Logic and critical

thinking
(Phil 101) Tutorial
Chapter 5: Logical reasoning and fallacies
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Lesson Fallacy in General
01
Lesson Fallacies of Relevance
02
Lesson Fallacies of Weak Induction
03
Lesson Fallacies of Presumption
04 Fallacies of Ambiguity
Lesson and Grammatical
05 Analogy 2
 “
HELLO!
I am Paulos Teshome
MSc Student of SE in AASTU
 “To argue with a man who has
renounced the use and authority of
’
’
reason is like administering medicine
to the dead.”

—— Thomas Paine
Fallacy in
General
“01
 What is a Fallacy?
● A fallacy is a defect in an argument that
weakens or invalidates it, arising from a
mistake in reasoning or the creation of an
illusion that makes a bad argument appear
good.
● It's not simply having false premises; the
flaw lies in the reasoning process.
● Think of it like a crack in a bridge's
foundation it might look fine from the
outside, but it compromises the whole
structure.
Why Studying Fallacies is Important
● Learning about fallacies helps you identify
flaws in your own arguments and avoid
being persuaded by faulty reasoning in
others' arguments. It sharpens your critical 6
thinking skills.
 Four Criteria of a Good Argument
An argument is considered good if it meets these criteria. Fallacies often violate
one or more of these.
Acceptabi
Relevance lity
The premises must Premises should be
be relevant to acceptable to a
truth of the reasonable person.
conclusion
Sufficienc
y Rebuttal
Premises must provide enough A good argument anticipates
support in number, kind and and effectively refutes
weight. to justify the potential counterarguments. 7
conclusion
 Types of Fallacies
Fallacies are broadly categorized into two types: Formal and Informal.

1. Formal Fallacies: These are errors in the structure or form of a deductive

argument. They can be spotted by analyzing the arrangement of premises
and conclusions, regardless of the content.
Example (Formal Fallacy):
Premise 1: All cats are mammals.
Premise 2: All dogs are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, all cats are dogs.
Example (Formal Fallacy - affirming the consequent):
Premise 1: If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Premise 2: Apes can solve puzzles.
Conclusion: Therefore, apes are intelligent.
This argument is invalid because the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the
premises, even though the premises themselves are true. The form is faulty.
Types of Fallacies Cont’d
2. Informal Fallacies: These errors stem from the content of the argument, how
the language is used, or the type of reasoning employed. Analyzing meaning and
context is crucial to spotting them.
Example (Informal Fallacy - Appeal to Popularity):
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll
This argument is fallacious because the popularity of a belief doesn't automatically
make it true. The content is the problem
Subcategories of Informal
Fallacies Informal fallacies are further divided into

’
subcategories based on the specific type of error
they represent. The source focuses primarily on
these, as they are more common and often trickier
to spot.

’
Examples include:
1. Fallacies of Relevance (like Appeal to Pity,
Ad Hominem attacks)
2. Fallacies of PresumptionFallacies of Weak
Induction (like Hasty Generalization, False
Cause)
3. (like Begging the Question, False Dichotomy)
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity (like Equivocation)
5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy (like
Composition, Division)
Understanding these categories helps you analyze
arguments with greater precision and improve your
reasoning skills.
“
0 Fallacies of
2 Relevance
Fallacies of Relevance
The fallacies of relevance are arguments that
In this lesson, we will discuss eight
have premises that are logically irrelevant to
fallacies of relevance:
the conclusion. However, the premises may seem
I. Appeal to force,
to support the conclusion due to psychological
II. Appeal to pity,
relevance, creating an emotional connection
III. Appeal to people,
rather than a logical one.
IV. Argument against the
person,
These arguments are often called non sequiturs
V. Accident,
(the conclusion does not follow from the
VI. Straw man,
premises) or argumentative leaps (a large
VII.Missing the point, and
jump is needed to get from the premises to the
VIII.Red Herring.
conclusion).
 I. Appeal to Force

’
(Argumentum ad This argument threatens employees
Baculum: Appeal to the with their jobs if they criticize the
“Stick”) company's dental benefits policy.
This threat is irrelevant to the
This fallacy occurs when an arguer uses
fairness of the policy itself.
threats or force to get someone to
accept a conclusion.

’
● Example: “If you don't agree that
my tax plan is the best, I'll fire
you.”.
This is a fallacy because the threat of
being fired is not relevant to whether
the tax plan is good or bad.
● Example: “Lately there has been
a lot of negative criticism of our
policy on dental benefits. Let me
tell you something, people. If you
want to keep working here, you
need to know that our policy is fair
and reasonable. I won’t have
anybody working here who
doesn’t know this.”
 “ ’
II. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum
ad Misericordiam)
This fallacy occurs when an arguer tries to support
a conclusion by evoking pity, even when the pity is
not logically relevant to the conclusion.
● Example: “You should give me an A in the

’
course. I had a really hard semester - my dog
died, my car broke down, and my girlfriend
dumped me.”
This argument appeals to the professor's pity, but
the student's personal problems are not a valid
reason for getting a better grade.
● Example: “Professor, you have to give me a
passing grade in this course, otherwise, I
NOTE: Unlike this picture, there are won’t be able to get into medical school.”
arguments from pity, which are reasonable This is an appeal to pity because the student is
and plausible. There are situations where asking for a passing grade based on the potential
compassion or sympathy could be a legitimate negative consequences (not getting into medical
response for some situations (Page 172) school) rather than their performance in the class.
 III. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

This fallacy occurs when an arguer tries

to get a conclusion accepted by
appealing to the desires or emotions of
a crowd. This can include:
● Direct Approach: Exciting the
emotions of a crowd to win
acceptance for a conclusion.
Example: A politician giving a
speech using emotionally
charged language to sway the
audience, rather than
presenting logical arguments.
(Page 173)
● Indirect Approach: Appealing to an
individual's desire to be accepted
by a group. There are three NOTE: Not all appeal to people
common forms of this Bandwagon, arguments are inherently fallacious.
Vanity, and Snobbery. (Page 176)
III. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
cont’d
a. Bandwagon Argument: Argues that something is true or good
because it is popular.
Example: “Everyone’s buying the new iPhone, so you should
too.”
b. Appeal to Vanity: Associates a product or idea with someone
admirable, implying that you too will be admirable if you use it.
Example: “BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank
Lampard, wearing Adidas shoe, and says: Wear this new
fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected
celebrities! ADIDAS SHOE!!!”
c. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy: Snob means a person who admires
people in higher classes too much and has no respect for people in
the lower classes or a person who thinks individuals from higher
social classes are much better than other people because they like
things many people do not like. Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based
on this desire to be regarded as superior to others. This fallacy
appeal individuals and their desires to be regarded as different and
better.
Example: The newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is not for
everyone to drink. But you are different from other people,
IV. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making the argument,
rather than the argument itself. There are three types of this fallacy: the ad
hominem abusive, the ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque.

● Ad Hominem Abusive: Attacking the arguer's character.

○ Example: “You can’t trust anything Professor Smith says about
economics, he’s a convicted felon.”
● Ad Hominem Circumstantial: Claiming the arguer is biased or has
ulterior motives.
○ Example: “Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of Nations
that member states should give hand to help Ethiopia resist the
Italian invasion. But Haileselassie is just saying that because he wants
to keep his power.”
● Tu Quoque (“You too”): Pointing out that the arguer is a hypocrite.
○ Example: “You can’t tell me smoking is bad for my health. You smoke
NOTE: Aretoo!”
all arguments against the person fallacious? They are not. For
example, in legal argumentation in a trial, it can be legitimate for across
examining attorney to question the ethical character of a witness. (Page 180)
 V. Accident

This fallacy occurs when a general

rule is misapplied to a specific case
that the rule wasn’t intended to
cover.

Example: “Freedom of speech is a

constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, John should not be
arrested for yelling ‘fire’ in a
crowded theater, causing a panic.”.

This is a fallacy because the

general rule of freedom of speech
does not apply to situations where
it endangers public safety.
 VI. Straw Man

This fallacy occurs when an arguer

distorts an opponent's argument to
make it easier to attack, demolishes the
distorted argument, and then concludes
that the opponent‘s real argument has
been demolished.
● Example:
○ Person A: “I think we should
invest more money in
renewable energy sources.”
○ Person B: “So you’re saying we
should abandon all fossil fuels
immediately and let the
economy collapse? That’s a
ridiculous idea.”
VII. Missing the Point (Ignoratio
Elenchi)
This fallacy occurs when the premises of an
argument support a different conclusion than the
one the arguer actually draws.
’
’
Example: “The world is in the process of
globalizing more than ever. The world
economy is becoming more and more
integrated, and cultural differences are
disappearing. Therefore, we should detach
our country from this process and preserve
our cultural heritage.”

This argument misses the point because the

premises support regulating globalization, not
detaching from it completely.
VIII. Red Herring

This fallacy occurs when an arguer

tries to distract from the main issue by
changing the subject to a different but
sometimes subtly related one.
● Example: “The editor of the local
newspaper has accused our
company of being responsible for
polluting the river. But the editor
is a known alcoholic and
philanderer. I think that’s all we
need to know about him.”
○ This is a red herring because
the editor’s personal
character is irrelevant to
whether the company is
polluting the river
Fallacies of
Weak
“
0
Induction 3
Fallacies of Weak Induction
● This section discusses fallacies where the
There are different kinds of
premises may be relevant to the conclusion,
but they don't offer enough support to warrant fallacies of weak induction and the
accepting the conclusion. following are the most important
● This violates the "principle of sufficiency," ones:
which states that whenever a person presents I. Appeal to Unqualified
an argument for or against a position, he/she Authority,
should attempt to provide relevant and II. Hasty Generalization,
acceptable reasons of the right kind, that III. False Cause,
together are sufficient in number and weight to IV. Weak Analogy,
justify the acceptance of the conclusion. V. Slippery Slope, and
● Therefore, the fallacies of weak induction occur VI. Appeal to Ignorance.
because the connection between premises and
conclusion is not strong enough to support the
conclusion.
 I. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam)

This fallacy happens when an argument relies on the testimony of someone who lacks
expertise on the subject matter. For instance, if a celebrity endorses a particular brand of
vitamins, it doesn't automatically mean those vitamins are superior. The celebrity's
expertise is in entertainment, not necessarily health or nutrition. The source elaborates on
the criteria for a credible authority, including:
● Expertise: The authority should have knowledge and experience in the relevant field.
● Lack of Bias: The authority should not have any personal interest or prejudice that
could influence their judgment.
● Truthfulness: The authority should have a reputation for honesty and accuracy.
● Ability to Perceive and Recall: The authority should have been in a position to
observe the relevant facts and have a reliable memory of those facts.

A more subtle appeal to unreliable authority occurs when a well-known expert in one field is
cited as an expert in another field even though he or she lacks expertise in it.
II. Hasty Generalization

It is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. The fallacy occurs when there
is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group. Such
likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected.
Example:
Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to know the reading skill among young
people. It has found out that, among ten young people it interviewed, none of
them read a book for the last two years. The conclusion is obvious: all young
people in the country do not have the culture of reading books.

Example:, if someone visits a city for a few days and encounters several
unfriendly locals, they might hastily conclude that everyone in that city is
unfriendly.
To avoid hasty generalization, a larger and more representative sample is
necessary.
Different considerations enter into determining whether a sample is biased. These
considerations include
(1) whether the sample is randomly selected,
(2) the size of the sample, and
(3) psychological factors.
 III. False Cause Fallacy

This fallacy incorrectly assumes a causal relationship

To avoid False Cause fallacies:
between two events without sufficient evidence. The source
● Look for alternative explanations for the
identifies three types:
● Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("After this, therefore observed effect.
● Conduct controlled experiments to
because of this"): Assuming that because event B
isolate the potential cause and study its
happened after event A, then A caused B.
○ Example: Someone believes wearing a specific effects.
● Employ statistical analysis to determine
shirt brings good luck because they won a game
the strength and significance of the
while wearing it. This ignores other explanations
correlation between variables.
for the win, such as skill, opponent's weakness,
Exceptions:
or chance.
● Non Causa Pro Cause ("Not the cause for the cause"): Causal relationships can be inferred without
rigorous scientific evidence in some situations.
Mistaking the cause for the effect.
○ Example: Believing that feeling cold causes a For example, if you touch a hot stove and burn
your hand, it's reasonable to infer the stove
cold, when it's actually the virus that causes
caused the burn. However, be open to other
both the feeling of coldness and the cold itself.
● Oversimplified Cause: Attributing a complex effect to possibilities if the evidence suggests
otherwise.
a single cause when multiple factors are likely
involved.
○ Example: Attributing a company's success solely
to its marketing campaign while overlooking
other factors like product quality, competitive
V. Slippery Slope

This fallacy claims a specific action will inevitably lead to a sequence of negative
consequences without sufficient evidence to support this chain of events.
Example: Arguing that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to people
marrying animals. This argument lacks evidence to support this extreme
and unlikely chain of events.
To avoid Slippery Slope fallacies:
● Break down the argument: Analyze each step in the proposed chain of events
and evaluate the likelihood of each consequence.
● Demand evidence: Don't accept speculative claims without supporting data or
logical reasoning.
Exceptions:
While often fallacious, there are instances where a chain of events could plausibly
occur. For example, if a government starts restricting specific freedoms, it might
raise concerns about further restrictions. However, such arguments should rely on
historical precedents, current trends, or other forms of evidence, not just unfounded
speculation.
VI. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This fallacy asserts that a proposition is true Exceptions

simply because it hasn't been proven false, The first stems from the fact that if
or vice versa. qualified researchers investigate a
certain phenomenon within their
An example is arguing that extraterrestrial range of expertise and fail to turn
life must exist because no one has proven it up any evidence that the
doesn't. This fallacy shifts the burden of phenomenon exists, this fruitless
proof inappropriately. search by itself constitutes positive
evidence about the question.
To avoid it, it's essential to present positive
evidence to support a claim rather than The second exception to the appeal
relying on the lack of evidence against it. to ignorance relates to courtroom
procedure. In Ethiopia, a person is
presumed innocent until proven
guilty
(page 190 and 191)
“
0 Fallacies of
4 Presumption
Fallacies of Presumption
These fallacies occur when the premises assume the truth of the conclusion
they're supposed to prove. This leads to arguments that may seem
convincing but lack genuine logical support.
The source discusses four main fallacies of presumption:
I. begging the question,
II. complex question,
III. false dichotomy,
IV. suppressed evidence
I. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

This fallacy occurs when the argument's premises already assume the truth of the
conclusion, creating an illusion of support without providing independent
evidence. The source identifies three ways this fallacy manifests:
● Missing Key Premise: Leaving out a crucial premise that might be false,
creating the impression that the conclusion follows naturally from the
existing premises.
○ Example: Arguing that capital punishment is justified because it's a
legitimate and appropriate form of punishment. The missing premise is
that capital punishment is indeed legitimate and appropriate, a claim
that requires independent justification.
● Restating the Conclusion: Rephrasing the conclusion as a premise without
offering any genuine support.
○ Example: Claiming murder is wrong because taking another person's life
is morally unacceptable. This merely restates the initial claim without
explaining why taking another person's life is wrong.
● Circular Reasoning: Using a chain of premises that ultimately lead back to
the conclusion, creating a loop without providing any real support.
○ Example: "The Bible is the word of God because God says so. We know
God says so because it's written in the Bible." This argument circles
back to its starting point without offering any external evidence to
II. Complex Question
This fallacy occurs when multiple questions are disguised as a single question, making it impossible to
answer straightforwardly without accepting a hidden presumption.
Example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
● Have you stopped cheating on exams?
● Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?
● This question assumes the respondent has beaten their wife in the past. Answering "yes" or "no"
both confirm the presumption, trapping the respondent.
To address Complex Questions:
● Separate the multiple questions embedded within the complex question.
● Address each individual question separately.
● Point out the fallacious nature of the question and refuse to answer it in its current form.
Analogy:
● Imagine someone asking, "Are you still cheating on your taxes?" Answering either "yes" or "no"
implies guilt. The correct response is to clarify that the question assumes prior wrongdoing and
refuse to answer it without further context.
Exceptions:
● Some complex questions might be genuinely seeking information, especially in situations where
multiple factors are intertwined. However, it's crucial to be aware of potential hidden assumptions
and respond accordingly.
 III. False Dichotomy

This fallacy presents two options as the only possibilities when other alternatives exist. It
often uses "either...or..." statements to create a false sense of urgency or force a choice
between limited options.
● Example:
○ "You're either with us or against us." This statement ignores the possibility of
neutrality or supporting some aspects but not others.
To avoid False Dichotomy:
● Consider all possible alternatives beyond the presented options.
● Challenge the "either...or..." framing and point out the existence of other
possibilities.
Analogy:
● Imagine a restaurant offering only two dishes, claiming they're the only options for
a good meal. This ignores the existence of other restaurants, cuisines, and dietary
preferences.
Exceptions:
● In some situations, there might be genuinely only two viable options. However, it's
essential to ensure these options truly represent all possibilities before accepting
the dichotomy.
 IV. Suppressed Evidence
This fallacy occurs when an argument ignores To detect Suppressed Evidence:
crucial evidence that would weaken or ● Research the topic independently to
contradict the conclusion. This creates a biased gather a broader perspective.
presentation that favors a particular viewpoint. ● Consider potential counterarguments and
Example: evidence that might contradict the
● A company advertising a weight-loss presented information.
product only showcases testimonials from ● Be skeptical of arguments that rely solely
successful users while omitting negative on positive evidence without
reviews or potential side effects. acknowledging potential drawbacks.
● The advertise for Kentucky Fried Chicken Analogy:
says, “Buy a bucket of chicken and have a ● Imagine a politician highlighting only
barrel of fun!” Therefore, if we buy a positive economic indicators while
bucket of that chicken, we will be ignoring rising unemployment or inflation
guaranteed to have lots of fun. The rates. This selectively presented
advertise fails to state that the fun does information creates a misleading picture
not come packaged with the chicken but of the economic situation.
must be supplied by the buyer. Also, of
course, the advertise fails to state that the Exceptions:
chicken is loaded with fat and that the
buyer‘s resultant weight gain may not ● Arguments often focus on specific aspects of
amount to a barrel of fun. By ignoring a topic and may not cover every detail.
these facts, the argument based on the However, it's crucial to avoid intentionally
advertising is fallacious. hiding information that could significantly
Fallacies of
Ambiguity and
Grammatical
Analogy
“05
Fallacies of Ambiguity
These fallacies arise when an argument relies on a word or phrase with
multiple meanings, leading to a conclusion that doesn't logically follow
from the premises.
The source discusses two main fallacies of Ambiguity:
I. equivocation and
II. amphiboly.
I. Equivocation

This fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with different meanings in
different parts of the argument, creating the illusion of a valid connection.
Example:
● Premise 1: "Banks are places where money is kept." (Here, "bank" refers to a
financial institution.)
● Premise 2: "The river has a steep bank." (Here, "bank" refers to the edge of a
river.)
● Conclusion: "Therefore, the river is a place where money is kept."
To avoid Equivocation:
● Carefully examine the meaning of key terms throughout the argument.
● Look for shifts in meaning between premises and the conclusion.
● Define ambiguous terms clearly to prevent misinterpretations.
Analogy:
● Using the word "bat" to refer to both a baseball equipment and a nocturnal
animal can lead to confusion. For example, stating "Bats are good hitters"
could refer to both baseball players using bats and the echolocation abilities
of bats in catching prey.
Exceptions:
Some wordplay or puns rely on equivocation for humorous effect. However, in
serious argumentation, it's crucial to maintain consistent meaning to avoid
 II. Amphiboly

This fallacy occurs when the entire statement is ambiguous due to its grammatical
structure, leading to a misinterpretation and a faulty conclusion.
Example:
"The professor said he would give a lecture on the history of sex in the classroom." (Is the
lecture about the history of sex, or is it being delivered in a classroom where sexual activity
took place?)
To avoid Amphiboly:
● Pay close attention to the sentence structure and grammar.
● Rephrase ambiguous statements to clarify their intended meaning.
● Use punctuation and word order to eliminate potential misinterpretations.
Analogy:
A sign reading "Slow Children Playing" can be interpreted as either urging drivers to slow
down or suggesting that children playing there are mentally slow. Rephrasing the sign as
"Children Playing - Drive Slowly" eliminates the ambiguity.
Exceptions:
Some literary devices or jokes intentionally utilize amphiboly for stylistic effect. However, in
logical arguments, clarity of expression is paramount to prevent fallacious conclusions.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
These fallacies arise when an argument misapplies a grammatical pattern
that is valid in some cases to a situation where it doesn't apply.
The source discusses two main fallacies of Grammatical Analogy:
I. composition and
II. division
I. Composition

This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole.
Example:
● Premise: "Each individual member of the orchestra is a skilled musician."
● Conclusion: "Therefore, the orchestra as a whole must be incredibly
talented." (The orchestra might lack coordination or synergy despite
individual talent.)
To avoid Composition:
● Recognize that the properties of individual parts don't always transfer
directly to the whole.
● Consider emergent properties that might arise from the interaction of parts,
which may not be present in the individual components.
Analogy:
Assuming that a car will perform well just because each of its individual parts is
high-quality ignores factors like assembly, tuning, and overall design.
Exceptions:
Some properties are additive, meaning they do transfer from parts to the whole.
For example, the total weight of a brick wall equals the sum of the weights of its
individual bricks.
 II. Division

This fallacy assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts.
Example:
● Premise: "The university has a high average SAT score for its incoming
students."
● Conclusion: "Therefore, every student at the university must have a high SAT
score." (The average score doesn't guarantee that every individual student
scored highly.)
To avoid Division:
● Recognize that the properties of a whole don't always apply equally to each of
its parts.
● Consider variations and individual differences within a group or entity.
Analogy:
Assuming that every person in a wealthy neighborhood must be rich ignores the
possibility of income inequality or individual financial circumstances.
Exceptions:
Some properties are distributive, meaning they apply uniformly to all parts. For
example, if a sheet of paper is blue, then each individual piece of the paper is also
blue.
REFERENCE
Teklay G., Adane T., & Zelalem M. (2019). Logic and Critical Thinking. Ministry of
Science and Higher Education.
“ THANKS!
Does anyone have any questions?
’
’
[email protected]

CREDITS: This presentation template was created by

Slidesgo, and includes icons by Flaticon, and infographics
& images by Freepik
Please keep this slide for attribution