hand.

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 to know whether the sun is the center 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.

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.

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.

Page 10
 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.

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This fallacy arise when it is argued that a proposition is true on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved to be
true.

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.

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.
Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
The Fallacy of Hasty Generalization arises when it is argued in a careless and quick manner from
one or very few instances to a very broad or universal claim. In this fallacy, a general rule is

Page 11
formed on the basis of very few instances. 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.

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.

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.

False Cause Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when a non-causal event is assumed to be either a cause or part of a
cause of an effect. That is to say, in such cases, a causal relationship is assumed to exist when
actually there is none.

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.

Page 12
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.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

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 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.

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

Page 13
 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.

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.

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.

Fallacies of Presumption
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. Fallacies of Presumptions are committed when unnecessary presumptions are
made prior to making an argument. The premises already presume to be true (without evidence)
what they aim to prove.

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

This fallacy arises when the conclusion or some part of the conclusion is already stated in the
premises either explicitly or in some slightly different form. This fallacy of Petitio Principii is
also called „reasoning in a circle‟ because the conclusion is already present in the evidence, out
of one‟s eagerness to prove it. The reasoning involved becomes superfluous as the conclusion is
already assumed.

Page 14
For example: Ram is a good student because he spends more time studying. He spends more
time studying because he is a good student.

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 is 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.

Complex Question
This fallacy arises when a question is asked in such a way that it assumes or presupposes the
truth of some facts hidden in it (question). In this fallacy, often a single question is asked but two
or three questions are wrapped up in it. Thus, it is also called „Fallacy of Many Questions‟.

Examples: Have you stopped cheating on exams? Where did you hide the corpse of the person
you killed?

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.

Fallacy of Accident
This fallacy occurs when general or universal claim is erroneously applied to an individual case
which is not properly governed by that general claim.

For example:

In the moral domain, when we look at the universal moral dictum, it is true that lying is a sin but
if in order to save lives, one lies, it would not be wrong. So, to presumably say that all acts of
lying are wrong, without taking into consideration some special circumstances is fallacious.

Page 15
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 originate from ancient Athens. Thus; it must originate from the Gada System.

Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy

The fallacies of ambiguity includes equivocation and amphiboly. 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.

The fallacies of grammatical analogy include composition and division. Arguments that commit
these fallacies 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. In this lesson, we will discuss the four fallacies.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
The erroneous reasoning in this kind of informal fallacy occurs due to the equivocal use of words
or phrases. In such cases, some term or phrase has a different meaning in one part of the
argument than the same term or phrase in another part of the argument. When language is used in
an inattentive and loose manner, such errors arise. It may be due to incorrect use of words or due
to incorrect construction of statements.

Fallacy of Equivocation
The Fallacy of Equivocation arises when the same term or a phrase is used in a manner such that
it has two different meanings in the same argument.

Page 16
John is a big writer because he is from a big city. Here, the term „big‟ is a relative term. The
meanings of relative terms differ in degrees from context to context. Thus, they cannot have the
same meaning at different occurrences.

Fallacy of Amphiboly
The Fallacy of Amphiboly arises when the construction of the statement is such that it has more
than one possible meaning.

“Kids make delicious dinners.” One meaning of the given statement can be that children
prepare (cook) delicious meals. Another meaning of the statement can be that kids are
delicious food item for dinner. Even though, the latter sounds ridiculous.

Fallacy of Accent
The Fallacy of accent arises when the meaning of a statement is changed or distorted by
wrongfully stressing on or emphasizing some particular part (words) of it.

Let us consider the following example:

“Wife without her husband is nothing.”

The above statement would convey different meanings to husband and wife depending upon the
emphasis on the term „wife‟ or the term „husband‟. If the emphasis is on „wife‟ then the meaning
of the statement will be: For a wife, husband is important as she will be nothing without him. If
the emphasis is on the term „husband‟ then the meaning will be that for husband, wife is
important as without her he will be nothing.

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.

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.

Page 17
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 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

Division

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.

Page 18