Logical Reasoning

lesson 2:
By Bhumisuta Banerjee
Scholar, Philosophy
Sidho Kanho Birsha University, Purulia
cont. 7384739156

Todays topic:
• Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies
• An example:
• A feather is light
• What is light cannot be dark
• Therefore, feather cannot be dark
Here the meaning of light is misleading. Dual meaning of the word light has
been used. We have to understand the meaning in the cases of informal
fallacies.
Informal fallacy is a kind of fallacy where meaning of the statements play an
important role. One has to focus on the structural aspects for formal fallacies
whereas, on the meaning and figurative speech of the statements given to find
out the informal fallacies.
a. Fallacies of relevance:
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick/ force): The principle has asked you to pay penalty for
no reason so you have to pay even if there is no fault.
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to Pity): If he is imprisoned for life then no one will care his
small baby as he is only person in his family.
3. Argumentum ad Populum ( appeal to the people/ emotions): the cute girl should stand first,
because she is so cute.
b. Shifting attention away from the thesis under consideration:
1. Argumentum ad Hominem ( against the person): Raj inspires his students to speak truth, but his son lies.
2. Ignoratio Elenchi (missing the point/ irrelevant conclusion): R says should the calculator be allowed in
the exam hall?
P says, it should be allowed for this and that reasons.
c. Red Herring: {introducing irrelevant information to draw attention away from the thesis (to distract)}
If someone is scolding Raj then Raj diverts her by saying ‘see your phone is ringing it might be an important call’
d. Straw Man: (oversimplifying opponent’s claim in order to undermine or defeat.)
A said argument P,
B explained superficially argument Q falsely, as if an argument against Q were an argument against P.
e. Accident: (misapplication of a general rule to a particular case)
i. Cutting people with knife is crime
Surgeons cut people with knives
Therefore, surgeons are criminals
f. Fallacies of Sufficiency (insufficient)
1. Hasty Generalization: being in hurry, drawing a conclusion from insufficient samples.
i. All boys named Gopal are naughty, as one Gopal was naughty.
ii. When we see any question in exam hall and without reading properly mark a wrong answer.
2. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ( Eng.: after this, therefore because of this) (false cause):
i. R came out of the room, then the room was full of scattered papers.
R scattered the pages.
ii. A occurred , then B occurred, therefore A caused B
3. Slippery Slope: with insufficient evidences, predicting negative consequences. It shifts the focus away from
current problem and towards a hypothetical outcome.
i. if you allow gay marriage, the next thing we know, people will want to marry their dogs, cats.
• Weak Analogy: drawing results from cases that are not clear and insufficiently parallel.
i. Raj is like Shyam
Raj is good in Bengali
Therefore, Shyam is good in Bengali
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (appeal to authority, unqualified): using the wrong kind of
authority as witness, such as some famous person.
ii. The movie should hit as the hero is SRK
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) : asserting something based on the lack
of evidence against it. (lack of contrary evidence)
iii. There is no such evidence that UFOs didn’t visit the Earth, therefore there is UFO, there exist intelligent lives
elsewhere in the universe.
Petitio Principi / Begging the question/ argument by assertion/ fallacy of wrong assertion/
circular fallacy/ ad lapidem: assuming something as a premise, which itself needs to be established./
Repeating the same thing again and again./ Any statement where premises assume the inference. /Begging the
question is a form of circular reasoning.
iv. Claim x assumes that x is true, therefore claim x is true.
• Complex question: posing two question as one. Hiding another question in a question. This is called a
complex question. Answerability is difficult.
i. Have you stopped cheating in exam?
False Dichotomy( black and white): to assert an exclusive disjunction when more alternatives are possible
options but they are ignored.
ii. You are either a cycler or a biker.
Suppressed Evidence: willingly leaving out evidence that would weaken one’s conclusion.
Fallacies of clarity/ ambiguity:
a. Equivocation: when the middle term means differently in the given premises.
i. Noisy children are extreme headache/ painkiller would lessen the headache/ therefore painkiller would make
noisy children go away.
b. Amphiboly: drawing a conclusion from a grammatical variation/ error or ambiguity.
c. Division: what is true for the whole must be true for the part.
ii. Mobile is expensive and worthy, so every spare parts of a mobile is expensive and worthy.
d. Natural Fallacy: mixing up what is natural with what is desirable or good.
i. Lion eats meat, so vegetarians must be wrong.
• E. A non Sequitur: conclusion or reply that doesn’t follow logically from the
previous statement.
i. The weather is smoky, the train is late/ the train is late / therefore the
weather is smoky
f. Appeal to probability ( appeal to possibility): thinking probability will become
reality.
ii. Something can go wrong/ therefore something will go wrong.
g. Fallacy of Contradictory Reason/ internal contradiction/ inconsistency/ logical
inconsistency: two or more propositions are given but none of them are valid.
iii. The hill is no longer visited because it is too crowded.
iv. I never did most of the things I just did.
H. Trivial reason: reason is related but of very less value or importance.
v. Sound is permanent because it is audible.
I. The Genetic Fallacy/ origin’s fallacy/ virtue fallacy: it is focused on purely history, origins instead of it’s
current meaning or context.
i. Because my parents told me God exists, I believe that it does.
J. The false balance fallacy: it is based on the fallacy of treating the both sides equally as the most fair and
least biased method to convey a contentious narrative.