TEAM HALIM

BUSA PRESIDENT HOPEFUL ‘24

LOGIC & CRITICAL THINKING

Fallacies

Presented by: J. P. Tanyeh

• These fallacies are both frequently committed

2
 Classification of Fallacies
• Fallacies of relevance are mistakes in
reasoning that occur because the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

• Fallacies of insufficient evidence are mistakes

3
 The Concept Of Relevance
• A statement is relevant to another statement
if it provides at least some reason for thinking
that the second statement is true or false.

• A statement can be positively relevant,

4
• A statement is positively relevant to another
statement if it counts in favor of that
statement.

ØEg
ü Most UDS students live off-campus. Ama is a student
of UDS. So probably, Ama lives off-campus.

5
• Statements that count against other
statements are said to be negatively relevant
to those statements.

ØEg
ü Kofi has completed his studies at the SHS. So, Kofi
likely has a Ph.D.
ü Yaw is two years old. So, Yaw probably is in the
university.

6
• A statement is logically irrelevant to another
statement if it counts neither for nor against
that statement.
ØEg
ü The earth revolves around the sun. Therefore,
marijuana should be legalized.
ü Last night I dreamed that Akua Donkor will win the
2024 Ghana elections. Therefore, Akua Donkor will
win the elections.
7
 Personal Attack ( Ad Hominem )
• We commit the fallacy of personal attack
when we reject someone’s argument or claim
by attacking the person rather than the
person’s argument or claim.
• It is attacking an argument by pointing out
some irrelevant characteristic of the reasoner
rather than by pointing out some error in the
reasoning itself.

8
Personal Attack ( Ad Hominem ) cont’d
ØEg
ü Felix has argued in favor of introducing uniforms for
students of UDS.
- But Felix is a stingy man who does not buy clothing for
his wife and he usually prefers to spend his money on
useless things. His argument, therefore, is worthless.

9
Personal Attack ( Ad Hominem ) cont’d
• Most arguments of this ad hominem form are
faulty, but some are fine provided having the
mentioned trait is relevant to the argument
quality. For example, if the trait is that the arguer
is well known to have lied several times on this
very topic, then the trait is relevant and the
person’s conclusion isn’t to be trusted for the
reasons given.
• It is important to bear in mind, however, that not
every personal attack is a fallacy. The fallacy of
personal attack occurs only if (1) an arguer rejects
another person’s argument or claim and (2) the
arguer attacks the person who offers the
argument or claim, rather than considering the
merits of that argument or claim. 10
 One Good Ad Hominem Deserves
Another
• In one of his famous debates with Abraham
Lincoln, Stephen Douglas spoke disparagingly
of Lincoln’s humble origins and in particular of
Lincoln’s brief career as a storekeeper. Lincoln
responded: “Many a time I have been on one
side of the counter and sold whiskey to Mr.
Douglas on the other side. But now there’s a
difference between us: I’ve left my side of the
counter, but he sticks to his as tenaciously as
ever.”
11
 Attacking the Motive
• Attacking the motive is the error of criticizing a
person’s motivation for offering a particular
argument or claim, rather than examining the
worth of the argument or claim itself.
Ø Eg
ü Professor Michealson has argued in favour of employing
people of over 60 years on contract. But why should we
even listen to Professor Michaelson? As a professor on
contract, he will surely support employing pensioners on
contract.

12
 Look Who’s Talking ( Tu Quoque )
• The fallacy of look who’s talking is committed when an
arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim
because that person fails to practice what he preaches.

Ø Eg 1
• Doctor: You should quit smoking cigarette.
• Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr.
Chain-smoker!
Ø Eg 2
• I can’t believe our pastor told us that wives should stay
home and not work! What a crook! I happen to know
that his own wife worked to put him through college. 13
 Two Wrongs Make a Right
• The fallacy of two wrongs make a right,
occurs when an arguer attempts to justify a
wrongful act by claiming that some other act
is just as bad or worse.
ØEg 1:
ü I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Dr. Bongo’s test.
Half the class cheats on his tests.
ØEg 2:
• I don’t feel any obligation to report all of my
waitressing tips to the IRS. I don’t know a single
waitress who does.
14
 Scare Tactics
• The fallacy of scare tactics is committed when an
arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener if he
or she does not accept the arguer’s conclusion and
this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s
conclusion

Ø Eg
ü Gun lobbyist to politician: This gun-control bill is wrong
for America, and any politician who supports it will
discover how wrong they were at the next election.
15
 Appeal to Pity
• The fallacy of appeal to pity occurs when an
arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke feelings
of pity or compassion from his listeners or
readers
Ø Eg
ü Student to professor: I know I missed half your
classes and failed all my exams, but I had a really
tough trimester. First one of my friends died. Then
thieves broke into my room and stole some of my
belongings and afterwards I had malaria. With all I
went through this trimester, 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 D?
16
 Bandwagon Argument
• A bandwagon argument is one that plays on a
person’s desire to be popular, accepted, or valued,
rather than appealing to logically relevant reasons or
evidence.

Ø Eg 1
ü All the really cool kids at East Jefferson High School
smoke cigarettes.
ü Therefore, you should, too.

Ø Eg 2
ü I can’t believe you’re going to the library on a Friday
night! You don’t want people to think you’re a nerd, do
you? 17
 Straw Man
• The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer
distorts an opponent’s argument or claim to make it
easier to attack.

Ø Eg
ü During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald
Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton was for open
borders. He took a comment out of context from a
speech she gave to a Brazilian bank about trade and
energy to twist it into a statement that preyed on
some people's fears of increased undocumented
immigration. He claimed she wanted people to be
able to enter the border without going through any
kind of process at all, which she said was not true.
18
 Red Herring
• The red herring fallacy is committed when an arguer
tries to sidetrack his audience by raising an irrelevant
issue and then claims that the original issue has
effectively been settled by the irrelevant diversion.
Ø Eg
ü Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being an owner of
slaves. But Jefferson 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.
ü Jessica Wu has argued that immediate steps should be
taken to reduce global warming. The most serious
environ- mental problem, however, isn’t global
warming—it’s overpopulation. Unless something is done
to reduce population growth in the third world, mass
starva- tion and irreversible environmental dam- age will
result. Frankly, I think Jessica’s view is ridiculous.
19
 Equivocation
• The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a
key word is used in two or more senses in the
same argument and the apparent success of the
argument depends on the shift in meaning.

ØEg
ü Any law can be repealed by the proper legal authority.
The law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity
can be repealed by the proper legal authority.
üAn elephant is an animal. A gray elephant is a
gray animal. Therefore, a small elephant is a
small animal. 20
 Begging the Question
• The fallacy of begging the question is committed when an
arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing he or
she is trying to prove as a conclusion.
Ø Eg 1
ü Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is ethically
impermissible to inflict death as punishment for a crime.
Ø Eg 2
ü Kylie: God wrote the Bible.
ü Ned: How do you know?
ü Kylie: Because it says so in the Bible, and what the Bible
says is true.
ü Ned: How do you know what the Bible says is true?
ü Kylie: Because God wrote the Bible.
21
 Recap of Fallacies of Relevance
• Personal attack: Arguer attacks the character of another arguer.
• Attacking the motive: Arguer attacks the motive of another arguer.
• Look who’s talking: Arguer attacks the hypocrisy of another arguer.
• Two wrongs make a right: Arguer tries to justify a wrong by citing
another wrong.
• Scare tactics: Arguer threatens a reader or listener.
• Appeal to pity: Arguer tries to evoke pity from a reader or listener.
• Bandwagon argument: Arguer appeals to a reader’s or listener’s
desire to be accepted or valued.
• Straw man: Arguer misrepresents an oppo- nent’s position.
• Red herring: Arguer tries to distract the at- tention of the audience
by raising an irrel- evant issue.
• Equivocation: Arguer uses a key word in two or more different
senses.
• Begging the question: Arguer assumes the point to be proven.
22