Scribd
Upload
160 views16 pages

Typical Fallacies in Reasoning

The document discusses various types of fallacies in reasoning. It defines a fallacy as an error in logic or a false belief based on unsound arguments. It then provides examples of common fallacies such as appealing to an inappropriate authority, making an irrelevant conclusion, falsely attributing a cause, hastily generalizing from limited evidence, using circular reasoning, creating ambiguity, arguing from ignorance, attacking the person making the argument, appealing to emotion or popularity, and falsely associating ideas.

Uploaded by

Bhanu Aryal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
160 views16 pages

Typical Fallacies in Reasoning

The document discusses various types of fallacies in reasoning. It defines a fallacy as an error in logic or a false belief based on unsound arguments. It then provides examples of common fallacies such as appealing to an inappropriate authority, making an irrelevant conclusion, falsely attributing a cause, hastily generalizing from limited evidence, using circular reasoning, creating ambiguity, arguing from ignorance, attacking the person making the argument, appealing to emotion or popularity, and falsely associating ideas.

Uploaded by

Bhanu Aryal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Typical Fallacies in Reasoning

Samu Khadka
Fallacies
 A fallacy is an error in reasoning.
 A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief
based on a falsehood.
 Fallacy a mistaken belief, especially one based
on unsound arguments.
 A false or mistaken idea based on faulty
knowledge or reasoning.
 A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and
rhetoric which undermines an argument's
logical.
 A fallacious argument is one that may appear
correct, but on examination proves not to be
so.
 Even if the premises and conclusion are all
correct, an argument may still be fallacious if
the reasoning used to reach that conclusion is
not logically valid.
Typical Fallacies in Legal Reasoning
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
 This fallacy arises when the authority invoked has
no legitimate claim in the matter at hand.
 In legal writing, this fallacy occurs when we cite a
secondary authority or a case from another
jurisdiction as controlling authority.
 It also occurs when we cite the opinion of an
expert in a matter outside his or her expertise.
Irrelevant Conclusion
 An irrelevant conclusion may also be called a non
sequitur.
 In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either
true or false because there is a disconnect
between the premises and the conclusion.
Example
 If Jackson is a human, then Jackson is a mammal.
 Jackson is a mammal.
 Therefore, Jackson is a human

 If I am Japanese, then I am Asian.


 I am not Japanese.
 Therefore, I am not Asian.
False cause
 False cause is the fallacy committed when an argument
mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection.
 A false cause fallacy occurs when one cites to
sequential events as evidence that the first caused the
second.
The argument generally looks like this:
• Event A happened.
Event B happened after A.
Therefore, A caused B.
 Citing a false or remote cause to explain the situation.
• The Increase I n global warming in past decade is
because more teenagers are using hairspray.
Accident Fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid)
 This fallacy occurs when we apply a generalization to
an individual case that it does not necessarily govern.
 The mistake often lies in failing to recognize that
there may be exceptions to a general rule.
 When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to
all situations, when clearly there are exceptions to
the rule.
• Example: “Sixty men can do a job sixty times as
quickly as one man. One man can dig a posthole in
sixty seconds. Therefore, sixty men can dig a post-
hole in one second.
Hasty Generalization
 drawing conclusions based on insufficient or
unrepresentative evidence.
 It occurs when we move too quickly to establish a
broad principle or general rule based on specific
factual observations.
Example
• “They say deep-fried food is bad for you. Nonsense.
I’ve been eating corn dogs and French fries my whole
life, and I’m in perfect health.”
• This is warmer this year in Kathmandu as compared
to previous year, therefore global warming is rapidly
accelerating.
Circular argument (circulus in probando)
 This is also known as begging the question.
Question-begging arguments often mask themselves
in clever rhetoric (idiom/public speaking).
 A type of reasoning in which the proposition is
supported by the premises, which is supported by
the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where
no useful information is being shared.
 Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the
reasoner begins with what they are trying to end
with. The components of a circular argument are
often logically valid because if the premises are
true, the conclusion must be true.
Ambiguity
 A fallacy of ambiguity occurs when a conclusion
is drawn from premises that are unclear. When an
unclear premise is used, it may not support the
conclusion.
 When we use a key word or phrase to have two
or more different meanings in the same
argument, we commit the fallacy of ambiguity.
Because many words and phrases are naturally
ambiguous (have two or more meanings, or even
a range of meanings), this fallacy often escapes
notice.
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad
ignorantiam)
 also known as appeal to ignorance
 An argument is fallacious when it maintains that
a proposition is true because it has not been
proved false or false because it has not been
proved true.
 Here, the absence of conclusive proof does not
establish that a theory or proposition is false. It
merely establishes that the theory or
proposition is still open to some debate.
Attack Against the Person
 This is sometimes referred to as an ad hominem
argument.
 attacking the person rather than the argument.
 It is a logical fallacy in which an argument is refuted by
attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the
person making the argument, or persons associated with
the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the
argument itself.
 This fallacy occurs when the thrust of an argument is
directed, not at a conclusion, but at the person who
asserts or defends it.
 Example: A lawyer tells a jury that evidence of a witness’s
criminal past proves that the witness was lying.
Argument from Force (argumentum ad baculum)
 When force, coercion, or even a threat of force
is used in place of a reason in an attempt to
justify a conclusion. Is Argument from force.
 One participates in argumentum ad baculum
when one points out the negative
consequences of holding the contrary position
 An argument is fallacious when it substitutes
veiled threats for logical persuasion or when it
asserts that something must be the case
because “that’s just the way things are.”
Appeal to Emotion
 This fallacy occurs when expressive language
designed to excite an emotion like outrage or
pity is used in place of logical argumentation.
 This is the general category of many fallacies
that use emotion in place of reason in order to
attempt to win the argument.
 It is a type of emotional manipulation used in
place of valid logic in order to win an argument,
especially in the absence of factual evidence.
Appeal to Popular Opinion (argumentum ad
populum) 
 This sort of appeal is when somebody asserts
that a thought or conviction is correct since it is
the thing that the general population accept.
 This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot
because our “common sense” tells us that if
something is popular, it must be
good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in
a society where clever marketing, social and
political weight, and money can buy popularity.
Association Fallacy 
 Sometimes called "guilt by association," this
occurs when someone links a specific idea or
practice with something or someone negative
in order to infer guilt on another person.
False Dilemma/Dichotomy
 Sometimes called “Bifurcation”, this sort of
error happens when somebody presents their
argument in such a way that there are just two
conceivable alternatives left.

You might also like