CHAPTER FIVE

5. INFORMAL FALLACIES
 Brainstorming Questions
What is fallacy in human reasoning process?
What are the causes of fallacies in arguments?
What is Formal and Informal fallacies in argument?
What and how Formal fallacies are committed?
What and how Informal fallacies are committed?
Can we argue fallacy free argument in reasoning? If ‘Yes’
How and If ‘No’ why?
 What is Fallacy in argument?
 A fallacy is logically invalid reasoning in all forms of human communication. It
is generally defined as a deficiency or logical problem that occurs in an argument
for various reasons and this involves;

1. Fallacious Arguments; an argument that contain one or more non-factual

errors in their form.

2. Fallacious Reasoning; using erroneous thinking in evaluating or creating

an argument, claim, proposition or belief.

3. Fallacious Tactics; deliberately trying to get your opponent or audience to

use fallacious reasoning in accepting the truth claims of your argument.
 Moreover, the term ‘fallacy’ in ordinary language is often used broadly to imply
a mistaken or false belief. And a fallacy, according to logician usage, is defined as
a mistake in reasoning or an error in reasoning
 How Fallacy committed in argument?

 Fallacies can be committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception,

unintentionally due to human limitations such as carelessness, ,,,
 It can be committed in different ways either a mistake in reasoning or the
creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.
 In general, fallacy is a violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria, thus,
fallacy is committed due to violation of criteria of principles of good argument.
This is, therefore, the causes of fallacies, among others, includes;

◦ the failure to provide relevant premises for the conclusion;

◦ the failure to provide premises that provide good support of the conclusion;

◦ the failure to address the most important or relevant aspects of the issues.
 Both types of arguments – deductive and inductive arguments – may commit
fallacies.
 Types of Fallacies
 Depending on the kind of the problems or defects they contain fallacies are
divided into two groups: Formal and informal fallacies.,.

 Formal Fallacy:
► Formal fallacies are those fallacies that arise from an error or a mistake in
the form of an argument.
► This kinds of fallacies are committed due to a structural defect that
identified through inspection of the form or structure of argument.
► They are mistakes or errors arise from carelessness with respect to the
clarity and consistency of one’s language in deductive arguments
► Different syllogistic arguments, such as categorical syllogism, disjunctive
syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism commit formal fallacies.

5
 Example;
 All lions are animals.
 All birds are animals.
 Therefore, all lions are birds.

This argument has the following form representing “lions”, “animals” and
“birds” by A, B, and C respectively:
o All A are B
o All C are B
o Therefore, all A are C.

Through the study or examination of this form, one can easily

understand that the above argument has an invalid form. This
is because of the fact that the validity or invalidity of an
argument depends up on its form

6
 Informal Fallacies
 What is Informal Fallacies?
 Informal fallacies are logical errors or mistakes committed due to a defect
identified through a detail analysis of the content of an argument.
 Informal fallacies are defects found in the content of the argument, which
could be inductive or deductive argument
 Unlike formal fallacies, informal fallacies seems valid which comes from
the rhetoric and psychological aspect that the arguer intentionally or
unintentionally brings in his argument.
 All informal fallacies try to make a bad argument appear good by a certain
intention by the individual who presents or provides an argument.

7
Example:
 Informal fallacies;
 All factories are plants.
 All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
 Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

 An analysis of the content- that is, the meaning of the words- reveals the source
of fallacy. The word ‘‘plants’’ is used in two different senses.
 In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured, and
in the second it means a life form.

8
 Types of Informal Fallacies
 There are many types of informal fallacies and since the time of Aristotle,
logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies.
 Generally, there are five groups of informal fallacies. This includes:

A) Fallacies of Relevance

B) Fallacies of Weak induction

C) Fallacies of Presumption

D) Fallacies of Ambiguity

E) Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy.

A. Fallacies of Relevance
▬ What Fallacies of Relevance is committed?
◦ Fallacies of Relevance are those fallacies that fail to provide relevant and
acceptable premises to their conclusion.

◦ These fallacies are committed when an argument provide premises that are
logically irrelevant to their conclusions.

◦ Thus, fallacies of Relevance is committed where the argument premises are

not logically relevant to the conclusion.

◦ It is types of fallacy caused when an argument fail to provide relevant and

acceptable premises to their conclusion.

◦ This fallacies are classified as fallacies involving irrelevant premises and

there are (8) eight informal fallacies which are considered as instances of this
general class fallacy -Fallacies of Relevance.

10
1. Appeal to Force fallacy
◦ Generally, appeal to force fallacy provides a prudential reason to believe or accept
one’s claim without providing evidences that are logically reliable.

◦ When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in

attempt to justify a conclusion.

◦ The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological
well-being of the listener or reader. In such cases, the arguer uses threat instead of
evidence to force the listener to accept the conclusion

◦ Argument Form: If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.

Example:
1. Student to Teacher: I deserve an A grade for this course. You should know
that my father is a good friend of College Principal.
2. Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise 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’s been going on between you and female client. 11
2. Appeal to Pity fallacy

 In the premises of the appeal to pity fallacy the arguer presents different
problems to win the help of his readers or listeners.
 In this fallacy, therefore, the feelings of pity and sympathy are substituted for
evidence and this fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a
conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener.

Example:

Taxpayer to judge:
 Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on my
tax return, even though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax
evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I’ll probably lose my job, my poor
wife will not be able to have the operation that she desperately needs, and
my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.

12
3. Appeal to the People

 Fallacy of appeal to the people is occur when the arguer tries to

convince the reader or listeners about a certain issue on the
ground that most people approve it or most people have
favorable emotions towards the issue being in question.
 Appeal to people fallacy is common and can be quite an effective
persuasive device particularly in different political speeches, demagogues,
preachers, advertisement and so forth.
 Argument Form:

 Everybody is doing X. Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.

There are three varieties of indirect approach ad populum fallacy. These

are Appeal to Bandwagon, Appeal to Vanity and Appeal to Snobbery.

13
3. Appeal to the People

 Bandwagon fallacy:
The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one’s peers or
peer pressure is substituted for evidence in an ‘argument’.

This kind of reasoning is “fallacious” because peer pressure and threat of

rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim.

It is related cognitive bias that demonstrates people tend to believe and do

things because many other people do as well.

Example.
 Of course you want to buy Zing toothpaste. Why, 90 percent of America
brushes with Zing

14
II. Appeal to Vanity
 Appeal to Vanity, in different advertisements, often associates the product with
certain celebrity who is admired and pursued; and if others use the product they will
be admired and pursued because they bought a product which is used by celebrities.

Example.
 Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe used by the famous
Muhammed Salah.

III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy:

 The fallacy of appeal to snobbery is occurred when an arguer associates a product
with a selected few persons that have an exaggerated social respect for social
position, wealth and some other qualities.

Example:
 Look at the mark of this cell phone – it is Apple is not for everyone. Buy Apple
and join the select few.
15
4. Argument Against the Person

 The arguer attacks his/her opponent’s character instead of his/her argument.

Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself,
when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the
person is making.
 The reason why argument against the person is fallacious is that the character,
circumstances or actions of a person don’t have a bearing on the truth or
falsity of the claim being made.
 This fallacy occurs in three different forms. These forms include:

 Ad Hominem Abusive

 Ad Hominem Circumstantial

 Ad Hominem Tu Quoque ( ‘You Too’ fallacy)

16
I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy

 Ad hominem abusive is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks

for evidence while attacking or responding to the argument. This fallacy is
occurred when the second person, the person who responds to a claim,
verbally abuses the first arguer instead of attacking the argument.

Example:
 Poet Wole Soyinka has argued in favor of abolishing censorship of
pornographic literature. But Wole Soyinka’s argument is nothing but
trash, Soyinka, you know, is a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a
thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture.

17
II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

 Verbally abuse your opponent based on her background.

 Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased, or
predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is
necessarily invalid.

◦ E.g: His words should not be taken because he is gay.

III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy:

 This fallacy occurred when the second arguer usually accomplishes this by
citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the
latter’s conclusion

Example:
 Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking
cigarette because you yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit
18
smoking while you yourself is smoking?
5. Fallacy of accident
◦ The fallacy of Accident is occurred when a general rule is mistakenly applied
to a specific case, a case the rule cannot cover.

◦ The general rule is implied in the premises and this general rule is erroneously
or wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion

Logical Form:
 X is a common and accepted rule.

 Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.

Example:
1) Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken sailor, who is
fighting with his opponents at the pool table, lent you his pistol, and now he wants
it back. Therefore, you should return to him now.
2) People have the right to express their political opinion. A judge is therefore
justified in using the court room to express his own political opinion.
19
6. Straw Man Fallacy
 The straw man fallacy is committed when an individual simply ignores the arguer’s
actual position and substitutes a distorted, or misrepresented version of the
argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it.
 This kind of “reasoning “has the fallowing pattern:
◦ Person ‘A’ provides a certain argument-X.

◦ Person ‘B’ presents position ‘Y’, which is a distorted version of argument-X.

◦ Person ‘B’ attacks position ‘Y’.

◦ Therefore, argument X is incorrect or flawed. .

 Example:
◦ Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the country and thus it
should be replaced by geographical federalism. But we should not accept his proposal.
He just wants to take the country back to the previous regime. Geographical federalism
was the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical regime. We do not want to
20
go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr. Belay’s proposal.
Straw Man Fallacy
 When one side argues, "Some X are Y," this view can easily be distorted
as "All X are Y." Example:

A: Smoking is bad to your health. One of ten deaths is caused by diseases

related to smoking.

B: That cannot be true. My grandfather has smoked since he was sixteen, and
he is still very healthy.
 When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should keep in mind two things.
First, they have to try to identify the original argument, which is misrepresented
by the critic. Second, they should look for what gone wrong in the
misrepresentation of the argument.

21
7. Fallacy of missing the point
(ignoratio elenchi)
 This happens when the premises of an argument lead, or seem to lead, to one

conclusion and then a completely different conclusion is drawn.

 It occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but

then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is

drawn. The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises

and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely.

 Example:

1) Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately.
The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate the death penalty immediately.

2) Our university has lots of problems. Student services and facilities are
inadequate. Also, there is no sufficient human resources the intake capacity of
the university is high and learners have no access to get learning resources.
So, to overcome these problems the university should be closed. 22
Fallacy of missing the point
 Generally, the fallacy of missing the point is called Ignoratio Elenchii.

Ignoratio Elenchii means “ignorance of the proof.” That means the

arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises

and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely.

Example;

 Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our only alternative

is to abolish the system altogether.

o In this argument the premises logically suggest some systematic effort

to eliminate the cheaters rather than eliminating the system altogether.

23
8. Red Herring Fallacy
 A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to
divert attention from the original issue in question. The basic idea is to win an
argument by leading attention a way from the argument to another topic or subject.
 This fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or
listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. To
use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject
of the argument without the reader or listener noticing it.

Example:
◦ Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of nuclear power.
Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year
hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are
caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would just exercise greater
caution.
24
Straw Man & Red Herring fallacy

 The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy because both
have the effect of drawing the reader/listener off the track.
 In the straw man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent’s argument and
concludes by knocking down the distorted argument.
 In the red herring, on the other hand, the arguer ignores the opponent’s argument
and subtly changes the subject.

► Straw Man: Arguer has distorted the opponent's argument.

► Red Herring: Arguer simply diverts to a new subject.

 Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies, one should attempt to determine whether
the arguer has knocked down a distorted argument or simply changed the
subject.
25
2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
▬Fallacies
of Weak-Induction:
Causes and Types of fallacy?
What do we mean by ‘Fallacies of weak induction?

What is the causes of fallacies of weak induction?

Which fallacies can be considered as instances of fallacies of weak

induction?
Which types of argument is highly affected by the fallacies of weak
induction?

26
 How Fallacy of Weak Induction is committed?
◦ Fallacies of weak induction are typically an instance of inductive arguments
that based on prediction, sign, analogy, generalization, authority and causal
inference forms of argumentation.

◦ Fallacies of weak induction is committed, when the arguer made a mistakes

or errors in these form of argumentation.

◦ The fallacy of weak induction violates the principles of sufficiency,

whenever a person who argue for or against a position, fail to provide relevant
and sufficient reasons to justify the acceptance of the conclusion.

◦ Thus, fallacy of Weak Induction is committed when the connection between

premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

27
 Typologies of Weak Induction Fallacy

 An inductive argument forms commit fallacies of weak induction if the arguer

intentionally or unintentionally makes error or mistake in his or her arguments.
 There are different kinds of fallacies of weak induction and the following are the
most important ones:

1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority,

2) Hasty Generalization,

3) False Cause,

4) Weak Analogy,

5) Slippery Slope, and

6) Appeal to Ignorance.

28
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority

The fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority is committed when;

 Unqualified persons or not legitimate authority on the subject or the issue

he or she is arguing about or cited authority or witness lacks credibility.

 An unqualified individuals to make a reliable claim on certain subject by

not a legitimate authority in a particular context or subject.

 To identify whether a certain passage commits the fallacy of unqualified

authority we have to look at the following important points:

a) The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

b) The claim being made by the arguer is within his or her areas of expertise.

c) Degree of agreement among the other expertise on the subject in question.

d) The person in question is not significantly biased

29
Example:
o Meron and Chaltu are arguing about the morality of abortion:

Meron: “I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should

have a right to her own body.”

Chaltu: “I disagree completely. Dr. Temasgen says that abortion is always morally

wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected

expert in his field.”

Meron: “I have never heared of Dr. Temasgen. Who is he?”

Chaltu: “He is the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on

Astrophysics.”

Meron: “I see; does he have any expertise in morality or Ethics?”

Chaltu: “I do not know. But he is a world famous expert, so, I believe him.”

30
2. Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy

 When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way
or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion
about that thing, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance.
 This fallacy is committed either by arguing that something is true because no one
has proved it to be false or by arguing that something is false because no one has
proved it to be true.
 Logical Form: X is true, because you cannot prove that X is false. X is false,
because you cannot prove that X is true.

 Example:
◦ People have been trying for centuries to prove the existence of God. But no
one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.

◦ Noting is known with certainty about the existence of devil. Therefore, devil
does not exist. 31
 Exception to appeal to ignorance fallacy
 However, this is not always necessary, that the investigators have special
qualifications and the kinds of qualifications needed depend on the situation.
 For instance, there is an exception relates to courtroom procedure when a
person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the court.
 In formal courtroom if the prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of
the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defense may justifiably
argue that his or her client is not guilty.

Example:
◦ Members of the jury, you have heard the prosecution present its case against the
defendant. Nothing, however, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, under the law, the defendant is not guilty.
 This argument commits no fallacy because “not guilty” means, in the legal
sense, that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has not been proved.
32
3. Hasty Generalization
 Hasty generalization fallacy is committed when an argument proceeds from
the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
 It is occurred in ones argument when the arguer draws a conclusion about the
whole class based on a sample which is not enough or adequate to represent
the whole. Thus, this fallacy is committed when a sample taken are not
sufficient to support a general conclusion.

 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.

 Examples:

 Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to young people found out that,
among 10 young interviewed, none of them read a book for the last 2
years. The conclusion is obvious: all young people in the country do not
have the culture of reading books. 33
 Exception to Hasty generalization
fallacy
 However, the mere fact that a sample is small, does not necessarily mean
that it is atypical and various factors may intervene that render such a
sample typical of the larger group.
 Examples:

 Ten milligrams 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 mice in general.
 In the above argument the fact that the mice died in only two minutes
suggests the existence of a causal connection between eating substance Z
and death. If there is such a connection, it would hold for other mice as
well.

34
4. False Cause Fallacy
◦ This fallacy is occurred when the link between premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection depends on the assumption of
a non-existent or minor causal connection.
 Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the
reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the
supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all.
 There are three varieties of false cause fallacy:

 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, None Causa Pro causa Fallacy, and
Oversimplified Cause Fallacy.

35
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore on account of this)
 This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another
simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.
 In other words, this fallacy is committed when an arguer concludes that ‘A’
causes or caused ‘B’ simply because ‘A’ occurs before ‘B’ This way of
reasoning has the following form:

1. ‘A’ occurs before ‘B’. 2. Therefore ‘A’ is the cause of B

o Example:

 I do not want to let that black dog to cross my way. Once I let one block dog
cross my way and after a few minute my uncle died by a car accident.

36
B. Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy
 This fallacy is committed when the arguer considers something as the cause of an
effect when in reality it is not; and on the other hand when a kind of confusion
occurs between the cause and effect of a certain event.
 Example:

 Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $100,000.Therefore,

the best way to ensure that Soressa will become a successful executive is to raise his
salary to at least $100,000..

C. Oversimplified Cause fallacy

This variety 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.
o Example:

 The quality of education in this school has been declining for years. Clearly our
teachers just are not doing their job these days..
37
5. Fallacy of slippery slope
◦ This fallacy is occurred when a person asserts that some event must inevitably
follow from another without providing any reason for the event in question.

◦ In other words, this fallacy is committed when a certain argument rests on

chains of events and the arguer fails to provide sufficient reason why this
chain of events occurred.
Logical Form: If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!

 Example.

 Against cultural, social and norms of Ethiopia, Chinese are started

donkey slaughter in Bishoftu. But this should be prohibited
immediately. If they continuously slaughter donkey, then Ethiopian
who works in the abattoir will start to eat donkey meat. Then members
of family these workers will eat donkey meat. This gradually leads
their neighbors and the village. Finally, the whole country will follow
which in turn leads to the total collapse of Ethiopian food culture. 38
6. Fallacy of Weak Analogy
◦ This fallacy is occurred when analogy between two or more objects or
situations in which the conclusion depends on the existence of week analogy.
 Or when the two things that are being compared are not really similar in the
relevant respects or where one case is held to be similar to another case in a
particular respect.

◦ In other words, this fallacy is occurred when the analogy between things that
are being compared is not strong enough to support the arguer’s conclusion.
This fallacy has the following form:
 Entity A has attributes A, B, C, D, and Z.

 Entity B has attributes A, B, C, and D.

 Therefore, entity B probably has attribute Z too.

39
 Weak Analogy ;;;;;;
Example
1) If a car breaks down on the highway, a passing mechanic is not obligated
to render emergency road service. By the same token, if a person suffers
a heart attack on the street, a passing physician is not obligated to render
emergency medical assistance.

2) Guns are like hammers – they are both tools with metal parts that could
be used to kill someone. And it would be ridiculous to restrict the
purchase of hammers – so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally
ridiculous.

◦ These arguments commit the fallacy of weak analogy while guns and
hammers do share certain features, in the first argument; these features
are not significant in deciding whether to restrict guns.
40
3. Fallacies of Presumption
 What is the cause for the fallacy of presumption?
 The fallacies of presumption occurred when the arguer provides an argument that
have premises try to presume (guess) what it purport to prove.
 This fallacy usually contain tricky and confusing phraseologies for the purpose of
concealing or hiding the wrong ideas stated in the premise.
 Even though the ideas stated in the premises are not supported by logical evidence
or proof, the arguer invites readers or listeners to accept his or her argument as it if
does not need proof or evidence.
 There are four types of fallacies that are considered as fallacies of presumption.
 Begging the question;

 Complex or loaded question;

 False dichotomy and

41
 Suppressed evidence.
1. Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning
• This fallacy is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion
(misconception) that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the
conclusion by leaving out a possibly true key premise,
• It is sometimes called circular reasoning because the argument relies on a
premise that says the something as the conclusion.
• And this fallacy is occurred when the arguer ignores an important idea or
assumption, which is questionable, that he/she already rises in the premises

Logical Form: Claim X assumes X is true. Therefore, claim X is true.

o Examples:
• Humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how similar
they are.

42
2. Complex Question
 This fallacy is committed when two (more) questions are asked in the
guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both and
when the respondent’s answer is added to the complex question, an
argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition.
 Example:
o Where did you hide the money you stole? You were asked where you hide
the money you stole. If you replied “in my bag”. It follows that you did in
fact steal the money.
o You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. If You said
“Yes.” Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.
o Clearly, the above question is really two questions: Did you steal the
money? If you did steal it, where did you hide it?
43
3.False Dichotomy
 This fallacy is committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”) premise
presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the
arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative.
 A false dichotomy is committed when the arguer presents a pair of alternatives as
if they are a pair of dichotomy. This fallacy is often committed by children when
arguing with their parents by advertisers, and by adults generally.
 The reasoning has the following form:
 Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).

 Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true..

o Examples:

◦ 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.
44
o In general, fallacies of presumption are committed not because argument
premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for
believing the argument conclusion, rather due to the premises presume (guess)
what they purport to prove.
o Begging the question presumes that the premises provide adequate support for
the conclusion when in fact they do not, and
o Complex question presumes that a question can be answered by a simple
“yes,” “no,” or other brief answer when a more sophisticated answer is
needed.
o False dichotomy presumes that an “either . . . or . . .” statement presents
jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not, and suppressed
evidence presumes that no important evidence has been overlooked by the
premises when in fact it has

45
4.Suppressed Evidence
 This fallacy is committed a person who presents an argument intentionally
or unintentionally ignore or hides significant evidence.
 Therefore this fallacy is occurred when the arguer fails to support his/her
position and emphasizes on other reasons that are not as such important to
the conclusion of the argument.
 Example:

◦ 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. Forth there is a port that helps us to export our
product. Thus we have to consider investing in Somalia.

◦ If the arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in Somalia
then the argument commits a suppressed evidence fallacy.
46
4. Linguistic Fallacy
▬ How and why Linguistic Fallacy is committed?
◦ Linguistic fallacies are occurred because of the incorrect or wrong language
usage. Among others, wrong use of words, incorrect construction of
grammars; lack of appropriate clarity, vague and ambiguous expressions,
and other language problems are considered as the causes of fallacies that are
occurred in language usage.

◦ There are two groups of fallacies that are occurred in different languages.
These are:

1. Fallacies of Ambiguity and

2. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

47
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 How is the fallacy of ambiguity occurring in language?
◦ These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either
the premises or the conclusion of an argument.

◦ When conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or

phrase or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

◦ Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other

arguments that are good in every respect. An expression is ambiguous if it is
susceptible to different interpretations in a given context.
o There are two types of fallacies of Ambiguity. These are the fallacy of

A. Equivocation and

B. Amphiboly.

48
A. Equivocation Fallacy
 Equivocation fallacy is occurred when the arguer in his or her argument equivocally
used two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that in the
argument.
 And such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case
they are unsound.

Example 1:

1. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is
a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative
authority.
2. Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our
money.

◦ This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, because the arguer equivocally
used the word “right” in two different senses. On the one hand, this word is used in
49
the premise with the meaning “something that is correct or good”.
B. Amphiboly Fallacy
 The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous

statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.

 The fallacy of amphiboly, is created when the arguer intentionally or

unintentionally provides an argument which involves an ambiguous

grammatical construction that can be understood in two ways.

 Example:
◦ Our engineering school teaches us how to build a house in three years.
◦ We can interpret this argument in two ways. On the one hand it has a
meaning that says “our school teaches us how to build a house in three years
teaching period” or on the other hand, it has a meaning that says “our
school teaches us how to build a house with in three years construction
period”.
50
2. Grammatical Analogy

 The fallacies of grammatical analogy are those fallacies that are caused by
the wrong association of the attributes of the parts of some thing onto
the whole entity.
 Thus, these fallacies are caused by the erroneous association of the
attributes of the whole entity of something on to its parts.

◦ Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to

other arguments that are good in every respect.

◦ They usually involve a wrong transference of a characteristic from parts

to whole or vice versa.

◦ There are two fallacies that are considered as the fallacies of grammatical
Analogy. These includes:
 Composition fallacy and
51
1. Composition Fallacy
◦ It is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto
the whole.

◦ This fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a
certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute, too, and the
situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately
transferred from parts to whole
 Example:
 Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is
invisible.

 Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both

deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
52
 ◦ However, don’t confuse it with hasty generalization in which the conclusion is
not an assertion about a group taken as a whole (collective predication).

◦ Rather, it is an assertion about all the members of a group (distributive

predication).

 I.e.:
◦ Hasty Generalization proceeds from the specific to the general.

◦ Composition proceeds from every member to the whole class.

53
 Division Fallacy
 The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous

transference of an attribute from a whole to its parts (members). This fallacy is occurred

because of the wrong or erroneous transference or association of the attributes of the

whole onto its parts.

 This fallacy is committed when the arguer infers that what is true of a whole must also be

true of its constituents, without providing any justification for the inference.

 Argument form: Because the whole X has the property P, each member or a member of X

also has the property P.

Examples:

 Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and

chlorine, are non-poisonous.

 These arguments obviously commit the fallacy of division because the arguer, in both

arguments, mistakenly associates the attributes of the whole onto their parts. 54
 ◦ Again don’t confuse with fallacy of accident in which the inference is from a
general assertion (distributive predication) to a specific assertion.

◦ In the fallacy of division the inference is from an assertion about a group

taken as a whole (collective predication) to an assertion about the members of
the group.

 I.e.:
◦ Accident proceeds from the general to specific.

◦ Division proceeds from the whole class to every member.

55