Begging the Question - This type of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the

phrasing of the question itself.

For example: If aliens didnt steal my newspaper! who did"# $assume that the newspaper was actually stolen%.
&ppeal to &uthority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as &rgumentum ad 'erecundia $argument
from modesty%. In this case! rather than focusing on the merits of an argument! the arguer will try to attach their
argument to a person of authority in an attempt to gi(e credence to their argument.
For example: )ell! Isaac *ewton +elie(ed in &lchemy! do you thin, you ,now more than Isaac *ewton"#
&ttac,ing the -erson - &lso ,nown as &rgumentum ad .ominem $argument against the man%! this is
quite a common occurrence in de+ates and refers to a person who su+stitutes a re+uttal with a personal insult.
For example: /ont listen to 0ddies arguments on education! hes an idiot.#
/escription of 1omposition
The fallacy of 1omposition is committed when a conclusion is drawn a+out a whole +ased on the features of its
constituents when! in fact! no 2ustification pro(ided for the inference. There are actually two types of this
fallacy! +oth of which are ,nown +y the same name $+ecause of the high degree of similarity%.
The first type of fallacy of 1omposition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of indi(idual
mem+ers of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group $ta,en as a
whole%. 3ore formally! the 4reasoning4 would loo, something li,e this.
5. Indi(idual F things ha(e characteristics &! B! 1! etc.
6. Therefore! the $whole% class of F things has characteristics &! B! 1! etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious +ecause the mere fact that indi(iduals ha(e certain characteristics does not!
in itself! guarantee that the class $ta,en as a whole% has those characteristics.
It is important to note that drawing an inference a+out the characteristics of a class +ased on the characteristics
of its indi(idual mem+ers is not always fallacious. In some cases! sufficient 2ustification can +e pro(ided to
warrant the conclusion. For example! it is true that an indi(idual rich person has more wealth than an indi(idual
poor person. In some nations $such as the 78% it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a
whole than does the class of poor people. In this case! the e(idence used would warrant the inference and the
fallacy of 1omposition would not +e committed.
The second type of fallacy of 1omposition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a
whole must +e true of the whole without there +eing adequate 2ustification for the claim. 3ore formally! the line
of 4reasoning4 would +e as follows:
5. The parts of the whole 9 ha(e characteristics &! B! 1! etc.
6. Therefore the whole 9 must ha(e characteristics &! B! 1.
0xamples of 1omposition
5. & main +attle tan, uses more fuel than a car. Therefore! the main +attle tan,s use up more of the
a(aila+le fuel in the world than do all the cars.
6. & tiger eats more food than a human +eing. Therefore! tigers! as a group! eat more food than do all the
humans on the earth.
:. &toms are colorless. 1ats are made of atoms! so cats are colorless.
;. 40(ery player on the team is a superstar and a great player! so the team is a great team.4 This is
fallacious since the superstars might not +e a+le to play together (ery well and hence they could +e a
lousy team.
<. 40ach part of the show! from the special effects to the acting is a masterpiece. 8o! the whole show is a
masterpiece.4 This is fallacious since a show could ha(e great acting! great special effects and such! yet
still fail to 4come together4 to ma,e a masterpiece.
=. 41ome on! you li,e +eef! potatoes! and green +eens! so you will li,e this +eef! potato! and green +een
casserole.4 This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is fallacious: 4>ou li,e eggs!
icecream! pi??a! ca,e! fish! 2ello! chic,en! taco sauce! soda! oranges! mil,! egg rolls! and yogurt so you
must li,e this yummy dish made out of all of them.4
@. 8odium and 1hloride are +oth dangerous to humans. Therefore any com+ination of sodium and chloride
will +e dangerous to humans.
A. &d .ominem--&ttac,ing the indi(idual instead of the argument.
1. 0xample: >ou are so stupid your argument couldnBt possi+ly +e true.
2. 0xample: I figured that you couldnBt possi+ly get it right! so I ignored your comment.
C. &ppeal to Force--Telling the hearer that something +ad will happen to him if he does not accept the
argument.
1. 0xample: If you donBt want to get +eaten up! you will agree with what I say.
2. 0xample: 1on(ert or die.
5D. &ppeal to -ity--7rging the hearer to accept the argument +ased upon an appeal to emotions! sympathy!
etc.
1. 0xample: >ou owe me +ig time +ecause I really stuc, my nec, out for you.
2. 0xample: Eh come on! IB(e +een sic,. ThatBs why I missed the deadline.
55. Begging the Question--&ssuming the thing to +e true that you are trying to pro(e. It is circular.
1. 0xample: Fod exists +ecause the Bi+le says so. The Bi+le is inspired. Therefore! we ,now that
Fod exists.
2. 0xample: I am a good wor,er +ecause Fran, says so. .ow can we trust Fran," 8imple: I will
(ouch for him.
56. Fallacy of /i(ision--&ssuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
1. 0xample: That car is +lue. Therefore! its engine is +lue.
2. 0xample: >our family is weird. That means that you are weird! too.
5:. Fallacy of 0qui(ocation--7sing the same term in an argument in different places +ut the word has
different meanings.
1. 0xample: & +ird in the hand is worth two in the +ush. Therefore! a +ird is worth more than
-resident Bush.
2. 0xample: 0(olution states that one species can change into another. )e see that cars ha(e
e(ol(ed into different styles. Therefore! since e(olution is a fact in cars! it is true in species.
/escription of &d .ominem
Translated from Gatin to 0nglish! 4&d .ominem4 means 4against the man4 or 4against the person.4
&n &d .ominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is re2ected on the +asis of some
irrele(ant fact a+out the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically! this fallacy
in(ol(es two steps. First! an attac, against the character of person ma,ing the claim! her circumstances! or her
actions is made $or the character! circumstances! or actions of the person reporting the claim%. 8econd! this
attac, is ta,en to +e e(idence against the claim or argument the person in question is ma,ing $or presenting%.
This type of 4argument4 has the following form:
5. -erson & ma,es claim 9.
6. -erson B ma,es an attac, on person &.
:. Therefore &Bs claim is false.
The reason why an &d .ominem $of any ,ind% is a fallacy is that the character! circumstances! or actions of a
person do not $in most cases% ha(e a +earing on the truth or falsity of the claim +eing made $or the quality of the
argument +eing made%.
0xample of &d .ominem
5. Bill: 4I +elie(e that a+ortion is morally wrong.4
/a(e: 4Ef course you would say that! youBre a priest.4
Bill: 4)hat a+out the arguments I ga(e to support my position"4
/a(e: 4Those donBt count. Gi,e I said! youBre a priest! so you ha(e to say that a+ortion is wrong. Further!
you are 2ust a lac,ey to the -ope! so I canBt +elie(e what you say.4
&n Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
5. Fa(ora+le emotions are associated with 9.
6. Therefore! 9 is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoplesB emotions in order to get them to accept a claim
as +eing true. 3ore formally! this sort of 4reasoning4 in(ol(es the su+stitution of (arious means of producing
strong emotions in place of e(idence for a claim. If the fa(ora+le emotions associated with 9 influence the
person to accept 9 as true +ecause they 4feel good a+out 9!4 then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
This sort of 4reasoning4 is (ery common in politics and it ser(es as the +asis for a large portion of modern
ad(ertising. 3ost political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get
them to (ote or act a certain way. in the case of ad(ertising! the commercials are aimed at e(o,ing emotions that
will influence people to +uy certain products. In most cases! such speeches and commercials are notoriously
free of real e(idence.
This sort of 4reasoning4 is quite e(idently fallacious. It is fallacious +ecause using (arious tactics to incite
emotions in people does not ser(e as e(idence for a claim. For example! if a person were a+le to inspire in a
person an incredi+le hatred of the claim that 5H5 I 6 and then inspired the person to lo(e the claim that 5H5 I :!
it would hardly follow that the claim that 5H5 I : would +e adequately supported.
It should +e noted that in many cases it is not particularly o+(ious that the person committing the fallacy is
attempting to support a claim. In many cases! the user of the fallacy will appear to +e attempting to mo(e people
to ta,e an action! such as +uying a product or fighting in a war. .owe(er! it is possi+le to determine what sort of
claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to as, 4what sort of claim is this
person attempting to get people to accept and act on"4 /etermining this claim $or claims% might ta,e some
wor,. .owe(er! in many cases it will +e quite e(ident. For example! if a political leader is attempting to
con(ince her followers to participate in certain acts of (iolence +y the use of a hate speech! then her claim
would +e 4you should participate in these acts of (iolence.4 In this case! the 4e(idence4 would +e the hatred
e(o,ed in the followers. This hatred would ser(e to ma,e them fa(ora+le inclined towards the claim that they
should engage in the acts of (iolence. &s another example! a +eer commercial might show happy! scantily clad
men and women prancing a+out a +each! gu??ling +eer. In this case the claim would +e 4you should +uy this
+eer.4 The 4e(idence4 would +e the excitement e(o,ed +y seeing the +eautiful people gu??ling the +eer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effecti(e persuasi(e de(ice. &s many people ha(e argued! peoplesB
emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Gogical argumentation is often difficult and time
consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its
great popularity and wide usage. .owe(er! it is still a fallacy.
&s a final point! in many cases it will +e difficult to distinguish an &ppeal to 0motion from some other fallacies
and in many cases multiple fallacies may +e committed. For example! many &d .ominems will +e (ery similar
to &ppeals to 0motion and! in some cases! +oth fallacies will +e committed. &s an example! a leader might
attempt to in(o,e hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should re2ect her claims. The
same attac, could function as an &ppeal to 0motion and a -ersonal &ttac,. In the first case! the attac, would +e
aimed at ma,ing the followers feel (ery fa(ora+le a+out re2ecting her claims. In the second case! the attac,
would +e aimed at ma,ing the followers re2ect the personBs claims +ecause of some percei(ed $or imagined%
defect in her character.
This fallacy is related to the &ppeal to -opularity fallacy. /espite the differences +etween these two fallacies!
they are +oth united +y the fact that they in(ol(e appeals to emotions. In +oth cases the fallacies aim at getting
people to accept claims +ased on how they or others feel a+out the claims and not +ased on e(idence for the
claims.
&nother way to loo, at these two fallacies is as follows
&ppeal to -opularity
5. 3ost people appro(e of 9.
6. 8o! I should appro(e of 9! too.
:. 8ince I appro(e of 9! 9 must +e true.
&ppeal to 0motion
5. I appro(e of 9.
6. Therefore! 9 is true.
En this (iew! in an &ppeal to -opularity the claim is accepted +ecause most people appro(e of the claim. In the
case of an &ppeal to 0motion the claim is accepted +ecause the indi(idual appro(es of the claim +ecause of the
emotion of appro(al he feels in regards to the claim.
0xamples of &ppeal to 0motion
5. The new -owerTangerine computer gi(es you the power you need. If you +uy one! people will en(y
your power. They will loo, up to you and wish they were 2ust li,e you. >ou will ,now the true 2oy of
power. Tangerine-ower.
6. The new 7ltra8,inny diet will ma,e you feel great. *o longer +e trou+led +y your weight. 0n2oy the
admiring stares of the opposite sex. Je(el in your new freedom from fat. >ou will ,now true happiness
if you try our dietK
:. Bill goes to hear a politician spea,. The politician tells the crowd a+out the e(ils of the go(ernment and
the need to throw out the peoople who are currently in office. &fter hearing the speach! Bill is full of
hatred for the current politicians. Because of this! he feels good a+out getting rid of the old politicians
and accepts that it is the right thing to do +ecause of how he feels.
The fallacy of Division is committed when a person infers that what is true of a whole must also +e true of its
constituents and 2ustification for that inference is not pro(ided.
There are two main (ariants of the general fallacy of /i(ision:
The first type of fallacy of /i(ision is committed when 5% a person reasons that what is true of the whole must
also +e true of the parts and 6% the person fails to 2ustify that inference with the required degree of e(idence.
3ore formally! the 4reasoning4 follows this sort of pattern:
5. The whole! 9! has properties &! B! 1! etc.
6. Therefore the parts of 9 ha(e properties &! B! 1! etc.
That this line of reasoning is fallacious is made clear +y the following case: ; is an e(en num+er. 5 and : are
parts of ;. Therefore 5 and : are e(en.
It should +e noted that it is not always fallacious to draw a conclusion a+out the parts of a whole +ased on the
properties of the whole. &s long as adequate e(idence is pro(ided in the argument! the the reasoning can +e
accepta+le. For example! the human +ody is made out of matter and it is reasona+le to infer from this that the
parts that ma,e up the human +ody are also made out of matter. This is +ecause there is no reason to +elie(e that
the +ody is made up of non-material parts that somehow form matter when they get together.
The second (ersion of the fallacy of di(ision is committed when a person 5% draws a conclusion a+out the
properties of ind(idual mem+ers of a class or group +ased on the collecti(e properties of the class or group and
6% there is not enough 2ustification for the conclusion. 3ore formally! the line of 4reasoning4 is as follows:
5. &s a collecti(e! Froup or class 9 has properties &! B! 1! etc.
6. Therefore the indi(idual mem+ers of group or class 9 ha(e properties &! B! 1! etc.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious can +e easily shown +y the following: It is true that athletes! ta,en as a
group! are foot+all players! trac, runners! swimmers! tennis players! long 2umpers! pole (aulters and such. But it
would +e fallacious to infer that each indi(idual athlets is a foot+all player! a trac, runner! a swimmer! a tennis
player! a swimmer! etc.
0xamples of /i(ision
5. 4The +all is +lue! therefore the atoms that ma,e it up are also +lue.4
6. 4& li(ing cell is organic material! so the chemicals ma,ing up the cell must also +e organic material.4
:. 4Bill li(es in a large +uilding! so his apartment must +e large.4
;. 48odium chloride $ta+le salt% may +e safely eaten. Therefore its constituent elements! sodium and
chloride! may +e safely eaten.4
<. 4&mericans use much more electricity than &fricans do. 8o Bill! who li(es in primiti(e ca+in in 3aine!
uses more electricity than *elson! who li(es in a modern house in 8outh &frica. 4
=. 43en recei(e more higher education than women. Therefore /r. Lane 8mart has less higher education
than 3r. Bill Buffoon. 4
@. 43inorities get paid less than BwhitesB in &merica. Therefore! the +lac, 10E of a multi-+illion dollar
company gets paid less than the white 2anitor who cleans his office.4
The &rgumentum &d Ignorantiam is where one assumes a thing is true if it cannot +e pro(en to +e false or that a
thing is false if it cannot pro(en to +e true. In +oth directions a fallacy has occurred +ecause in the a+sence of
e(idence no conclusion can +e drawn.
argumentum ad ignorantiam $4arguing from ignorance4% -- & fallacy that occurs when someone argues that
+ecause we donBt ,now something is true! it must +e false! or +ecause we lac, proof that a statement is false! it
must +e true. Ignorance or lac, of e(idence doesnBt necessarily mean a position or claim is true or
false. 1ommon 0xamples: 4*o one has e(er pro(en that 7FEs exist. Therefore! they donBt exist.4 $8omething
can exist despite the a+sence of confirmation. Gac, of proof is 2ustification for caution or e(en scepticism! +ut
not dogmatic assertions.% 4There is simply no proof that Fod exists. Therefore! Fod doesnBt exist.4 $Fod might
exist e(en though there is no way empirically to pro(e it.%
equi(ocation -- 8ometimes referred to as 4amphi+oly4. & fallacy that stems from the am+iguous meaning of
certain words. For example! 5. Enly man is logical. 6. *o woman is a man. :. Therefore! no woman is logical.
43an4 in the first sentence really means 4man,ind!4 4human,ind!4 4homo sapiens4. 43an4 in the second
sentence means 4maleness4. The syllogism appears to +e (alid! +ut in fact is fallacious +ecause of the su+tle
shift in meaning.
1omplex question. & complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to +e true +y its
construction! such as 4.a(e you stopped +eating your wife"4 & question li,e this is fallacious only if the thing
presumed true $in this case! that you +eat your wife% has not +een esta+lished.
1omplex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the
questionee to inad(ertently admit something that she might not admit if as,ed directly. For instance! one might
say! 4Inasmuch as the ma2ority of +lac, &mericans li(e in po(erty! do you really thin, that self-help within the
+lac, community is sufficient to address their pro+lems"4 Ef course! the introductory clause a+out the ma2ority
of +lac, &mericans li(ing in po(erty may not +e true $in fact! it is false%! +ut an unwary de+ater might not thin,
quic,ly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questiona+le. This is a snea,y tactic! +ut de+ate is
sometimes a snea,y +usiness.
1omplex Question Fallacy
The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is as,ed $a% that rests on a questiona+le assumption!
and $+% to which all answers appear to endorse that assumption.
0xamples
.a(e you stopped +eating your wife"#
This is a complex question +ecause it presupposes that you used to +eat your wife! a presupposition that either
answer to the question appears to endorse.
&re you going to admit that youre wrong"#
&nswering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. &nswering no to the question implies that the accused
accepts that he is in the wrong! +ut will not admit it. *o room is left to protest ones innocence. This is therefore
a complex question! and a su+tle false dilemma.
Fallacy of 1omposition
The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that e(ery part of a whole has a gi(en
property that the whole also has that property. This pattern of argument is the re(erse of that of the fallacy of
di(ision. It is not always fallacious! +ut we must +e cautious in ma,ing inferences of this form.
0xamples
& clear case of the fallacy of composition is this:
$5% 0(ery song on the al+um lasts less than an hour.
Therefore:
$6% The al+um lasts less than an hour.
Fallacy of /i(ision
The fallacy of di(ision is the re(erse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed +y inferences from the fact
that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the whole also has that property. Gi,e the fallacy of
composition! this is only a fallacy for some propertiesM for others! it is a legitimate form of inference.
0xample
&n example of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of di(ision is this:
$5% )ater is liquid.
Therefore:
$6% .6E molecules are liquid.
The informal fallacy of accident $also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum
quid% is a deducti(ely (alid +ut unsound argument occurring in statistical syllogisms $an argument +ased on
a generali?ation% when an exception to a rule of thum+
N5O
is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally
identified +y&ristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrele(ant situation.
For example:
1utting people with ,ni(es is a crime. P
8urgeons cut people with ,ni(es. P
8urgeons are criminals.
&ccident: the fallacy of applying a general rule to a particular case whose special circumstances render the rule
inapplica+le.
&. The fallacy of accident results from using a statement which has a qualified meaning as if it had no
qualification whatsoe(er.
5. E.g.! 4Thou shalt not ,illM therefore! you should not try to control termites in your home or fight
for your country.4
6. E.g.! 4&ll persons are created equal! so since you made a 1 in this class! you ha(enBt +een
wor,ing as hard as you should.4
0(en though people are supposedly created equal politically! it does not follow that they are
created equal in academic pursuits.4
B. The fallacy of accident arises from +elie(ing the general premiss which has a qualified meaning applies
in all circumstances without restriction.
5. 4The 7.8. is a true democracyM therefore! children and criminals should +e allowed to (ote.4
6. 4-eople are defined as rational animals. Therefore! you should spend more time reasoning and
thin,ing rather than en2oying yourself with what you do.4
&mphi+oly
& fallacy that relies on an am+iguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead an audience. This is
an error due to ta,ing a grammatically am+iguous phrase in two different ways during the reasoning. Fallacy of
&mphi+oly in(ol(es the use of sentences which can +e interpreted in multiple ways with equal 2ustification due
to some defect in the grammar! sentence structure! andQor punctuation.
0xample:
In a cartoon! two elephants are dri(ing their car down the road in India. They say! )ed +etter not get out
here!# as they pass a sign saying:
0G0-.&*T8
-G0&80 8T&> I* >E7J 1&J
7pon one interpretation of the grammar! the pronoun >E7J# refers to the elephants in the car! +ut on another
it refers to those humans who are dri(ing cars in the (icinity. 7nli,e equi(ocation! which is due to multiple
meanings of a phrase! amphi+oly is due to syntactic am+iguity! am+iguity caused +y multiple ways of
understanding the grammar of the phrase.
&n amphi+oly fallacy is an error in logic or fallacy that arises from am+iguity or misunderstanding due to
grammar! usually through poor punctuation or word choice. This can +e a fallacy that is utili?ed on purpose! or
it can happen accidentally as a result of language used hastily or without editing. The nature of this type of
fallacy is am+iguity! which means that the argument supported +y such a fallacy can easily +e argued against +y
addressing the different possi+le meanings. &n amphi+oly fallacy can also +e used to great comedic effect! as
the phrase plays on the am+iguity for comedic purposes.
For example! if someone said The doctor wanted to operate on the patient! +ut he was not ready!# the he# is
am+iguous and could refer to either the doctor or the patient.
The anthropologists went to a remote area and too, photographs of some nati(e women! +ut they werenBt
de(eloped.
In this example! the pronoun 4they4 is am+iguous +etween the photographs and the nati(e women! though
presuma+ly it was intended to refer to the former.
1on(erse &ccident: $hasty generali?ation% the fallacy of considering certain exceptional cases and generali?ing
to a rule that fits them alone. *ote that the fallacy of con(erse accident is the opposite of accident.
If we reason +y paying too much attention to exceptions to the rule! and generali?e on the exceptions! our
reasoning contains this fallacy. This fallacy is the con(erse of the accident fallacy. It is a ,ind of .asty
Fenerali?ation! +y generali?ing too quic,ly from a peculiar case.
0xample:
I(e heard that turtles li(e longer than tarantulas! +ut the one turtle I +ought li(ed only two days. I +ought it at
/owdens -et 8tore. 8o! I thin, that turtles +ought from pet stores do not li(e longer than tarantulas.
The original generali?ation is Turtles li(e longer than tarantulas.# There are exceptions! such as the turtle
+ought from the pet store. Jather than seeing this for what it is! namely an exception! the reasoner places too
much trust in this exception and generali?es on it to produce the faulty generali?ation that turtles +ought from
pet stores do not li(e longer than tarantulas.
The fallacy of con(erse accident $also called re(erse accident! destroying the exception! or a dicto secundum
quid ad dictum simpliciter% is an informal fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism when an exception to
a generali?ation is wrongly excluded! and the generali?ation wrongly called for as applying to all cases.
For example:
If we allow people with glaucoma to use medical mari2uana! then e(eryone should +e allowed to use
mari2uana.
False 1ause
Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another. The Fallacy of *on 1ausa -ro 1ausa is another
name for this fallacy. Its four principal ,inds are the -ost .oc Fallacy! the Fallacy of 1um .oc! 0rgo -ropter
.oc! the Jegression Fallacy! and the Fallacy of Je(ersing 1ausation.
False 1ause: the fallacy committed when an argument mista,enly attempt to esta+lish a causal connection.
There are two +asic interrelated ,inds.
0xample:
3y psychic ad(iser says to expect +ad things when 3ars is aligned with Lupiter. Tomorrow 3ars will +e
aligned with Lupiter. 8o! if a dog were to +ite me tomorrow! it would +e +ecause of the alignment of 3ars with
Lupiter.
Ignoratio elenchi Q Irrele(ant conclusion
The fallacy of Irrele(ant 1onclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular
conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.
For example! a 1hristian may +egin +y saying that he will argue that the teachings of 1hristianity are
undou+tedly true. If he then argues at length that 1hristianity is of great help to many people! no matter
how well he argues he will not ha(e shown that 1hristian teachings are true.
8adly! these ,inds of irrele(ant arguments are often successful! +ecause they ma,e people to (iew the
supposed conclusion in a more fa(ora+le light.
Irrelevant Conclusion: The conclusion that is drawn is irrele(ant to the premisesM it misses the point.
0xample:
In court! Thompson testifies that the defendant is a honora+le person! who wouldnt harm a flea. The defense
attorney uses the fallacy +y rising to say that Thompsons testimony shows once again that his client was not
near the murder scene.
The testimony of Thompson may +e rele(ant to a request for leniency! +ut it is irrele(ant to any claim a+out the
defendant not +eing near the murder scene. Ether examples of this fallacy are &d .ominem!&ppeal to
&uthority! &ppeal to 0motions! and &rgument from Ignorance.
&ccent Fallacies
&ccent fallacies are fallacies that depend on where the stress is placed in a word or sentence. The meaning of a
set of words may +e dramatically changed +y the way they are spo,en! without changing any of the words
themsel(es. &ccent fallacies are a type of equi(ocation.
& fallacy of accent occurs when a statement creates unnecessary am+iguity +ecause of a shift of emphasis either
in spo,en or written words.
&ccent
The accent fallacy is a fallacy of am+iguity due to the different ways a word is emphasi?ed or accented.
0xample:
& mem+er of 1ongress is as,ed +y a reporter if she is in fa(or of the -residents new missile defense system!
and she responds! Im in fa(or of a missile defense system that effecti(ely defends &merica.#
)ith an emphasis on the word fa(or!# her response is li,ely to favor the -residents missile defense system.
)ith an emphasis! instead! on the words effecti(ely defends!# her remar, is li,ely to +e against the -residents
missile defense system. &nd +y using neither emphasis! she can later claim that her response was on either side
of the issue. &ristotles (ersion of the fallacy of accent allowed only a shift in which sylla+le is accented within
a word.
&ppeal to Ignorance
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: $5% *ot ,nowing that a certain statement is true is ta,en
to +e a proof that it is false. $6% *ot ,nowing that a statement is false is ta,en to +e a proof that it is true. The
fallacy occurs in cases where a+sence of e(idence is not good enough e(idence of a+sence. The fallacy uses an
un2ustified attempt to shift the +urden of proof. The fallacy is also called &rgument from Ignorance.#
0xample:
*o+ody has e(er pro(ed to me theres a Fod! so I ,now there is no Fod.
This ,ind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would +e proper reasoning only if the proof attempts were quite
thorough! and it were the case that if Fod did exist! then there would +e a disco(era+le proof of this. &nother
common example of the fallacy in(ol(es ignorance of a future e(ent: -eople ha(e +een complaining a+out the
danger of 9s e(er since they were in(ented! +ut theres ne(er +een any +ig pro+lem with them! so theres
nothing to worry a+out.