CHAPTER FIVE

Logical
Reasoning
&
Fallacies
 QUESTIONS

What does it mean by

fallacies?

When fallacies in
argument can occur?
3.1. The Meaning of ‘Fallacy’
 In ordinary language usage, the term ‘fallacy’ refers
to a mistaken or false belief.
 However, from the logician point of view, the term
fallacy refers to a defect(imperfection)in an
argument.
 Generally, fallacies can be committed b/c of
 Logical error (error in reasoning) or
 The creation of some illusion that makes a bad
argument.
 If deductive arguments are unsound or if inductive
arguments are uncogent, then they contain fallacies.
 This is because such kinds of arguments have one or
more false premises or they contain a fallacy (or both).
 CAUSES OF FALLACIES
 Causes of fallacies, among others, include: The failure
 to provide genuine evidences or premises for the conclusion;
 to provide good support of the premises and conclusion;
 to address the most important or relevant aspects of the
issue the arguer
The Classifications of Fallacies
 Fallacies are usually divided into formal and informal.
 Formal fallacies are those fallacies that arise from an error or
mistake in the form or structure of an argument and they are
found only in deductive arguments such as in categorical
syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical
syllogisms.
 The following categorical syllogism contains a formal
fallacy:
 All tigers are animals.
 All mammals are animals.
 Therefore, all tigers are mammals
 The above argument has the following form: Letter A,
B, and C represents “tigers”, “animals”, and
“mammals” ,respectively.
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.
 This argument is invalid, because the conclusion does
not follow from the premises and the conclusion proves
false for there is no any A which is also found in C.
Informal fallacies are fallacies that can be
detected only through analysis of content
of the argument.
Informal fallacies are logical errors in the
content of the argument but not in the
structure or form of the argument.
Example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain
chlorophyll.
 This argument has the following form: Letter A,
B, and C represents “factories”, “plants” and
“chlorophyll”, respectively.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, All A are C.
 Since this form is valid, one might conclude that
the argument itself is valid.
But the argument is invalid since it
has true premises and false conclusion
 The word “plant” 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.
 Hence, the argument has the following invalid form:
(Remember that, two letters are used to indicate the
different meaning of the word ‘plant’).
All A are B.
All C are D.
Therefore, All A are D.
 Therefore, the effect of an informal fallacy is to make a
bad argument appear good.
MAJOR CAUSES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES
 when the premise becomes irrelevant to the conclusion(but
the arguer presents it as if the premise is relevant to the
conclusion) see fallacies of relevance;
 when the premise becomes unacceptable to the claims of the
conclusion (the arguer however states the premise as if it is
correct) see fallacies presumption;
 when the premise becomes insufficient to provide evidences
to the conclusion(instead the arguer states the premise having
adequate evidence to the conclusion) see fallacies of weak
induction; and,
 when the premise is expressed by unclear language (the
arguer state the idea with the assumption that there is no
problem of linguistic confusion) see fallacies of ambiguity
and grammatical analogy.
 TYPES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES
 We shall consider just 22 different types of informal
fallacies that are classified under five major
classifications of informal fallacies. This includes:
fallacies of relevance, -irrelvance
fallacies of weak induction,= incefficient
fallacies of presumption =un aceptble
fallacies of ambiguity=unclear language
fallacies of grammatical analogy.linguistic confusion
 1. Fallacies of Relevance
 They are fallacies that fail to provide relevant and
acceptable premises to their conclusion.
 They are arguments that provide irrelevant premises to the
conclusion.
 When premises are irrelevant logically and the connection
between premises and conclusion is emotional or not logical.
 Fallacies of Relevance contains eight different types of
informal fallacies. Namely,
 appeal to force,
 appeal to pity,
 appeal to people,
 argument against the person,
 straw man,
 red- herring,
 accident, and
 missing the point.
a. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum:Appeal to
the Stick)
an appeal to force fallacy occurs whenever
one irrelevantly appeals to force or threat
of force to win an argument.
This fallacy always involves a threat by the
arguer to either physically or
psychologically the wellbeing of the
listener or reader,
Obviously, such a threat is logically
irrelevant to the subject matter of the
conclusion.
 Premises of an argument are full of threat, intimidation,
scary words, etc.
 Thus, in this fallacy attempt is made to persuade others
of one’s point of view by using threat of force, or
psychological intimidation in any form,
 Indicating that some kind of unfortunate consequence
will occur upon those who challenge to disagree with the
idea presented in the argument.
Examples:
 ‘‘Meet ETV’’ is the best show on ETV; and if you do
not believe it, I am going to call my big brother over
here and he is going to beat you up.
 Father to son “ my boy you must study hard if
not you will be either a criminal or a beggar”
An angry husband “ tell me what is going on
between you and my wife before I blow your
head by this gun”
b. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
Misericordium)
 It occurs when an arguer attempts to support
a conclusion by simply evoking pity from
the reader or listener in an effort to get him
or her to accept the conclusion.
The pity does not have any logical
connection or relevance to the conclusion.
Examples:
A student to his instructor: Professor, this paper
deserves at least a ‘B’ grade. I stayed up all the night
working on it. And if I do not get “B”, I will be on
academic probation.
 But evidences are not logically relevant to the
conclusion. so the argument is fallacious
Your honor, it is true that I killed my parents. I fully
admit that I murdered them emotionally. But I
should get a light sentence. After all, I am an
orphan.
c. Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 It occurs when the arguer attempts to
persuade the reader or listener about a
certain issue on the ground that most
people approve it or disapprove the issue
being in question.
 Appeal to Bandwagon -majority choice is a correct one
 Appeal to Vanity= associates the product with certain celebrities
 Appeal to Snobbery-desire to be regarded as superior to others.
A. Appeal to Bandwagon
 It emphasizes that the majority choice is a correct one
 It is fallacious because peer pressure urges the acceptance of a
claim on the ground of the approval of friends or associates.
Examples:
 Chewing chat can not be all wrong because 70% of Werabe
university students see nothing wrong with it.
 A film is good because there are long lines of people waiting
to see it.
 They tell us nothing more than what large number of people
does or believes and about the quality of a thing or the truth of
the idea.
 The idea can be believed by everyone and yet not be true. So, it
is fallacious.
 loyalty to a group and the need to belong can give people very
strong reasons to agree to the views and positions of those
groups
B. Appeal to Vanity
 It associates the product with certain celebrities such
as artists, athletes, footballers, respected leaders, etc.
and informs the audiences that if you buy and use the
item you also will be admired.
Examples:
 “Who is going to wear this new fashion T-shirt used by the
famous artist Gosaye for the new Ethiopian
Millennium?”
 “Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe used
by the famous Haile G/ Sellassie in the London
Marathon.”
 In the above examples T- shirt and shoe are associated
with the famous persons Gosaye and Haile and if others
managed to buy these products they will be admired
C. Appeal to Snobbery
 It is an appeal to the desire to be regarded as superior to
others.
 Refers persons with high social position such as royal
families( king, queens, and princes)
 It occurs when an arguer associates a product with a
selected few persons (distinguished person) that have an
exaggerated social position, health and some other
qualities.
Examples:
 This is not for ordinary people. If you want to be from among the
selected few dignitaries buy the shoe.
 Look at the mark of this cell phone-it is Nokia and Nokia is not
for everyone. Buy Nokia and join the selected few.
 First of all, did you see the mark of the shoe-its Clark? You
should know that Clark is not for the ordinary citizens buy Clark
and join with the dignitaries.
D. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
 This fallacy always involves two arguers.
 One can commit this fallacy if someone refuses to consider his or
her opponent’s argument on its merit alone, and instead attacks
his or her opponent on the ground of his belief, motive, religion,
character, practice.
 The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the
 ad hominem abusive, the
 ad hominem circumstantial, and
 the (You Too) tu quoque .

 Ad hominem abusive
Direct attack by mentioning individual personality
 Here the second person responds to the first person’s
argument by verbally abusing the first person and
discredits the character of the opponent; deny his or her
intelligence or reasonableness.
 The person can be abused for being ugly, smoker,
gambler, and conservative.
 But the character of the individual is logically
irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that
person says, or to the correctness or incorrectness
of that person’s reasoning.
Examples:
How a miserable person can tell us about charity.
Hence, let us stop discussing about these issue raised
by Tamirat.
 These arguments commit the fallacy ad hominem
abusive because they are directed to attack or abuse
the person who made the claim instead of attacking
the claim or argument itself.
 Ad hominem circumstantial
 Instead of focusing on verbal abuse on his or her
opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the
opponent’s argument by mentioning to certain
circumstances that affect the opponent.
 It involves substituting an attack on person’s
circumstances such as the person’s religion, political
affiliation, ethnic background, position, etc for evidences
in an argument.
 It has the form “of course Mr. X argues this way; just look
at the circumstance that affects him.”
 Examples:
 Dr. Tewodros advocates a policy of increasing financial
spending for higher education. But that is not innocent
advocacy, for the reason that he is a college professor and would
benefit financially from such a policy.
 Tu quoque (‘‘you too’’): it is pronounced as “too
kwo_kway”
 “You also or you do it, too” implies that person’s
action are not consistent (contradicts) with that for
which he or she is arguing.
 The person who attempts to oppose or criticize
others cites the mistakes committed by a person
sometime before he or she forwarded the
argument.
Examples:
 Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop
stealing candy from the corner store. You told me
yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole candy
when you were a kid.
 Doctor, I see abnormalities in your breathing and
heartbeat. So you must stop taking tobacco. Ok?
patient, what do you mean doctor? I have seen you by
my own necked eyes the other day that you too were
smoking. So your advice is not correct.
 This is committed when one of the arguers (the
second arguer) rejects the other arguer (the first
arguer) opinion by attacking or abusing him or
herself (their personality, character, motives, and
qualification) other than their argument.
5. Fallacy of Accident
 It is committed when a general rule is applied to a
specific case that was not intended to cover. In this
fallacy, the general truth, law or principle is either
applied to particular instance whose circumstance by
accident or to a situation to which it cannot be applied.
 The general rule is cited in the premises and then
wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion. Because of the “accidental’ features of the
specific case, the general rule does not fit or is misplaced.
Examples:
 Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Abebe should not be arrested for his speech that
inspired the rebellion last week.
 Kidist! All good patients obey the order of their doctors.
Hence, you should not refuse when your doctor invites you for
6. Straw Man Fallacy
 The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer
distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of
more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted
argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s
real argument has been demolished.
Example:
 Mengesha: It would be a good idea to ban
advertising beer and wine on radio and television.
These advertisements encourage teenagers to drink,
often with disastrous consequences.
 Tsegaye: You cannot get people to give up drinking;
they have been doing it for thousands of years.
 The straw man fallacy has three essential components.
1. The first is that there is a pair of arguers taking part in a
dialogue.
2. The second component is that each is arguing with the other.
3. The third is that each is advocating a position opposed to that
of the other party.
 In the above example, you can observe that Tsegaye
attempts to oppose Mengasha’s idea but with a distorted
form.
 Mary: We must not let down the principles of justice and
democracy. Suspected terrorists must be granted basic
rights as well as legal representation and access to a fair
court.
 Tom: Mary is advocating the release of known terrorists.
We cannot afford to allow our enemies to move freely in
our society.
7. The Fallacy of Missing the Point (meaning ignorance
of proof ) (Ignoratio Elenchii)
This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument
support one particular conclusion.
 Examples:1
 In different occasion I requested three ladies for
marriage. All of them responded negatively. Hence
I should totally stop requesting them for marriage.
 Correct conclusion should be
 Continue attempting to request others
 Changing the style of approaching ladies for
marriage
 Receive counselling from social workers, psychatrists
etc.
 Example 2. KKC University has a lot of problems.
Students’ services and facilities are inadequate. Many
of the instructors are inexperienced. It follows that, the
university should be entirely closed.
 The conclusion of the example misses logical
implication from the premise.
 The logical conclusion for the premise is not
closing the university but it could have been
stated in other ways like:
providing additional facilities for students,
getting experienced instructors from other
countries, developing the capacity of the
administration of the university, and the like.
8. Red-Herring (Off the Truck Fallacy)
 The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer
diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the
subject to a different but sometimes slightly related one.
 It usually appears in the form of appeal to humor(Comedy),
appeal to thought provoking questions for the purpose of
diverting the attention of the audiences, which is logically
irrelevant to the subject, issue or topic of the debate raised first.
Examples:
 The minister: The new education policy is appreciative. Bezawit: Did
you hear about his first son? The important question confronting this
great nation is the question of terrorism. Let me tell you how I plan
to defeat it. He is going to marry an orphanage girl. Before the
minister is talking about in practical education policy; he should give
a lesson for his son to get a good wife. So, his new education policy
is not appreciative.
 This argument commits the fallacy of red-herring because
the arguer diverts the subject or topic of the argument for
“new education policy appreciative” to marry an
orphanage girl and get a good wife_ a topic which is
irrelevance to the topic or the subject under discussion.
 Interviewer: Your opponent has argued for immigration reform.
Do you agree with her position?
 Candidate: I think the more important question confronting this
great nation is the question of terrorism. Let me tell you how I
plan to defeat it.
 2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
It occurs when the premise becomes
insufficient to provide evidences to the
conclusion
Definition and Types
 Usually fallacies of weak induction appear in
inductive arguments and contain
appeal to authority,
argument based on prediction,
sign,
analogy,
inductive generalization, and
causal inference. If the arguer made a kind of mistakes or
errors in these forms of argumentation, the fallacies of weak
induction are committed.
 Fallacies of weak induction involve that are in
some degree relevant to their conclusion but do not
provide sufficient support for them.
a. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
The appeal to unqualified authority is also called argumentum ad verecundiam in Latin. This fallacies are common in
advertising when celebrities who lack the relevant expertise recommend products.
• Examples:
 It is always better to drink white wine with fish. Tony Blair says so, he must know what he is talking
about, and he is the prime minister.
 The famous artists, artist Woriku said that Vera Pasta is the most nutritious food. So Vera pasta
must be the most nutritious food.
 Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in more complex societies, there
is higher level of division of labor and in less complex societies, there is less division of labor .
In such example those individuals may be expertise in there area of study but they are not the right person to give such kind of justification out of there qualification.
b. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad
Ignoratio)
 The fallacy of appeal to ignorance, also
called argumentum ad ignoratio in
Latin, and
 it implies that lack of evidence or proof
for something is used to support the truth
of the conclusion.
There are two ways for appeal to ignorance fallacy to be
committed: arguing that some thing is true because no one
has proved to be false, and arguing that some thing is false
because no one has proved to be true.
Examples:
 Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know
there is no God.
 After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove
that God does not exist. Therefore, God exists.
The premises of the above arguments tell us nothing about
the existence of God.
Therefore, rather concluding that God exists or does not
exist based on the mere ground that no one has proved or
disproved it,
Example:
People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive
evidence for the claims that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is the
descendant of King David of Israel and no one has ever
succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that Haileselassie I
of Ethiopia is not the descendant of King David of Israel
• Conversely, the following argument commits the same
fallacy:
• People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims
that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of
King David of Israel, and no one has ever succeeded.
Therefore, we must conclude that Haileselassie I of
Ethiopia is in fact the descendant of King David of
Israel.
c. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

The fallacy of hasty generalization is just the opposite of accident. This

fallacy is committed whenever one arrives to a conclusion, on the basis
of very little evidence or whereby generalization is asserted or
concluded based on: very limited information, inadequate information,
and unrepresentative sample.
A hasty generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected
sample to some claim about the whole group.
Examples:
• I have met two persons in Hawassa town so far, and they were both
nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Hawassa will be nice to me.
• Freshman Governance and Development Studies students of 2009
are one – hundred sixty in number. Blood is taken out of three
students and upon examination of all, three students are found to
have their blood type “B”. Therefore, on the basis of this, I conclude
that the rest of the students will also have the same blood type,
which is “B”.
  Hasty generalization is also called converse accident, because it
proceeds from particular to general
 while accident proceeds from the general to the particular (the premises
deal with a general issues, but the conclusion deals with something
particular),

d. The Fallacy of False Cause

• The fallacy of false cause commits when the link between
premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal
connection that probably does not exist.
• In this fallacy, when a certain event, makes a kind of confusion
between the cause and effect,
• A sophisticated statistical study by Dr. Zemenu Ahmed
and Pro. Wakjira Negera citing studies from 141
countries found that the larger the percent of its GNP
a country spends on weapons, the higher is its infant
death rate. Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and Pro. Wakjira
concluded that there is a probable link between
military spending and the infant death rate.
e. The Fallacy of Slippery Slope
 This fallacy is occurred when a certain argument rests on
chains of events and the arguer fails to provide sufficient
reasons why this chain of events committed. In other
words, it is committed when one affirms an unjustifiable
“chain reaction” of causes which, if it is allowed to
continue leads inevitably to disaster.
Example:
I know the impetus for the whole tragedy in her life. She was
jobless and has no other choice but to join bar ladies. While
she was working in bars, she becomes infected with
HIV/AIDS. Then, she becomes disabled patient and in the
lost her life. All these misfortune fall up on her due to her
dismissal from the university in the first semesters of the
first year.
f. The Fallacy of Weak Analogy
The fallacy of weak analogy is an inductive argument in which
the conclusion depends on the existence of analogy, or
similarities between two things.

When these requirements are failed, the inductive argument

becomes weak.
The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when important
differences between two things or more things compared are not
real similar in the relevant respects or when the analogy is not
strong enough to support the conclusion. This fallacy has the
following form:
Object “A” has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Object “B” has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, object B probably has attributes z also.
 3. Fallacies of Presumption: Definition and Types

These fallacies committed when the premise

becomes unacceptable to the claims of the
conclusion
The fallacies of presumption include four different types of fallacies, namely:
 begging the question,
 complex question,
 false dichotomy, and
 suppressed evidence.
 The fallacies of presumption frequently have tricky(complicated) 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 if it
does not need proof or evidence.
 Therefore, when the fallacy contains tricky and confusing expressions for
the purpose of concealing the wrong assumption stated in the premise is
1. Begging the Question Fallacy (Petito Principii)
 The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an
arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to
conceal the questionably true character of a key premise.
 To make it clear, this fallacy is committed when the
arguer, without providing real evidence, asks the readers
or listeners to simply accept the conclusion of his or her
argument.
 Some times this argument is known as circular reasoning
since the argument depends upon premises that states
the same thing as the conclusion.
Examples:
A. I believe the prime minister is telling the truth since he says he is
telling the truth.
 the premise and the conclusion are worded differently but say the same thing.
The premise in each case is relevant to the conclusion, but the ideas stated in
the premise (which are repeated in the conclusion) are questionable.
 When we look at the first argument, it ignores an important premise which is
needed to make the argument acceptable. In the argument, proof is not given
on the truth of the prime minister’s speech.
 Even though the arguer does not give proof, he or she begs us
to accept it as true as if it does not need proof.
B. Capital punishment is justified for crimes of murder and
kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that some
one be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman
acts.
 the arguer has really said the same thing twice to say that capital punishment
is “justified” means the same thing as to say that it is “legitimate” and
“appropriate” because premise and conclusion means the same thing.
 But the arguer fails to give as real reasons why capital
punishment is justified for the indicated crimes.
2. The fallacy of Complex or Loaded Question
This happens when the conclusion (that is, answer) is
supported by confusing and tricky questions (that is,
premises). This fallacy is committed when a single question
that is really two or more questions is asked and a single
answer is then applied to both questions.
Examples:
1. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Let us suppose the respondent answers ‘‘Yes’’ to the
question. The following argument comes out:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on
exams. You answered ‘‘Yes’’ to the question. Therefore, it
follows that you have cheated in the past.
3. TheFallacy of False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy can be also known as
 false dilemma,
 black and white thinking, and
 “either…or…fallacy”.
 This fallacy is committed when the premise of an argument is an
either… or… statement or a disjunctive statement that presents two
alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative
was possible).
Example:
Well, it is time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our
environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?
The argument allows us only two options. You should contribute $10 to
the fund or you are in favor of environmental destruction. Therefore, this
argument commits the fallacy of dichotomy. Because, on the one hand,
the two options are not exhaustive (complete) , there are many
alternatives that the arguer fails to provide.
For instance, there seems to other possibilities such as
contributing less than $10 or contributing nothing but
supporting the environmental protection by other means.
4. The Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
 The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when the
inductive argument ignores some important piece of
evidences and entails an extremely different conclusion.
 In such argument, the arguer intentionally or
unintentionally suppresses or omits important evidence
that fails to support his or her position and emphasizes on
some other reasons that are not such important to the
conclusion of the argument.
Example:
Hawassa University is the best university in Ethiopia; because it
has very fat and tall teachers, luxury buildings and a number of
students.
• The key evidences omitted in the example such as the
• organization of the university,
• the qualification and experience of instructors,
• equipment available for instruction,
• student services, and the likes.
• The argument of the above example de-emphasizing these
important cases but the argument consists of insignificant
evidences for determining the standard of a good
university.
• Thus, this argument commits the fallacy of suppressed
evidence.
4. Linguistic Fallacies
Linguistic fallacies are the result of
• a misuse of language,
• such as incorrect use of words,
• grammatical lack of clarity,
• vagueness and other linguistic impressions.

• There are two types of linguistic fallacies,

namely;
fallacies of ambiguity and
fallacies of grammatical analogy.
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Fallacies of ambiguity arise from the occurrence of some form of
ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both).
 They are committed when misleading or wrong conclusion of an
argument is drawn from ambiguous words or sentences.
 The fallacies of ambiguity include two types of fallacies: equivocation
A. Equivocation Fallacy
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of
an argument depends on the fact that one or more words are
used in two different senses in the argument.
Examples:
• Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant.
Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
• Any law can be repealed/made/ by the legislative authority. But the
law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed
by the legislative authority.
• In the first argument, obtuse‖ is used in two different
senses. In the first premise it describes a certain kind of
angle, while in the second it means dull or stupid.
• The second argument equivocates on the word law.‖ In
the first premise it means statutory law, and in the
second it means law of nature.
B. Amphiboly Fallacy
 The fallacy of amphiboly is caused by the error in grammatical construction of
statements that can be interpreted in two more distinctly different ways without making
clear which meaning is intended.
 In other words, it is a structural defect in a statement due to
 mistake in grammar or punctuation
 a missing comma,
 a dangling modifier,
 an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words
 Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways. The arguer typically selects the unintended
interpretation and proceeds to draw a conclusion based upon it.
Examples:
A. Solomon told Dawit that he had made a mistake. It follows that Solomon has at least
the courage to admit his own mistakes.
In this argument the pronoun ‘‘he’’ has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to
Solomon or Dawit. Perhaps Solomon told Dawit that Dawit had made a mistake.

B. Our engineering school teaches told us how to build a house in three years.
We can interpret this argument in two ways.
 “our school teaches told us how to build a house in three years teaching period” or
 “our school teaches told us how to build a house with in three years construction
2. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
• 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;
• Moreover, arguments that commit these fallacies are
grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good
in every respect.
• The fallacies of grammatical analogy are divided into two
types; namely, composition and division.
A. Fallacy of Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when the arguer
wrongly transfers the attributes of the parts of something to
the whole.
Examples:
• Every sentence in this paragraph is well written.
Therefore, the paragraph is well written.
• Each atom in a piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the
chalk is invisible.
In these arguments the attributes that are transferred from the
parts onto the whole are designated by the words ‘‘well
written,’’ and ‘‘invisible,’’ respectively. In each case the
transference is illegitimate, and so the argument is fallacious.
You have to take into account that not every such
transference is illegitimate, however.
Consider the following arguments:
B. Fallacy of Division
The fallacy of division is the direct opposite or converse
of composition. The fallacy of division is committed when
attributes are wrongly transferred from whole to parts.
Examples:
• This chalk is visible. Therefore, each atom in a piece of
chalk is visible.
• The USA is the wealthiest country in the world. Hence,
my uncle who live there must be wealthy.
These examples show that; the attributes of the collective
of the parts is considered as the distributive property of the
parts.
The
End