Informal Fallacies

Definition of a fallacy

 A pattern of faulty reasoning that is

fundamentally erroneous.
- It is a pattern of reasoning, not a specific error;
and
- There is something fundamentally flawed about
the pattern of reason.
- A fallacy is a pattern of faulty reasoning that can
be found in many d/t arguments.
Cont.
 fallacies
can be committed in many ways, but
usually they involve either;
-unintentionally due to carelessness or
ignorance
-fallacies are sometimes used
intentionally (and obviously unethically)
to manipulate or persuade by deception.
 Types of fallacies

A defect or error traceable  A defect which can be

to the very structure (form) detected only by reference
of the argument. to the content of an
All black bears are omnivores. argument.
 Every part of X has the
All raccoons are omnivores.
All raccoons are black bears. feature f. Therefore, the
whole X has the feature f.
Can be both fallacious/not-it
is determined based on the
content of the argument.
Formal Informal
Classification of informal fallacies
 Fallacies of relevance
 Fallacies of weak induction
 Fallacies of presumption
 Fallacies of ambiguity
 Fallacies of Grammatical analogy
1. Fallacies of relevance
 Means the premises of an argument are irrelevant to
the conclusion.
 The premises are logically unrelated with the truth of

the conclusion, though they seem to be relevant

psychologically.
Cont.
 I) Emotional Appeal: Some fallacies of relevance
exploit or take advantage of various human emotions
rather than present reasoned and relevant evidence
 appeal to force or fear
 appeal to pity
 appeal to the people
 ad hominems
Cont.
 II) Deception: Some fallacies of relevance try to
deceive us by a sleight-of-hand trick that is most often
intentional, deliberate, or calculated.
 A popular method of deception is distraction or

diversion, leading the reader/listener away from the

real and relevant issue(s) at hand.
 straw man
 missing the point
 red herring
 ad hominems
1.Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum Fallacy)

1. brings about scary things

2. intends to evoke fear
3. motivates psychologically to accept a conclusion
4. the scary things are irrelevant to the conclusion
 The threat may be either physical or psychological one.
Cont.
 Example: Secretary to Boss: I deserve a rise in salary
for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly I
am with your wife, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want her
to find out what has been going on b/n you and that
sexpot client of yours.
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
misericordian)
1. brings up sad things
2. intends to evoke pity
3. motivates psychologically to accept the conclusion
4. the sad things are irrelevant to the conclusion
 The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get

people to accept a conclusion by making them to feel

sorry for someone.
Example
 Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on
performance, but you should give me an A. My cat
has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a
cold, so it was really hard for me to study!”
 Appeal to pity fallacy Vs arguments from
compassion.
 I would really like to get an A for the attendance

portion of the grade. I was in my car last week and I

was hit by a drunk driver. I’ve spent the last several
days in the hospital on a lot of painkillers. Please,
will you excuse my recent absence from class.
3. Argument Against the Person
(Argumentum ad Hominiem)
 occurs when we disagree with someone’s conclusion,
but instead of presenting a counterargument we attack
the person who made the argument.
 commonly one of the following:

o Abusive (negative character traits)

o Circumstantial (motives to argue for the conclusion,

predispositions to argue for the conclusion

o Tu qouque (hypocrisy on behalf of the opponent)
 A. Ad hominiem Abusive
 ad hominem abusive takes the general form:
Person A claims X.
There is something objectionable about Person A.
Therefore, X is false.

Example: Professor Person’s arguments in favor of the

theory of evolution should be discounted.
Pearson is cocaine-snorting, sex pervert, and
according to some experts a member of the
communist party.
B. Ad hominiem Circumstantial
 ad hominem circumstantial, which points out that
someone may be biased because of their circumstances:
Example: I find mildly amusing that Mr. and Mrs.
Billings are advocating school reforms. But I
certainly don’t see any reason to take their
proposal seriously. Both of them were poor
students in high school.
C. Too quoque (“you too”)
 A logical fallacy that tries to discredit an argument by
asserting that since the arguer does not abide by their
argument , the argument is invalidated.
o A presents argument X
o A does not abide by argument X
o Therefore, X is not true
 Basically, it can be translated as “look who is talking”

Example: Mother: smoking is bad for your health and

expensive! I hope to never see you do it too!
Daughter: But you did it when you were my
age! Therefore, I can do it too!
Why it is a fallacy?
 A claim can be true independently of whether the
person who makes the claim is or seem to be
committed something inconsistent with the claim.
 It is quite possible for a person who is inconsistent

to still make true claims or provide good

justification for a claim.
4. Appeal to People (Argumuntum ad Populum)
1. encourages audience to believe what others believe
2. uses peer pressure to influence
o Inclusivist peer pressure or
o Exclusivist peer pressure

3. not claimed that the peer group has any special

expertise
Cont.
 There are two approaches of the ad populum fallacy:
The direct approach
 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/her conclusion
 The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality.
 This is the strategy used by

nearly every propagandist

and demagogue
 Adolf Hitler was the master

of this technique
 Waving flag and blaring

music add to the overall effect

Cont.
 Example: 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 America. 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 is,
who label our view of trade agreement as
“protectionist” But when I look at you hard-working
people, I know, we are right, and the critics are wrong.
Indirect approach
Addressing one or more individuals separately,
focusing on some aspect of their r/ship with the crowd.
 There are 3 varieties of the ad populum fallacy of the

indirect approach.
Bandwagon argument
 Appeals to our need or desire to identify with the
majority or with what is popular.

Logical Form:
Everybody is doing X.
Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.
Example: Many students choose this course. Therefore
you should also take it.
The truth-or falsity- of a claim doesn’t depend on it being
accepted by many, or a majority of, people.
ii. Appeal to Vanity
 Often associated 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.
 Example: Of course, you want to buy a pair of slinky

fashion jeans. Slinky jeans really show of your figure,

and all the Hollywood starlets down on the strip can be
seen wearing them these days.
III Appeal to snobbery
 it plays a desire to stand out:
 The arguer tries to associate a product with a few

selected persons who have exaggerated social respect

for social position, wealth or any other quality.
 The arguer appeals to the R/L’s sense of superiority to

the common masses, to his/her flattering self-image,

and sense of exclusivity.
Example: A Roll-Royce is not for everyone. If you
qualify as one of the select few, this distinguished classic
may be seen and driven at Bristish Motor Cars, Ltd.
Cont.
 It appeals to the part of ourselves that want to see
ourselves as smarter than others, as having
information or insight (or well developed taste or
appreciation) they lack.
5. Accident
1. Appeals to a general rule or principle
2. the rule or principle is not absolute (there are
exceptions)
3. applied to an exceptional case
4. arguer acts as if either (a) the rule is absolute or (b) the
case is atypical
 Example: Killing is bad. Therefore, it was wrong for us

to go to war against the Nazi’s.

 One should return the thing one has borrowed when

asked for. Therefore, you should return the pistol to its

owner even when he going to commit suicide.
Cont.
6. Strawman
1. responding to another, opposing argument or claim
2. misrepresents the opposing view, and then pretends to
defeat that view.
3. may be relevant to, even defeat, some similar
sounding, or possibly more general, view.
Example
 Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public
school. Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism.
But atheism is what they used to have in Russia.
Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and
the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that
what we want for this country? I hardly think so,
clearly Mr. Goldberg’s argument is none sense.
 7. Missing the Point (ignoratio
Elenchi)
 The premises of an argument do support a particular
conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer
actually draws.
 A set of statements leads to conclusion X. Yet conclusion

Y is drawn.
Example: Heroin use is on the
rise. To combat this problem,
we should start putting all heroin
users to death.

A College education has become unreasonably expensive.

The only possible solution to this problem is to close down
all of the colleges and Universities.
Red herring
 It occurs when an arguer diverts the attention of the
reader or listener by going off on extraneous issues and
points but ends by assuming that some conclusion
relevant to the point at hand has been established.
 Topic A is under discussion
 Topic B is introduced under

the guise of being relevant to

topic A (when topic B is
Actually not relevant to topic A).
 Topic A is abandoned.
Cont.
 Example: You ask what I think about Abebe’s
argument that miracles do not exist? Well Abebe is an
interesting guy. The other day, he dove into the pool at
the sports center and his swimming trunks came off.
He then decided he didn’t need them, so he swam
around without any cloths on for 15 minutes.
Everyone in the water was screaming. Now what do
you think of that?
2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
 Some common mistakes in argument arise b/c the
premises- although they may not be totally irrelevant-
are inadequate to warrant the conclusion.
 Fallacies of weak induction involve premises that are in

some degree relevant to their conclusions but

nevertheless provide insufficient support to them.
 The fallacies of weak induction occur b/c the

connection b/n the premises and conclusion is not

strong enough to the conclusion.
9. Appeal to unqualified authority
 Occurs when an arguer cites the testimony or belief of an
authority who is not necessarily reliable or who is not an
expert in the subject at hand or
 There are several reasons why
an authority or witness might
not be trustworthy. The person
might lack:
 The required expertise
 Might be biased or prejudiced
 Might have a motive to lie, or disseminate ‘misinformation”
 Might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall
Cont.
 Don’t believe something just because some Ph.D.,
M.D., or Nobel laureate says you should. Base your
beliefs on evidence, not on the say-so of authorities.
 Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many

respected people, such as actor Brad pit, have publicly

stated their opposition to it.”
11. Appeal to Ignorance
 Asserts that a claim can definitively said to be
true b/c it has not been definitively proven false.
 Common variation: asserts that something exists,

even though we have not encountered it b/c it has

not been proven not to exist
 Logical Forms:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
false just because it hasn’t been proven true.
Cont.
 Don’t accept something as true just because you can’t
prove it’s false. And don’t think something is false just
because it hasn’t been proven true.
Why it is a fallacy?
 It shifts the “burden of proof” from where it
ought to rest to the other side.
 It can also be regarded as involving a false

dilemma, since it limits the possibilities to

“known to be true” or “known to be false”,
ignoring the possibility that something might
not be known to be true or false, unknowable.
 “Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence”
Example
 “Life after death is real. Because no one has proved it
to be false. ”
exceptions
1. If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out
methods to search for something for a long time,
they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing
people ought to be able to find, then the fact that
they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that
it doesn’t exist.
2. Related with courtroom procedure
 10. Hasty Generalization
1. Reasoning from a sample to the general population.
2. One of the following:
o The sample is too small

o The sample is biased

 Drawing a generalization

out of insufficient or biased

sample group.

 Logical Form:
Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is a very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.
Sources of HG
1. Small sample size
I had a bad time with my former husband. From that
experience I’ve learned that all men are no good.
 The smaller the sample, the more likely that results will

be skewed by atypical results.

2. Non-random sampling
I took a survey, and everyone at my church firmly
believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. So,
100% of Americans firmly believe in the resurrection.
12. False Cause Fallacy
 The link b/n the premises and the conclusion depends
on the assumption of a non-existent or minor causal
connection
 There are three varieties of false cause fallacy

 A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
 Of course, sometimes one event really does cause

another one that comes later

 Temporal priority is merely a necessary but not a

sufficient to establish causation.

Example
 President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of
violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the
rise in crime.”
 Tip: If you say that A causes B, you should have

something more to say about how A caused B than

just that A came first and B came later.
B. Non causa pro causa
 The fallacy of mistaken causation. Fallacy of exchanging
or confusing cause for effect.
Eg. Ababe is a poor student b/c he performs poorly in
examinations
 These arguments mistake mere coincidence or correlation

for causation. Correlation is not the same thing as

causation.
Example: “All of the really fast runners wear Nike shoes, I
will be really a fast runner too”
 Tom was seen in the vicinity of the broken window at

about the time that it was broken, so he must have done it.
What is a correlation?
 When two events occur together regularly at a rates
higher than probability.
 Examples: smoking and lung cancer, education and

income, potato- chip eating and heart attack.

 Two types of correlation: positive and negative:
 Positive correlation: occurs when one thing increases

when another thing increases.

 Negative correlation: one thing increasers and another

thing decreases.
Correlation vs causation
 Correlation:
- Refers simply to association
- When things are correlated, they are merely associated,

perhaps occurring at the same time or in the same place

 A correlation could merely be a coincidence; or it could

be due to a causal process.

 Establishing a correlation doesn’t establish a causal

connection b/n two events.

 “Whenever X occurs, Y occurs” is not the same as “X

causes Y”.
 “Linked to” is not the same as “caused by”
C. Oversimplified Cause
 Oversimplified cause fallacy occurs when there are
many causes, and the argument identifies only one of
them as the cause.
Example: the Argentinian team won the trophy because
their couch is paid a higher salary.
13. Slippery slope
1. Argument that can be paraphrased
o A leads to B
oB leads to C
o…
o… leads to Z
o Z is a catastrophe or an

absurdity
o So A must be rejected

2. No objectively good reason to predict such a chain

reaction
Cont.
 Example: Never buy a lottery ticket. People who buy
lottery tickets soon find that they want to gamble on
horses. Next, they develop a strong urge to go to Las
Vegas and bet their life savings in the casinos. The
addiction to gambling gradually ruins family life.
Eventually, they die homeless and lonely.
Why it is a fallacy?
 The slope is not as “slippery” as it is being
made out to be.
 One or more of the connecting if-then

premises are not true

Note that some slippery slops do exist. Not
fallacious if the movement from A to Z is
justifiable.
14. Weak Analogy
1. Makes a comparison b/n X and Y
2. The similarities are not relevant to the conclusion.
3. There are dissimilarities that are relevant to the
conclusion.
“Guns are like hammers—they’re both
tools with metal parts that could
be used to kill someone. And yet
it would be ridiculous to restrict
the purchase of hammers—
so restrictions on purchasing guns
are equally ridiculous.”
Cont.
 The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the
flow of water through a pipe. Obviously, a large-
diameter pipe will carry a grater flow of water than a
pipe of smaller-diameter. Therefore, a large diameter
wire should carry a greater flow of electricity than a
small-diameter wire.
 The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the
flow of water through a pipe. When water runs downhill
through a pipe, the pressure at the bottom of the hill is
greater than it is at the top. Thus, when electricity flows
downhill through a wire, the voltage should be greater at
the bottom of the hill than at the top.
3. Fallacies of presumption
 Where premises presume what is to be proved
 the premises presume what they purport to prove.
 “weak sequitur” means “it does not follow” in Latin.

But not all fallacies are non-sequiturs. Some are valid

(strong) but involve the use of unwarranted premises.
Involve the use of unjustified (unwarranted) premises.
15. Begging the question(petitio
principii)
Cont.
Example:
 Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it

follows that abortion is morally wrong.

Example: Of course humans and apes evolved from
common ancestors. Just look how similar they are
Cont.
 employing rhetorical phraseology such as
 ‘‘of course,’’
 ‘‘clearly,’’ ‘‘this being the case,’’ and
 ‘‘after all,’’
 The premises merely restate the conclusion using other

words.
Example: The belief in God is universal because
everyone beliefs in God.
Example
 It is a “circular argument” involves “circular
reasoning”.
 arguer starts and ends with the same basic claim
 Offers no independent reasons for the conclusion.

Ford Motor Company clearly produces the finest cars in

the US. We know they produce the finest cars b/c they
have the best design engineers. This is true b/c they can
afford to pay them more than other manufactures.
Obviously they can afford to pay them more b/c they
produce the finest cars in the US.
Cont.
Not fallacious
No illusion, the fallacy is not committed.
No dogs are cats.
Therefore, no cats are dogs.
London is in England and Paris is in France.
Therefore, Paris is in France and London is in England.
Complex Question
 occurs when a questioner attempts to trap a respondent
by asking a supposedly simple question which in fact
contains two distinct questions.
Example:
 Where did you hide the drugs you stole?
 What are the two questions (or statements) implicit in

this one question?

 (1) Where did you hide the drugs? (or You hid drugs.)
 (2) Did you steal drugs? (or You stole drugs.)

 In other words, the very question presumes the drugs

are stolen.
Cont.
1. A range of options is specified.
2. either:
oAll of the specified options are false; or
o there are, or at least might be, other options

I don’t know whether God’s

existence can be proven,
but I do know that each person
must be either a theist or an atheist.
And by your own admission, you re
no theist. Therefore, you must be an
atheist
Cont.
 Remember that a deductive argument may be fallacious
if a premise is false. In the case of the either/or fallacy,
a premise may set up a false dilemma—that is, a
premise may offer a choice between only two
alternatives when more exist.
 Either we allocate the requested amount for the

program or we do not fund the program at all.

NB. The premise ignores the fact that the program or
some aspects could be partially funded or that funding
could be phased in over a period of time.
17. Suppressed Evidence
1. The premises do provide some evidence to believe the
conclusion, but
2. there is another argument against the conclusion, w/c
3. is clearly better than this argument; and
4. the person should have realized it
Most dogs are friendly and pose
no threat to people who pet them.
Therefore, it would be safe to
pet the little dog that is approaching
us now.
Cont.
 Another way that an arguer can commit the SE fallacy
is by ignoring important events that have occurred with
the passage of time that render an inductive conclusion
improbable
Example: During the past sixty years, Poland has enjoyed
a rather low standard of living. Therefore,
Poland will probably have a low standard of
living for the next sixty years.
Cont.
 Example: The Second Amendment to the Constitution
states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns
would infringe the right to keep and bear arms .
Therefore, a law controlling handguns would be
unconstitutional.
 In fact, the Second Amendment reads, “A well

regulated militia being necessary to the security of a

free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.”
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form
of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion
(or both)
 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.
Types of ambiguity
 There are 3 types of ambiguity
- lexical ambiguity- occurs in a single word. Usually
occurs in words w/c have similar spelling but d/t
meaning. Race, bank, head, light, etc.- homographs.
- referential ambiguity- occurs when a phrase or word ,
in a particular context, could refer to two or more
properties or things in a sentence.
eg. The boy told his father about the theft case, and he
was very upset.
- syntactic (sentential) ambiguity- occurs when it is
clear what the individual words in a sentence mean,
but it is not clear what the whole sentence mean.
Equivocation
1. a word or phrase has more than one meaning.
2. one premise seems true if the word or phrase has the
first meaning.
3. another premise seems true if the word or phrase has
the other meaning.
4. the support for the conclusion depends on the word
meaning the same thing in both premises.
Example
 “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So
charities have a right to our money.”
 The equivocation here is on the word “right”.
19. Amphiboly
1. dependence on ambiguity that is due to sentence
structure.
2. occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that
is syntactically ambiguous and proceeds to draw a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
The ambiguity is amounted to:
 Missing comma
 Dangling modifier
 Ambiguous antecedent pronoun
 Any careless arrangement of words
Example
 Your Honor, the witness said he saw a photograph of
the defendant lying on the coffee table. Therefore, the
defendant must have lain on the coffee table at some
point.
 “Abebe gave to Belay his baseball glove” (ambiguous

antecedent pronoun)
 “Today we shall be discussing violence on TV.”

(dangling modifier)
 “He shot a tourist with a camera”
5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
 Arguments that commit these fallacies are
grammatically analogous to other arguments that are
good in every aspect. B/c of this similarity in linguistic
structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good
yet be bad.
 Compare the ff arguments:

Dogs are carnivorous

Afghan haunds are dogs
Therefore, A.h are carnivores
 This is a fairly good argument, but consider the ff

argument with the same grammatical structure but

flawed
Cont.
Dogs are frequently encountered in the streets
Afghan hounds are dogs
Therefore, A.h are frequently encountered in the streets
20. Composition
1. the premises say that each part of X has property P.
2. the conclusion is that X, as a whole, has property P.
3. property P is not a type of feature that is expected to
compose.
Example
 Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt,
are both deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly
poison
 Each cell in the human body is invisible. So, the human

body is invisible.
 Everyone will die someday. It follows that human

beings will die someday.

But the ff is legitimate transference of attributes from the
parts to the whole
 Each square inch of the car’s surface is red. It follows

that the whole car is red.

21. Division
 Division is a fallacy in w/c an inference is mistakenly
drawn from the attribute of the whole to the attributes
of the parts.

 The Royal Society is over 300 years old. Professor

Thompson is a member of the Royal Society.
Therefore, Professor Thompson is over 300 years old.
The End!
Thank You