Briefing Document: Logical Fallacies

Source: Excerpts from "Logic and CT- Week 4.pdf", Logic and Critical Thinking (2025)
Date: October 26, 2023
Prepared for: [Intended Audience - e.g., Self, Team, etc.]
Purpose: This briefing document summarizes the key concepts related to logical fallacies as
presented in the Week 4 material on Logic and Critical Thinking. It outlines the concept of
relevance, differentiates between fallacies of relevance and insufficient evidence (with a focus on
relevance fallacies as detailed in the excerpts), and provides examples of various types of these
fallacies. The document aims to provide a clear and concise overview of these critical thinking
concepts.
Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:
1. Concept of Relevance:

• A statement is relevant to another if it provides a reason to believe the second

statement is true or false.
• Relevance can be:
• Positively Relevant: The statement counts in favor of another statement.
• Example: "Dogs are cats. Cats are felines. So dogs are felines."
• Negatively Relevant: The statement counts against another statement.
• Example: "Tutu is a high-school senior. So, Tutu likely has a Ph.D."
• Logically Irrelevant: The statement counts neither for nor against another
statement.
• Example: "The earth revolves around the sun. Therefore, marijuana should be
legalized."

2. Fallacies of Relevance:

• A fallacy of relevance occurs when the reasons offered to support a conclusion are
logically irrelevant to that conclusion.
• The material outlines several types of fallacies of relevance:
• Personal Attack Fallacy (Ad Hominem): Rejecting an argument by attacking the
person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
• Example: "Nana Addo, the former President of Ghana, has argued against political
violence. But Nana Addo is a beneficiary of political violence, and has made political
violence statement before. His argument, therefore, is worthless."
• Note: The material distinguishes this from situations where attacking a person's
credibility is relevant, such as pointing out a witness's perjury conviction.
• Attacking the Motive: Criticizing a person's motivation for making an argument
instead of evaluating the argument's merits.
• Example: "Professor Asempah has argued in favor of academic tenure. But why
should we even listen to Professor Asempah? As a tenured professor, of course he
supports tenure."
• Note: Pointing out an obvious bias can make an argument require closer scrutiny
but doesn't automatically make it fallacious.
• Look Who's Talking (Tu Quoque): Rejecting an argument because the person
making it doesn't practice what they preach.
• Example: "Doctor: You should quit smoking. Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit
when you do, Dr. Smokestack!"
• Note: Pointing out hypocrisy might be relevant in a social context but doesn't
invalidate the logic of the advice itself.
• Two Wrongs Make a Right: Justifying a wrong action by claiming that another
(possibly worse) action was also committed.
• Example: "I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Dr. Asare’s test. Half the class cheats
on his tests."
• Note: Self-defense or acting to prevent a greater harm are not examples of this
fallacy.
• Scare Tactics (Appeal to Force): Threatening harm if a conclusion is not accepted,
where the threat is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion.
• Example: "Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful rulers
of the San Marcos Islands. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to
demonstrate the validity of our claim."
• Note: Warning of natural consequences or outlining logical outcomes is not
necessarily a scare tactic fallacy.
• Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam): Inappropriately attempting to evoke feelings
of pity or compassion to gain acceptance of a conclusion.
• Example: "Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all my
exams, but I had a really tough semester. First my pet boa constrictor died. Then my
girlfriend made outrageous demands. With all I went through this semester, I don’t
think I really deserved an F. Any chance you might cut me some slack and change
my grade to a C or a better?"
• Note: Evoking empathy might be appropriate in certain contexts, but it becomes a
fallacy when used as the primary reason to accept a conclusion that should be based
on evidence or logic.
• Bandwagon Argument (Appeal to Popularity): Arguing that something is true or
should be done because many other people believe it or do it.
• Example: "All the really cool kids at East Jefferson High School smoke cigarettes.
Therefore, you should, too."
• Note: Relying on the consensus of informed individuals can be reasonable, but
simply citing popularity is fallacious.
• Straw Man Fallacy: Distorting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
• Example: "Senator Biddle has argued that we should outlaw violent pornography.
Obviously, the senator favors complete governmental censorship of books,
magazines, and films. Frankly, I’m shocked that such a view should be expressed on
the floor of the U.S. Senate."
• Red Herring Fallacy: Introducing an irrelevant issue to distract the audience from
the original point.
• Example: "Many people criticize Mr. Ampong for being a drug dealer. But Mr.
Ampong was one of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence is
one of the most eloquent pleas for freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly,
these criticisms are unwarranted."
 • Equivocation: Using a key word with two or more different meanings within the
same argument, where the argument's apparent success depends on this shift in
meaning.
• Example: "It is a crime to smoke wee. Lecturers normally give wee break. Therefore,
it is a crime to go for wee break."
• Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): Stating or assuming as a premise the
very thing one is trying to prove as a conclusion.
• Example: "Bungee-jumping is dangerous because it’s unsafe."

3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence:

• The outline mentions "Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence" but does not elaborate on
specific types in the provided excerpts. This suggests that these will be covered in
more detail later in the course. The key concept is that these fallacies occur when
the evidence provided for a conclusion is not strong enough to support it.

Conclusion:
Understanding logical fallacies, particularly those of relevance, is crucial for developing strong
critical thinking skills. Being able to identify when an argument relies on irrelevant premises
rather than sound reasoning allows for a more accurate evaluation of claims and the construction
of more persuasive and logically sound arguments. The distinctions made between fallacious
reasoning and situations where personal information or biases are legitimately relevant are also
important for nuanced critical analysis.