1.

Rules of Syllogism There are five rules that govern the categorical syllogism:
Rule 1: There must be three terms and only three the major term, theminor term, and the middle term. If there
are only two terms the relationshi between these two cannot be established. !nd if there were more than three
terms this would violate the structure of the categorical syllogism.
!nimals are living beings.
"lants are heavenly bodies.
Therefore#
Stones are minerals.
$inerals are stones.
Therefore#
! widower is a man.
! man is either male or female.
Therefore, a widower is either male or female.
Rule %: &ach term must occur twice in the syllogism: the major must occur in the conclusion and in one
remise, the minor in the conclusion and in one remise' the middle in both remise but not in the conclusion.
There must therefore be a total of three roositions in the syllogism.
Rule (: The middle term must be distributed at least once. If the middle term is articular in both remises it
might stand for a different ortion of its e)tension in each occurrence and thus be e*uivalent to two terms.
!ll shar+s are fish.
!ll salmon are fish.
Therefore, all salmons are shar+s.
$any rich men oress the oor.
,ones is a rich man.
Therefore, ,ones oresses the oor.
Rule -: The major and minor terms may not be universal in the conclusion unless they are universal in the
remises. If a term is distributed in the conclusion then it must be distributed first in the remise.
There is an illicit major term if the major term is universal in the conclusion but articular in the remise:
!ll horses are animals.
!ll dogs are not horses.
Therefore, all dogs are not animals.
There is an illicit minor term if the minor term is universal in the conclusion but articular in the remise:
!ll tigers are mammals.
!ll mammals are animals.
Therefore, all animals are tigers.
The rationale behind this rule is that we may not conclude about all the inferiors of a term if the remises have
given us information about only some of them. The +ey to detect a violation of this rule is to e)amine the
conclusion. If there is no term that is distributed in the conclusion then this rule could not have been violated. If
one or both terms in the conclusion are distributed there is ossibility of the rule having been violated. If a term
is distributed both in the remise and the conclusion there is no violation of this rule.
Rule .: If both remises are affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative. The reason for this rule is that
affirmative remises either unite the minor or major terms, or else do not bring them into relationshi with each
other at all.
!ll sins are detestable.
!ll retenses are a sin.
Therefore, all retenses are not detestable.
There is a need to be cautious about aarently affirmative or negative roositions:
!nimals differ from angels.
$an is an animal.
Therefore, a man is not a horse.
Rule /: If one remise is affirmative and the other negative, the conclusion must be negative.
!ll crows are birds.
!ll wolves are not crows.
Therefore, all wolves are birds.
Some remises are aarently affirmatives but actually negative and therefore yield a valid conclusion:
0ogs are not cats.
1reyhounds are dogs.
Therefore, greyhounds differ from cats.
Rule 2: If both remises are negative and not e*uivalently affirmative there can be no conclusion.
Retiles are not mammals.
0ogs are not retiles.
Therefore#
Rule 3: If both remises are articular there can be no conclusion.
4egging the 5uestion 6 This tye of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the
hrasing of the *uestion itself.
7or e)amle: 8If aliens didn9t steal my newsaer, who did:; <assume that the newsaer was actually stolen=.
!eal to !uthority 6 This tye 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 erson of authority in an attemt to give credence to their argument.
7or e)amle: 8?ell, Isaac @ewton believed in !lchemy, do you thin+ you +now more than Isaac @ewton:;
!ttac+ing the "erson 6 !lso +nown as !rgumentum ad Aominem <argument against the man=, this is
*uite a common occurrence in debates and refers to a erson who substitutes a rebuttal with a ersonal insult.
7or e)amle: 80on9t listen to &ddie9s arguments on education, he9s an idiot.;
0escrition of Bomosition
The fallacy of Bomosition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its
constituents when, in fact, no justification rovided for the inference. There are actually two tyes of this
fallacy, both of which are +nown by the same name <because of the high degree of similarity=.
The first tye of fallacy of Bomosition arises when a erson reasons from the characteristics of individual
members of a class or grou to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or grou <ta+en as a
whole=. $ore formally, the CreasoningC would loo+ something li+e this.
1. Individual 7 things have characteristics !, 4, B, etc.
%. Therefore, the <whole= class of 7 things has characteristics !, 4, B, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not,
in itself, guarantee that the class <ta+en as a whole= has those characteristics.
It is imortant to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics
of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be rovided to
warrant the conclusion. 7or e)amle, it is true that an individual rich erson has more wealth than an individual
oor erson. In some nations <such as the DS= it is true that the class of wealthy eole has more wealth as a
whole than does the class of oor eole. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the
fallacy of Bomosition would not be committed.
The second tye of fallacy of Bomosition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the arts of a
whole must be true of the whole without there being ade*uate justification for the claim. $ore formally, the line
of CreasoningC would be as follows:
1. The arts of the whole E have characteristics !, 4, B, etc.
%. Therefore the whole E must have characteristics !, 4, B.
&)amles of Bomosition
1. ! main battle tan+ uses more fuel than a car. Therefore, the main battle tan+s use u more of the
available fuel in the world than do all the cars.
%. ! tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a grou, eat more food than do all the
humans on the earth.
(. !toms are colorless. Bats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.
-. C&very layer on the team is a suerstar and a great layer, so the team is a great team.C This is
fallacious since the suerstars might not be able to lay together very well and hence they could be a
lousy team.
.. C&ach art of the show, from the secial effects to the acting is a masteriece. So, the whole show is a
masteriece.C This is fallacious since a show could have great acting, great secial effects and such, yet
still fail to Ccome togetherC to ma+e a masteriece.
/. CBome on, you li+e beef, otatoes, and green beens, so you will li+e this beef, otato, and green been
casserole.C This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is fallacious: CFou li+e eggs,
icecream, iGGa, ca+e, fish, jello, 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.C
2. Sodium and Bhloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride
will be dangerous to humans.
3. !d Aominem66!ttac+ing the individual instead of the argument.
1. &)amle : Fou are so stuid your argument couldnHt ossibly be true.
%. &)amle : I figured that you couldnHt ossibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
I. !eal to 7orce66Telling the hearer that something bad will haen to him if he does not accet the
argument.
1. &)amle : If you donHt want to get beaten u, you will agree with what I say.
%. &)amle : Bonvert or die.
1J. !eal to "ity66Drging the hearer to accet the argument based uon an aeal to emotions, symathy,
etc.
1. &)amle : Fou owe me big time because I really stuc+ my nec+ out for you.
%. &)amle : Kh come on, IHve been sic+. ThatHs why I missed the deadline.
11. 4egging the 5uestion66!ssuming the thing to be true that you are trying to rove. It is circular.
1. &)amle : 1od e)ists because the 4ible says so. The 4ible is insired. Therefore, we +now that
1od e)ists.
%. &)amle : I am a good wor+er because 7ran+ says so. Aow can we trust 7ran+: Simle: I will
vouch for him.
1%. 7allacy of 0ivision66!ssuming that what is true of the whole is true for the arts.
1. &)amle : That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
%. &)amle : Four family is weird. That means that you are weird, too.
1(. 7allacy of &*uivocation66Dsing the same term in an argument in different laces but the word has
different meanings.
1. &)amle : ! bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than
"resident 4ush.
%. &)amle : &volution states that one secies can change into another. ?e see that cars have
evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in secies.
0escrition of !d Aominem
Translated from Latin to &nglish, C!d AominemC means Cagainst the manC or Cagainst the erson.C
!n !d Aominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some
irrelevant fact about the author of or the erson resenting the claim or argument. Tyically, this fallacy
involves two stes. 7irst, an attac+ against the character of erson ma+ing the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made <or the character, circumstances, or actions of the erson reorting the claim=. Second, this
attac+ is ta+en to be evidence against the claim or argument the erson in *uestion is ma+ing <or resenting=.
This tye of CargumentC has the following form:
1. "erson ! ma+es claim E.
%. "erson 4 ma+es an attac+ on erson !.
(. Therefore !Hs claim is false.
The reason why an !d Aominem <of any +ind= is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a
erson do not <in most cases= have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made <or the *uality of the
argument being made=.
&)amle of !d Aominem
1. 4ill: CI believe that abortion is morally wrong.C
0ave: CKf course you would say that, youHre a riest.C
4ill: C?hat about the arguments I gave to suort my osition:C
0ave: CThose donHt count. Li+e I said, youHre a riest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. 7urther,
you are just a lac+ey to the "oe, so I canHt believe what you say.C
!n Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. 7avorable emotions are associated with E.
%. Therefore, E is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone maniulates eolesH emotions in order to get them to accet a claim
as being true. $ore formally, this sort of CreasoningC involves the substitution of various means of roducing
strong emotions in lace of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with E influence the
erson to accet E as true because they Cfeel good about E,C then he has fallen rey to the fallacy.
This sort of CreasoningC is very common in olitics and it serves as the basis for a large ortion of modern
advertising. $ost olitical seeches are aimed at generating feelings in eole so that these feelings will get
them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evo+ing emotions that
will influence eole to buy certain roducts. In most cases, such seeches and commercials are notoriously
free of real evidence.
This sort of CreasoningC is *uite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite
emotions in eole does not serve as evidence for a claim. 7or e)amle, if a erson were able to insire in a
erson an incredible hatred of the claim that 1M1 N % and then insired the erson to love the claim that 1M1 N (,
it would hardly follow that the claim that 1M1 N ( would be ade*uately suorted.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not articularly obvious that the erson committing the fallacy is
attemting to suort a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will aear to be attemting to move eole
to ta+e an action, such as buying a roduct or fighting in a war. Aowever, it is ossible to determine what sort of
claim the erson is actually attemting to suort. In such cases one needs to as+ Cwhat sort of claim is this
erson attemting to get eole to accet and act on:C 0etermining this claim <or claims= might ta+e some
wor+. Aowever, in many cases it will be *uite evident. 7or e)amle, if a olitical leader is attemting to
convince her followers to articiate in certain acts of violence by the use of a hate seech, then her claim
would be Cyou should articiate in these acts of violence.C In this case, the CevidenceC would be the hatred
evo+ed in the followers. This hatred would serve to ma+e them favorable inclined towards the claim that they
should engage in the acts of violence. !s another e)amle, a beer commercial might show hay, scantily clad
men and women rancing about a beach, guGGling beer. In this case the claim would be Cyou should buy this
beer.C The CevidenceC would be the e)citement evo+ed by seeing the beautiful eole guGGling the beer.
This fallacy is actually an e)tremely effective ersuasive device. !s many eole have argued, eolesH
emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time
consuming and it rarely has the ower to surn eole to action. It is the ower of this fallacy that e)lains its
great oularity and wide usage. Aowever, it is still a fallacy.
!s a final oint, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an !eal to &motion from some other fallacies
and in many cases multile fallacies may be committed. 7or e)amle, many !d Aominems will be very similar
to !eals to &motion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. !s an e)amle, a leader might
attemt to invo+e hatred of a erson to insire his followers to accet that they should reject her claims. The
same attac+ could function as an !eal to &motion and a "ersonal !ttac+. In the first case, the attac+ would be
aimed at ma+ing the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attac+
would be aimed at ma+ing the followers reject the ersonHs claims because of some erceived <or imagined=
defect in her character.
This fallacy is related to the !eal to "oularity fallacy. 0esite the differences between these two fallacies,
they are both united by the fact that they involve aeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting
eole to accet claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on evidence for the
claims.
!nother way to loo+ at these two fallacies is as follows
!eal to "oularity
1. $ost eole arove of E.
%. So, I should arove of E, too.
(. Since I arove of E, E must be true.
!eal to &motion
1. I arove of E.
%. Therefore, E is true.
Kn this view, in an !eal to "oularity the claim is acceted because most eole arove of the claim. In the
case of an !eal to &motion the claim is acceted because the individual aroves of the claim because of the
emotion of aroval he feels in regards to the claim.
&)amles of !eal to &motion
1. The new "owerTangerine comuter gives you the ower you need. If you buy one, eole will envy
your ower. They will loo+ u to you and wish they were just li+e you. Fou will +now the true joy of
ower. Tangerine"ower.
%. The new DltraS+inny diet will ma+e you feel great. @o longer be troubled by your weight. &njoy the
admiring stares of the oosite se). Revel in your new freedom from fat. Fou will +now true hainess
if you try our dietO
(. 4ill goes to hear a olitician sea+. The olitician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and
the need to throw out the eoole who are currently in office. !fter hearing the seach, 4ill is full of
hatred for the current oliticians. 4ecause of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old oliticians
and accets that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.
The fallacy of Division is committed when a erson infers that what is true of a whole must also be true of its
constituents and justification for that inference is not rovided.
There are two main variants of the general fallacy of 0ivision:
The first tye of fallacy of 0ivision is committed when 1= a erson reasons that what is true of the whole must
also be true of the arts and %= the erson fails to justify that inference with the re*uired degree of evidence.
$ore formally, the CreasoningC follows this sort of attern:
1. The whole, E, has roerties !, 4, B, etc.
%. Therefore the arts of E have roerties !, 4, B, etc.
That this line of reasoning is fallacious is made clear by the following case: - is an even number. 1 and ( are
arts of -. Therefore 1 and ( are even.
It should be noted that it is not always fallacious to draw a conclusion about the arts of a whole based on the
roerties of the whole. !s long as ade*uate evidence is rovided in the argument, the the reasoning can be
accetable. 7or e)amle, the human body is made out of matter and it is reasonable to infer from this that the
arts that ma+e u the human body are also made out of matter. This is because there is no reason to believe
that the body is made u of non6material arts that somehow form matter when they get together.
The second version of the fallacy of division is committed when a erson 1= draws a conclusion about the
roerties of indvidual members of a class or grou based on the collective roerties of the class or grou and
%= there is not enough justification for the conclusion. $ore formally, the line of CreasoningC is as follows:
1. !s a collective, 1rou or class E has roerties !, 4, B, etc.
%. Therefore the individual members of grou or class E have roerties !, 4, B, etc.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious can be easily shown by the following: It is true that athletes, ta+en as a
grou, are football layers, trac+ runners, swimmers, tennis layers, long jumers, ole vaulters and such. 4ut it
would be fallacious to infer that each individual athlets is a football layer, a trac+ runner, a swimmer, a tennis
layer, a swimmer, etc.
&)amles of 0ivision
1. CThe ball is blue, therefore the atoms that ma+e it u are also blue.C
%. C! living cell is organic material, so the chemicals ma+ing u the cell must also be organic material.C
(. C4ill lives in a large building, so his aartment must be large.C
-. CSodium chloride <table salt= may be safely eaten. Therefore its constituent elements, sodium and
chloride, may be safely eaten.C
.. C!mericans use much more electricity than !fricans do. So 4ill, who lives in rimitive cabin in $aine,
uses more electricity than @elson, who lives in a modern house in South !frica. C
/. C$en receive more higher education than women. Therefore 0r. ,ane Smart has less higher education
than $r. 4ill 4uffoon. C
2. C$inorities get aid less than HwhitesH in !merica. Therefore, the blac+ B&K of a multi6billion dollar
comany gets aid less than the white janitor who cleans his office.C
The !rgumentum !d Ignorantiam is where one assumes a thing is true if it cannot be roven to be false or that
a thing is false if it cannot roven to be true. In both directions a fallacy has occurred because in the absence of
evidence no conclusion can be drawn.
argumentum ad ignorantiam <Carguing from ignoranceC= 66 ! fallacy that occurs when someone argues that
because we donHt +now something is true, it must be false, or because we lac+ roof that a statement is false, it
must be true. Ignorance or lac+ of evidence doesnHt necessarily mean a osition or claim is true or
false. Bommon &)amles: C@o one has ever roven that D7Ks e)ist. Therefore, they donHt e)ist.C <Something
can e)ist desite the absence of confirmation. Lac+ of roof is justification for caution or even sceticism, but
not dogmatic assertions.= CThere is simly no roof that 1od e)ists. Therefore, 1od doesnHt e)ist.C <1od might
e)ist even though there is no way emirically to rove it.=
e*uivocation 66 Sometimes referred to as CamhibolyC. ! fallacy that stems from the ambiguous meaning of
certain words. 7or e)amle, 1. Knly man is logical. %. @o woman is a man. (. Therefore, no woman is logical.
C$anC in the first sentence really means Cman+ind,C Chuman+ind,C Chomo saiensC. C$anC in the second
sentence means CmalenessC. The syllogism aears to be valid, but in fact is fallacious because of the subtle
shift in meaning.
Bomle) *uestion. ! comle) *uestion is a *uestion that imlicitly assumes something to be true by its
construction, such as CAave you stoed beating your wife:C ! *uestion li+e this is fallacious only if the thing
resumed true <in this case, that you beat your wife= has not been established.
Bomle) *uestions usually aear in cross6e)amination or oints of information when the *uestioner wants the
*uestionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if as+ed directly. 7or instance, one might
say, CInasmuch as the majority of blac+ !mericans live in overty, do you really thin+ that self6hel within the
blac+ community is sufficient to address their roblems:C Kf course, the introductory clause about the majority
of blac+ !mericans living in overty may not be true <in fact, it is false=, but an unwary debater might not thin+
*uic+ly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is *uestionable. This is a snea+y tactic, but debate is
sometimes a snea+y business.
Bomle) 5uestion 7allacy
The comle) *uestion fallacy is committed when a *uestion is as+ed <a= that rests on a *uestionable assumtion,
and <b= to which all answers aear to endorse that assumtion.
&)amles
8Aave you stoed beating your wife:;
This is a comle) *uestion because it resuoses that you used to beat your wife, a resuosition that either
answer to the *uestion aears to endorse.
8!re you going to admit that you9re wrong:;
!nswering yes to this *uestion is an admission of guilt. !nswering no to the *uestion imlies that the accused
accets that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. @o room is left to rotest one9s innocence. This is therefore
a comle) *uestion, and a subtle false dilemma.
7allacy of Bomosition
The fallacy of comosition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every art of a whole has a given
roerty that the whole also has that roerty. This attern of argument is the reverse of that of the fallacy of
division. It is not always fallacious, but we must be cautious in ma+ing inferences of this form.
&)amles
! clear case of the fallacy of comosition is this:
<1= &very song on the album lasts less than an hour.
Therefore:
<%= The album lasts less than an hour.
7allacy of 0ivision
The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of comosition. It is committed by inferences from the fact
that a whole has a roerty to the conclusion that a art of the whole also has that roerty. Li+e the fallacy of
comosition, this is only a fallacy for some roerties' for others, it is a legitimate form of inference.
&)amle
!n e)amle of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of division is this:
<1= ?ater is li*uid.
Therefore:
<%= A%K molecules are li*uid.
The informal fallacy of accident <also called destroying the e)cetion or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum
quid= is a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in statistical syllogisms <an argument based on
a generaliGation= when an e)cetion to a rule of thumb
P1Q
is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally
identified by!ristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attemts to aly a general rule to an irrelevant situation.
7or e)amle:
Butting eole with +nives is a crime. R
Surgeons cut eole with +nives. R
Surgeons are criminals.
!ccident: the fallacy of alying a general rule to a articular case whose secial circumstances render the rule
inalicable.
!. The fallacy of accident results from using a statement which has a *ualified meaning as if it had no
*ualification whatsoever.
1. E.g., CThou shalt not +ill' therefore, you should not try to control termites in your home or fight
for your country.C
%. E.g., C!ll ersons are created e*ual, so since you made a B in this class, you havenHt been
wor+ing as hard as you should.C
&ven though eole are suosedly created e*ual olitically, it does not follow that they are
created e*ual in academic ursuits.C
4. The fallacy of accident arises from believing the general remiss which has a *ualified meaning alies
in all circumstances without restriction.
1. CThe D.S. is a true democracy' therefore, children and criminals should be allowed to vote.C
%. C"eole are defined as rational animals. Therefore, you should send more time reasoning and
thin+ing rather than enjoying yourself with what you do.C
!mhiboly
! fallacy that relies on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead an audience. This is
an error due to ta+ing a grammatically ambiguous hrase in two different ways during the reasoning. 7allacy of
!mhiboly involves the use of sentences which can be interreted in multile ways with e*ual justification due
to some defect in the grammar, sentence structure, andSor unctuation.
&)amle:
In a cartoon, two elehants are driving their car down the road in India. They say, 8?e9d better not get out
here,; as they ass a sign saying:
&L&"A!@TS
"L&!S& ST!F I@ FKDR B!R
Don one interretation of the grammar, the ronoun 8FKDR; refers to the elehants in the car, but on another
it refers to those humans who are driving cars in the vicinity. Dnli+e e*uivocation, which is due to multile
meanings of a hrase, amhiboly is due to syntactic ambiguity, ambiguity caused by multile ways of
understanding the grammar of the hrase.
!n amhiboly fallacy is an error in logic or fallacy that arises from ambiguity or misunderstanding due to
grammar, usually through oor unctuation or word choice. This can be a fallacy that is utiliGed on urose, or
it can haen accidentally as a result of language used hastily or without editing. The nature of this tye of
fallacy is ambiguity, which means that the argument suorted by such a fallacy can easily be argued against by
addressing the different ossible meanings. !n amhiboly fallacy can also be used to great comedic effect, as
the hrase lays on the ambiguity for comedic uroses.
7or e)amle, if someone said 8The doctor wanted to oerate on the atient, but he was not ready,; the 8he; is
ambiguous and could refer to either the doctor or the atient.
The anthroologists went to a remote area and too+ hotograhs of some native women, but they werenHt
develoed.
In this e)amle, the ronoun CtheyC is ambiguous between the hotograhs and the native women, though
resumably it was intended to refer to the former.
Bonverse !ccident: <hasty generaliGation= the fallacy of considering certain e)cetional cases and generaliGing
to a rule that fits them alone. @ote that the fallacy of converse accident is the oosite of accident.
If we reason by aying too much attention to e)cetions to the rule, and generaliGe on the e)cetions, our
reasoning contains this fallacy. This fallacy is the converse of the accident fallacy. It is a +ind of Aasty
1eneraliGation, by generaliGing too *uic+ly from a eculiar case.
&)amle:
I9ve heard that turtles live longer than tarantulas, but the one turtle I bought lived only two days. I bought it at
0owden9s "et Store. So, I thin+ that turtles bought from et stores do not live longer than tarantulas.
The original generaliGation is 8Turtles live longer than tarantulas.; There are e)cetions, such as the turtle
bought from the et store. Rather than seeing this for what it is, namely an e)cetion, the reasoner laces too
much trust in this e)cetion and generaliGes on it to roduce the faulty generaliGation that turtles bought from
et stores do not live longer than tarantulas.
The fallacy of converse accident <also called reverse accident, destroying the e)cetion, or a dicto secundum
quid ad dictum simpliciter= is an informal fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism when an e)cetion to
a generaliGation is wrongly e)cluded, and the generaliGation wrongly called for as alying to all cases.
For example:
If we allow eole with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then everyone should be allowed to use
marijuana.
7alse Bause
Imroerly concluding that one thing is a cause of another. The 7allacy of @on Bausa "ro Bausa is another
name for this fallacy. Its four rincial +inds are the "ost Aoc 7allacy, the 7allacy of Bum Aoc, &rgo "roter
Aoc, the Regression 7allacy, and the 7allacy of Reversing Bausation.
7alse Bause: the fallacy committed when an argument mista+enly attemt to establish a causal connection.
There are two basic interrelated +inds.
&)amle:
$y sychic adviser says to e)ect bad things when $ars is aligned with ,uiter. Tomorrow $ars will be
aligned with ,uiter. So, if a dog were to bite me tomorrow, it would be because of the alignment of $ars with
,uiter.
Ignoratio elenchi S Irrelevant conclusion
The fallacy of Irrelevant Bonclusion consists of claiming that an argument suorts a articular
conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.
7or e)amle, a Bhristian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Bhristianity are
undoubtedly true. If he then argues at length that Bhristianity is of great hel to many eole, no matter
how well he argues he will not have shown that Bhristian teachings are true.
Sadly, these +inds of irrelevant arguments are often successful, because they ma+e eole to view the
suosed conclusion in a more favorable light.
Irrelevant Conclusion: The conclusion that is drawn is irrelevant to the remises' it misses the oint.
&)amle:
In court, Thomson testifies that the defendant is a honorable erson, who wouldn9t harm a flea. The defense
attorney uses the fallacy by rising to say that Thomson9s testimony shows once again that his client was not
near the murder scene.
The testimony of Thomson may be relevant to a re*uest for leniency, but it is irrelevant to any claim about the
defendant not being near the murder scene. Kther e)amles of this fallacy are !d Aominem,!eal to
!uthority, !eal to &motions, and !rgument from Ignorance.
!ccent 7allacies
!ccent fallacies are fallacies that deend on where the stress is laced in a word or sentence. The meaning of a
set of words may be dramatically changed by the way they are so+en, without changing any of the words
themselves. !ccent fallacies are a tye of e*uivocation.
! fallacy of accent occurs when a statement creates unnecessary ambiguity because of a shift of emhasis either
in so+en or written words.
!ccent
The accent fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity due to the different ways a word is emhasiGed or accented.
&)amle:
! member of Bongress is as+ed by a reorter if she is in favor of the "resident9s new missile defense system,
and she resonds, 8I9m in favor of a missile defense system that effectively defends !merica.;
?ith an emhasis on the word 8favor,; her resonse is li+ely to favor the "resident9s missile defense system.
?ith an emhasis, instead, on the words 8effectively defends,; her remar+ is li+ely to be against the "resident9s
missile defense system. !nd by using neither emhasis, she can later claim that her resonse was on either side
of the issue. !ristotle9s version of the fallacy of accent allowed only a shift in which syllable is accented within
a word.
!eal to Ignorance
The fallacy of aeal to ignorance comes in two forms: <1= @ot +nowing that a certain statement is true is ta+en
to be a roof that it is false. <%= @ot +nowing that a statement is false is ta+en to be a roof that it is true. The
fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an
unjustified attemt to shift the burden of roof. The fallacy is also called 8!rgument from Ignorance.;
&)amle:
@obody has ever roved to me there9s a 1od, so I +now there is no 1od.
This +ind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would be roer reasoning only if the roof attemts were *uite
thorough, and it were the case that if 1od did e)ist, then there would be a discoverable roof of this. !nother
common e)amle of the fallacy involves ignorance of a future event: "eole have been comlaining about the
danger of Es ever since they were invented, but there9s never been any big roblem with them, so there9s
nothing to worry about.