CHAPTER FOUR

LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES

 ‘Fallacy‘ refers to a logical defect or flaw or fault

in argument
 May be in its structural arrangement or reasoning
process, or in the contents of its statements used as
premises or a conclusion, for various reasons, other
than merely false premises.
 fallacy is a deficiency or logical problem that
occurs in an argument for various reasons, other
than merely false premises.
 It is a violation of the standard of argumentative
rules or criteria.
1
 There are four general criteria of a good argument,
A good argument must have premises that:
 are relevant to the truth of the conclusion,
 are acceptable to a logical person,
 together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the
conclusion,
 and anticipate and provide an effective rebuttal to all
reasonable challenges to the argument or to the position
supported by it.
A premise is relevant, if its acceptance provides some
reason to believe, counts in favour of, or makes a
difference to the truth or falsity of the conclusion.
Otherwise, it is irrelevant
•A premise is acceptable, if it is a reason, that the skeptic is
likely to accept, or that a rational person is ought to accept, or
agreed on.
•An argument have premises that are sufficient enough in
number, kind and weight.
•a good argument should also provide an effective rebuttal
(refutation, or disproof) to the strongest arguments against
one‘s conclusion and also perhaps to the strongest arguments
in support of the alternative position.
•Fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a good
argument.
•Fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually it
involves either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of some
illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both)

3
 Types of Fallacies
• Fallacies are usually divided into two groups, Depending on the kind of
the problems or defects they contain(a formal or an informal fallacy)
• A fallacy committed due to a structural defect of argument is known as
a formal fallacy.
• The problem that causes them is a structural defect, formal fallacies may
be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an
argument.
• An informal fallacy is a fallacy, which is committed due to a defect in
the very content of an argument, other than in its structure of form.
• informal fallacies they have the ability to hide their true
argumentative forms,
• They cannot be identified through mere inspection of the form or
structure of an argument.
• Only a detail analysis to be applied on the content of an argument can
reveal the source of the trouble.

4
• Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that have
identifiable forms, such as categorical syllogisms, disjunctive
syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.
• The following contains a formal fallacy:
Example 1: All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Thus, all tigers are mammals.
All A are B
All C are B
Thus, All A are C
Example 2:
If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.
If A then B
B
So, A
 This type of fallacy is called affirming the
consequent. if A and B are interchanged in
the first premise, the form becomes valid,

5
• formal fallacies occur only in deductive arguments.
• if a given argument is inductive, it cannot contain a formal
fallacy.
• If such an argument is invalid because of an improper
arrangement of terms or statements, it commits a formal
fallacy.

6
Informal Fallacies
 They are committed when the content of an
argument is problematic.
 The meaning of the words, how the statements are
constructed and how inferences are made.
 If the defect of the argument goes far beyond a
structural problem and attacks the very content of
the argument.
 Informal fallacies might be committed either from
deductive or inductive argument.
 These fallacies cannot be identified through mere
inspection of the form rather on detail analysis of
the content.
7

7
Eg. All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contains chlorophyll.
Thus, all factories are things that contains chlorophyll.
 A cursory inspection of this argument might think it has the
following form:
All A are B.
All B are C
Thus,

All A are C
 Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself
is valid.
 However, the argument is clearly invalid because it has true
premises and a false conclusion.
 An analysis of the content- reveals that the word ‘‘plants’’ is used
in two different senses.
All A are B.
8
All C are
8
D.
 Categories of Informal Fallacies
 Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify
the various informal fallacies.
 Aristotle himself identified thirteen fallacies and separated
them into two groups.
 Based on the subsequent works of logicians and scholars, twenty
two informal fallacies are identified and grouped them in to five
categories.
 Informal fallacies can be divided in to five main sub categories;
these are:
 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of Weak Induction

 Fallacies of Presumption

 Fallacies of Ambiguity

 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

11

9
 1. Fallacies of Relevance
 The premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion,
but for psychological reasons, they seem
relevant(except missing the point)
 the fallacy of missing the point is committed due to an
irrelevant conclusion
 Fallacies of relevance commonly share the
following basic features:
1. The premises are logically irrelevant(except missing the point) to
the conclusion of an argument. However, they are psychologically
relevant hence they seem correct or persuasive.
2. The connection between the premises and the conclusion is
emotional, not logical.
12

10
• Fallacies of relevance often called non
sequiturs,
• which means that the conclusion does not
seem to follow from the premises.
• They are called argumentative leaps- no
connection between the premises and the
conclusion.
• To identify a fallacy of relevance, one must
be able to distinguish genuine evidence from
various forms of emotional appeal.

11
 Sub categories fallacies
There are eight fallacies under fallacy of relevance.
1. Appeal to Force(Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the
‘’Stick‟)
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
3. Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 Appeal to Bandwagon
 Appeal to Vanity
 Appeal to Snobbery
4. Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
 Ad hominem Abusive
 Ad hominem Circumstantial
 You too Fallacy
5. Accident Fallacy
6. Straw man Fallacy
7. Missing the point (Ignoratio Elenchi)Fallacy
8. Red herring Fallacy 13

12
 1. Appeal to Force or Stick fallacy
Occurs whenever a conclusion is defended
through possessing physical or psychological
threats to those who do not accept it.
The arguer poses conclusion to another
person either implicitly or explicitly that
some harm will come to him if he does
not accept the conclusion.
indicating that some danger will happen to
those who do not accept the position.
13
Examples:
1) A lazy student to her Professor: Unless you give
me “A” grade in logic I will accuse
you as if you harass me.
2) Child to its Playmates: Arsenal is the best
football club in the world, if you don’t accept
this, I am going to call my brother and he
will throw you out!
3) Wife to husband: I deserve a weekend in
Langano, and unless you agree to take
me there; I am going to pack up and leave.

14
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
Misericordiam)

 basically occurs when an arguer tries to

pose a conclusion by evoking pity from the
listeners or readers.
• The statements that evoke the pity are
logically unrelated to the conclusion
Has the following form
Premises: You have reason to pity this
person, thing or situation (or group).
Conclusion: You should do X for the benefit of
this person (or group), although doing X is not
called for logically by the reason given. 15
• Example
1) A weak student to the instructor: professor hear me
once please I should deserve at least ”B” in logic,
unless I will be in prohibition and total low of moral
to attend other courses.
2)My client is an integral part of this community. If he
is sent to prison not only this city will suffer but
also he will be most missed by his family. You surely
cannot find it in your hearts to reach any other
verdict than "not guilty".
3)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.
16
 3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad
Populum).
 Everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued,
recognized, and accepted by others
 Being part of community and belongingness are important humans
needs
 Appeal to the people strikes these desires and needs to get acceptance
for conclusion.
 E.g.
‘’I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to
belong to a party that stands for what is good for the country. Proud to
cast my lot with the kind of people who make this nation great. Proud to
stand with men and women who can get our nation back on its feet. Yes,
there are those who criticize us, who label our view of trade agreements as
“protectionist.” But when I look at you hard working people, I know
we‟re right and the critics are wrong’’

17
• The speaker wants the audience to accept his conclusion that the
trade agreement is not a protectionist‘.
• But He only appeals to the emotions of the crowd, without logical
support to anyone‘s view about trade agreements.
• Anyone who wants to be part of the group, who does not want to
be deviated from the mob mentality, accepts the conclusion as
true.
• Premises = ‘’I am proud to be associated with you’’ and ‘’you are
hard-working people’’ are irrelevant to the conclusion (that our
view of trade agreements is right).
• The fallacy committed in urging the acceptance of a position
simply on the ground that:
A. lots of people accept it
B. distinguished personalities and popular ones used it.
• There are two approaches here
* Direct
* Indirect

18
 Direct Approach
 committed directly when the arguer, addresses 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 mob mentality.
 used by every propagandist and demagogue.
 to share in the camaraderie, the euphoria, and the
excitement, people accept the conclusions
A. Appeal to Bandwagon
 emphasizes that the majority’s choice is the correct one and
urges the audiences to join them.
 it is based on the belief that majorities choice correct.
 appeals to the desire of individuals to be considered as part
of the group or community in which they are living
 every individual are expected to manifest group conformity
to these shared values.
19
Examples
1. 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.
2. Chewing chat can not be all wrong because 70% of the
students of Addis Ababa university see nothing wrong with it.
3. Of course you want to buy the best toothpaste that is why 90%
of Americans brush with it.
4. Everyone says that a logic course is easier than a
mathematics course, so it must be.
5. Every one believes that men write the best novels; therefore,
there is little doubt that they do so.
6. 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.
19

20
 Indirect approach
the arguer directs his or her appeal not
to the crowd as a whole directly, rather
to some aspects of their relationship to
the crowd.
This approach is usually common in
advertising industry.

21
 B. Appeal to Vanity
 The appeal to vanity often associates the product with
someone who is admired, pursued, or imitated.
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!!!
• The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too,
will be admired and respected, just like Frank
Lampard.
Examples:
1. Heineken is the best alcoholic beverage of the year. Even
Ronaldo likes its test. Never miss it !
2. Who is going to wear this fashion dress ,a dress worn
by famous artist Aster Awoke in her new year Sheraton
show 22
 C. Appeal to Snobbery
 Snob means a person who admires people in higher
classes too much and has no respect for people in the
lower.
 It 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.
E.g.
‘’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’’
 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 like23
Products are usually associated with persons
with high social positions (business men,
kings, queens, and princes in general).
• Examples:
1. First of all do you know the mark of the shoe
it is Clark, you should know that Clark is not
for an ordinary person buy and join the
dignitaries.
2. Grand Hotel, no doubt, is the best hotel
in Bahir Dar. That is only for distinguished
and very important persons. Come and
enjoy your weekend at Grand Hotel.

24
 4. Argument against the person
(Argumentum ad Hominem)
Attacking one’s opponent in a personal and
abusive way for the purpose of ignoring
the argument of others.
There are three types of fallacy of
ad hominem:
A. Fallacy of ad hominem abusive
an arguer engages him/herself in direct
personal attacks or abuses against his
opponent.
Committed when we directly attack the
person himself. 23

25
Examples:
1. Hailu’s idea about there is life after
death should be discouraged since he
was regularly treated in Emanuel
hospital and he is patient.
2. Mr. Gebeyehu has argued for increased
funding for the disabled. But nobody
should listen to his argument. Mr.
Gebeyhu is a Slob who cheats on his
wife, beats his wife, beats his kids, and
never pays his bills on time.
26
B. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial
 also called genetic fallacy.
is not directed to attacking the person,
rather on the circumstance he belongs
to.
Example:
1. Melaku’s idea ,we should fast is
not acceptable, after all he is
catholic priest and priests in that
position are expected to posses such
views.
27
 C. Fallacy of you too
( ad hominem tuqoque)
is committed when we argue that our opponent’s
claim is false since his/her argument is contrary
with what he has said or done before.
Examples:
1. The patient to doctor: But Doctor, surely your advice
that you should not drink coffee is not sound advice
since you yourself often drink coffee.
2. Doctor: I see abnormalities in your breathing and
heartbeat. So, you must stop taking tobacco. Ok?
Patient: what do you mean doctor ? I saw you by my
own naked eyes on the other day that you too were
smoking. So, your advice is not correct.
28
 5. Accident
wrongly apply general rule to specific case that
cannot cover the former.
this fallacy is committed when the general rule,
principle or truth is wrongly applied to
particular instance or situation.
Examples:
1. Freedom of speech is constitutionally
guaranteed right. So, john should not
be arrested for his insult.
2. Children should obey their parents.
Therefore, little Abush should follow his
alcoholic fathers orders to drop out of school
and get a job.
29
 6. Straw Man
occurs when some one distorts his/her
opponent’s argument for the purpose of more
easily attacking or demolishing it.
by diminishing /exaggerating or
Misinterpretation of our
opponent’s argument.
Example:
Dr. Kebede has just argued against affirmative
action for women. It seems what he is saying
is that women should stay out of the work
place altogether. Just keep them barefoot and
pregnant. That is what Dr. Kebede wants.
Well! I think we are all smart enough to reject
his argument. 28

30
 7. Missing the point (Ignorantio
Elenchi)
also called irrelevant conclusion.
occurs when the premise of an argument
supports the concussion, which has nothing to
do with correct conclusion.
the argument has a problem of the logical
implication of the premise.
 The conclusion is not correctly formed.
Example:
Addis Ababa university has a lot of problems.
Many of the instructors are inexperienced. It
follows that, the university should be entirely
closed.
31
 8. Red Herring
Committed when an arguer diverts the attention
of the listeners or readers by changing the
original subject to some totally different issue
without notifying the listeners’ or readers’.
is an attempt to divert the attention of audiences
to a totally different issue .
Example:
Chala: do you know, Gebru that Hana has got
“ A” in prose fiction.
Gebru: it is not surprising. Aster always wears
miniskirt and attracts teachers with her half -
naked body. That is it and not her own effort.
32
 Exercise -Two
These passages contains fallacies of
Relevance Name the fallacy
committed.
1. Professor, this paper merits at least a
“B”. I stayed up throughout the night
working on it. And, if I do not get “B”, I
will be put on academic probation.
(Student to his professor)
2. I deserve a two-month vacation with
pay, and if you do not agree to give it to
me, I am going to tell the sex harassment
officer
into about
bed. that time
(Employee where
to her you tried to
boss) 31

get me
33
 3. Ms. Lincoln, are you saying that President
Bush made a moral error when he decided
to go to war with Iraq? I cannot believe my
ears. That’s not how Americans feel. Not
true Americans,
anyway. You are an American, aren’t
you, Ms. Lincoln?
4. You should do whatever you can to back
our Zone’s athletics team. This team
really has people of the zone behind it, if
you do not support it, and you will be a
social outcast. 32

34
5.Ms. Azeb has argued for increased
expenditures for Medicare. But of
course she argues that way since she
is rich and can afford to pay her
own medical bills. I wouldn’t trust
her arguments.
6.It is wrong to betray a trust.
Therefore, it would be wrong to
report your friend’s plan to blow up
the local courthouse.
35
7.It’s always the unloaded gun that
kills someone. Therefore, you should
always keep gun loaded.
8.Dr, Anderson has argued that we
dispense free hypodermic syringes to
drug users to cut down the spread of
AIDS. Apparently, the good doctor
advocated drugs. Here we have more
than a million addicts in this country,
and the doctor would like to see several
more of them! No! No! No! This is not a
good idea. 36
9.Mr. Abdella argued that medical
doctors in the country burden many
responsibilities. They are working day
and night to satisfy the demand for good
health. Thus, the government should
increase the salary, housing and other
necessary facilities for doctors
10.Majority of Ethiopian elites believe
that emperor Menelik II is the father of
modern Ethiopia. Therefore, he must be.

37
 2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
Occur not because the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion, rather it is
because the connection between the premises
and conclusion is not strong enough.
Fallacies of weak induction are commonly
characterized by:
1. Premises are not sufficient to
arrive at the conclusion,
2. Premises probably support the
conclusion and they are accompanied by
emotional appeals.
38
 Sub categories
There are six fallacies included in
weak induction.
1. Appeal to unqualified Authority
2. Appeal to Ignorance
3. Hasty Generalization
4. False Cause
 Post hoc fallacy
 Non-Causa pro cosa fallacy
 Oversimplified cause fallacy
5. Slippery Slope fallacy
6. Weak Analogy
39
 1. Appeal to unqualified Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam )
The authority at hand can be either individual
person or institution
The fallacy of unqualified authority is
committed when we attempt to support our
claim by:
A. citing the statement of another person who
has no authority in the field of
specialization.
B. referring the judgment of an authority that
is likely to be biased.
C. referring a person who has the
habit of telling lies or disseminating
wrong
information. 38

40
Examples:
1. We should abolish the death penalty. Many
respected people, such as foot ball player Lionel
Mesi, have publicly stated their opposition to it.
2. But Mom I don't see why I have to wear socks;
Einstein never did wear socks.
3. Those who say that extra-sensory perception is
not reliable are mistaken. The police,
Hollywood stars, and politicians have all relied
on it.
4. Abune Merkorios who is famous figure in EOC
argued that we should not accept Protestantism
since protestants are nothing.
41
 2. Appeal to Ignorance
(Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
committed when lack of
evidence or proof for something is
used to support the conclusion.
something is the case (true) because
no one has proved it false
something is not the case (false)
because no one has proved it
true 42
 Examples:
A. God exists, No one proves the non
existence of God.
B. No mathematician has ever been
able to demonstrate the truth of the
variants of the Goldberg
conjecture, so they cannot all be
true.
C. No one has ever been able to prove
the existence of UFO’s. Thus, we
can conclude that UFO’s does not
exist. 43
 3. Hasty Generalization
 is the opposite of accident /converse accident.
committed when an arguer tries to generalize
about a thing or an event based on insufficient
evidence
Example:
A. As I walked to the library from the Learning
Center, No one spoke to me. Lander University
is not as friendly as I was led to believe.
B. The meteorologist predicted the wrong amount
of rain for May. Obviously the meteorologists
are unreliable.
44
N.B scientifically proved or
reasonable samples are not fallacies.
Example
Ten Milligram of Substance Z was
fed to four mice, and within two
minutes all four went into shock and
died. Probably substance Z, in this
amount, is fatal to the average mice.

45
 4. False Cause
 It is a defective and flawed form of argument from
causality.
 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.
 occurs whenever the link between premises and
conclusion depends on some imagined causal
connection that properly does not exist.
 In the false cause fallacy, the conclusion depends on
the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably
does not cause Y at all. 46

 Varieties of false cause fallacy

 A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
 ‘After this, therefore because of this’
 occurs whenever an arguer illegitimately assumes that
because event X preceded event Y, X caused Y
 based on chronological relationship
 committed when we arrive at a certain conclusion by
claiming that one thing is the cause of another thing
because it precedes in time
Examples:
1. 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

45

47
1. Since I came into office two years ago, the rate of
violent crime has decreased significantly. So, it is
clear that the longer prison sentences we
recommended are working.
2. I have crushed with a car because before I crushed
with the car the dog crosses the road while I was
driving.
3. President Jones raised taxes, and then after the rate
of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the
rise in crime

48
 B. Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy(not the cause for the
cause).
• committed when what is taken to be the cause of something
is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on
something other than mere temporal succession
Examples:
1. Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of
$100,000.Therefore, the best way to ensure that Ferguson will
become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least
$100,000.
2. There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever
before and more HIV victims ; so, to eliminate the
epidemic we must abolish the church.
3. When The library is always opened and most students
failed in the exam, so to let students pass the exam we
should close the library.
46

49
 C. Oversimplified Cause Fallacy
 occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect
but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it
were the sole cause.
Examples:
1. In Ethiopia, the grades of fresh students in universities have
been dropping for several years. What accounts for this?
Well, during these same years, the average time students
spend on facebook (per day) has increased. So, the cause is
obvious: students are spending much of their time surfing on
facebook when they need to be reading instead.
2. A sedentary lifestyle contributes to obesity. People have
become more sedentary in the last few decades. Therefore,
the rise in obesity can be fixed by people getting more
exercise.
3. Smoking has been empirically proven to cause lung cancer.
Therefore, if we eradicate smoking, we will eradicate lung cancer.
50
 5. Slippery Slope fallacy
 It is a species of negative reasoning from consequences,
 used when 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.
 The characteristic idea of the slippery slope argument is
that once you take that first action in the sequence, it is like
pushing off from the top of an Olympic ski-jump run.
 Once you have kicked off, turning back becomes harder and
harder.
 At some ill-defined point or grey area, there is no turning
back. Once you are into this area, there is only one way to
go: faster and faster down the slope until you hit the bottom
51
• 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.
• assumes that series of events happen or follow one from the other as a
result of the first cause in a series, Based on the unlikely chain of
reaction.

52
Examples
student: “I do have a question, teacher”.
Teacher: I will not allow you to ask me because, if I allow you to ask me, others will start
raising questions and as a result I will not have enough time for my lecture.

‘’Immediate steps should be taken to outlaw pornography once and for all. The
continued manufacture and sale of pornographic material will almost certainly lead
to an increase in sex-related crimes such as rape and incest. This in turn will
gradually erode the moral fabric of society and result in an increase in crimes of all
sorts. Eventually a complete disintegration of law and order will occur, leading in
the end to the total collapse of civilization’’

‘’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
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.’’

53
 6. Fallacy of Weak Analogy
 a defective or flawed argument from analogy.
 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).
 The fallacy is committed when the analogy between
things, situations and circumstance is not strong enough
to support the conclusion that is drawn.
 Evaluating an argument having this form requires a two-
step procedure:
 (1) Identify the attributes a, b, c,. . That the two entities
A and B share in common, and
 (2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the54
conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c, . . . If some
Committed when the similarity between two things or situations is
not strong enough to support the conclusion to be drawn .
When the two contrasted things are considered alike only in
unimportant ways.
The basic structure of an argument from weak analogy is:
 Entity A has attributes a, b, c and z

 Entity B has attributes a, b, c

 Therefore, entity B probably has attribute z.

e.g.
When an individual is diagnosed as having cancer, every
effort is made to kill the cancerous growth, whether by
surgery, radiation treatment, or chemotherapy. But murderers
and kidnappers are cancerous growths on society. Therefore,
when these criminals are apprehended and convicted, they
should be treated like any other cancer and eliminated by
capital punishment.

55
A. Medical Student: "No one objects to a physician looking
up a difficult case in medical books. Why, then, shouldn't
students taking a difficult examination be permitted to
use their textbooks?"
B. People who have to have a cup of coffee every morning
before they can function have no less a problem than
alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to
sustain them.
C. People who buy stocks are no different from people who
bet on horse racing. They both risk their money with
little chance of making a big profit.

56
 3.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.
 They depend on some assumption that is typically
unstated and unsupported.
 Identifying the implicit assumption often exposes the
fallacy.
 The premises presume what they purport to prove.
 Committed when the assumption given in the premise is
not supported by proof, but the arguer maintains that it
does not need proof and invites audiences to accept it as
it is.
 Fallacies of presumption are usually 56

characterized by: 57
 A. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

 Committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that

inadequate premises provide adequate support for the
conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key
premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the
conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.
 petition principii, means ―request for the source.
 The actual source of support for the conclusion is not
apparent, and so the argument is said to beg the question.
 After reading or hearing the argument, the observer is
inclined to ask, ―But how do you know X?‖ where X is the
needed support
 The first most common way of committing this fallacy is
by leaving a possibly false key premise out of the
argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is
needed to establish the conclusion 57

58
• Questions can be easily answered as Yes …No.
• We may get questionable ideas either in the part of the premise or the
conclusion
• premise Is not essentially different from the conclusion.
Example
1. Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is
morally wrong.
‘’Begs the question of How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?’’
2. Of course humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look
how similar they are.
Begs: Does the mere fact that humans and apes look similarimply that they
evolved from common ancestors?
3. It‟s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from
the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.
4. Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor-assisted suicide. After
all, many of these people are unable to commit suicide by themselves.

59
• The second form of petito principii occurs when the
conclusion of an argument merely restates a possibly false
premise in slightly different language.
• The premise supports the conclusion, and the conclusion tends
to reinforce the premise.
• Examples:
1. 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.
―justified is the same thing to say ―legitimate and appropriate,‖
How do you know that capital punishment really is legitimate and
appropriate?
2. Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future for
the simple reason that if a person has no vision of the future he
could not possibly preach revolution?
How do you know that people who preach revolution really do60
The Third form of petito principii involves circular
reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first premise
that is possibly false

61
• Harar brewery clearly produces the finest beer in
Ethiopia. We know they produce the finest beer because
they have the best chemist. This is because they can
afford to pay them more than other brewery. Obviously
they can afford to pay them more because they produce
the finest beer in the country.
• Where does this reasoning begin? What is its source? Since
the argument goes in a circle, it has no beginning or
source, and as a result it proves nothing.
• I believe the president is telling the truth, because he says
he is telling the truth.
• God exists ,because the bible says so.
• Mr X is not thief, because he said I am not thief.
• Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows
that abortion is morally wrong.
62
 B. False Dichotomy
Presumes an “either .. or” statement
presents jointly exhaustive alternatives.
It is committed when the arguer insists
that only two alternatives are
possible in a given situation .
It occurs whenever one is faced with a
very limited numbers of alternatives.
It presumes that one of the suggested
alternatives must be true.
63
 Examples:
1. Classical democracy is originated either from the
Gada System or from Athens.Classical
democracy did not originated from ancient
AthensThus, it must originate from the Gada
System.
2. 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
3. I am tired of those young people who criticize their
country. I said “ Ethiopia” love it or leave it. Thus, the
conclusion is obvious .
64
 C. Suppressed Evidence
Presumes that no important evidence has
been overlooked by the premises when in
fact it has.
is committed when the argument ignores
evidence/s that outweighs the presented
evidence and entails a different conclusion.
The evidence that is suppressed must be so
important that it outweighs the presented
evidence, and it must require a different
conclusion than the one drawn.
Usually, suppression is intentional as the arguer
deliberately omits the key evidence (premise) and 65
62
 Examples:
1. 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. Fourth, there is a port
that helps us to export our product. Thus, we have to
consider investing in Somalia.
2. The advertise for Kentucky Fried Chicken says, “Buy
a bucket of chicken and have a barrel of fun!‖
Therefore, if we buy a bucket of that chicken, we will
be guaranteed to have lots of fun
fun does not come packaged with the chicken but must be supplied by the buyer. Also, of
course, the advertise fails to state that the chicken is loaded with fat and that the buyer‘s
resultant weight gain may not amount to a barrel of fun

3. The Second Amendment of the American Constitution

states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
66
shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns
 D. Complex Question
is committed when the arguer asks two or more
questions in a way that makes it appear that
only one question has been asked.
Asking questions to answer it genuinely
without making them confused and tricked is
not wrong.
But, when the question is complex and aimed
only at trapping and confusing the respondent
it will be fallacious.
are familiar devices to lawyers and judges when
examining defendants to admit crimes.
67
 Examples:
1. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
2. Where did you hide the corpse of the person
you killed?
3. Have you stopped in involving such crimes?
4. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
5. Where did you hide the corpse of the person
you killed?

68
 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
Are committed when misleading or
wrong conclusion of an argument
is drawn from ambiguous words or
statements in the premises or the
conclusion.
An expression is ambiguous if it is
susceptible to different interpretations in a
given context
Includes Equivocation and
Amphiboly. 69
 A. Equivocation
 Occurs when a word or phrase in a single argument are used in two
different senses or connotations .
 occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a
word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different
senses in the argument.
 This fallacy leads toward unintended conclusion by making a
word or words to have two different meanings in a single
argument.
Examples:
1. Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever obtuse is ignorant.
Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
2. All factories are plants. All Plants are things that contains
chlorophyll Thus, all Factories are things that contain
chlorophyll
3. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the
law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be 67
repealed by the legislative authority. 70
• God: "One million years to me is a second."
Man: "What about one million dollars, my Lord?“
God: "A penny.“
Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?“
God: "No problem, just a second.“
• Noisy children are a real headache. Two aspirin will make
a headache go away. Therefore, two aspirin will make
noisy children go away.
• A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is
better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than
nothing.
• Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really
need to encourage people to argue? There's enough
hostility in this world.

71
 B. Amphiboly
when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous
statement and then draws a conclusion based on this
faulty interpretation.
occurs because of a mistaken grammars punctuation - a
missing comma, a dangling modifier, an ambiguous
antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless
arrangement of words.
Examples:
• The tour guide said that standing in Greenwich
Village, the Empire State Building could easily
be seen. It follows that the Empire State
Building is in Greenwich Village.
• Dangling modifier =Is it the observer or the 68

72
Empire State Building that is supposed to be
1. Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a
mistake. It follows that Habtom has at least
the courage to admit his own mistakes.
2. Mrs. Zenebu stated that in her will that “I
leave my house and my car to Lemma and
Mengistu”. Therefore, we conclude that
Lemma gets the house and Mengistu gets
the car
3. Johannes told me that he always quarrels
with his father when he is drunk

73
74
 5. 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.
 are caused by presumption of analogy of
attributes of the whole entity of some thing and
its parts or reverse.
 There are two types of the fallacies of
grammatical analogy.

75
 A. Composition
Occur when attributes of parts of a
thing are wrongly applied or
associated to the whole entity of a
thing .
committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from the parts
of something onto the whole
When parts of something is wrongly
applied on that thing (we are with in
one thing).
from Part to whole
part . 76
1. Each player on this basketball team is an
excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a
whole is excellent.
2. Each atom in this piece of chalk is
invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
3. Sodium and chlorine, the atomic
components of salt, are both deadly
poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
4. “Mr. X likes water and barley. Therefore,
Mr. X must like Dashen beer.”
5. Each atom in this table is invisible to
the naked eye. Therefore, the table is
77
invisible to the naked eye .
However, if there is a legitimate
transference of an attribute from
parts in to the whole, fallacy of
composition will never occur.
Example
Each atom in this piece of chalk
has mass. Therefore, the piece of
chalk has mass.
78
 B. Division
The fallacy of division is the exact
opposite of composition.
what is true of a whole is also
true of its parts or what is true
of a whole is also true of some
of its parts.
From whole part of
a thing.
79
Examples:
1. Water extinguishes fire. So, its two
components hydrogen and oxygen
extinguishes fire.
2. Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas.
Therefore, its two components, carbon
and oxygen must be poisonous.
3. Salt is a non-poisonous compound.
Therefore, its component elements,
sodium and chlorine, are non-
poisonous. 80