FALLACY

INTRODUCTION

Fallacies are simply invalid or faulty arguments. The fallacies that attract the attention
of logicians are those that are faulty, but not obviously flawed-"arguments which,
although incorrect, are psychologically persuasive" or those "that may seem to be
correct, but that proved, upon examination, not to be so. "1 Formal fallacies are
mistakes in formal arguments, and this class is usually defmed widely enough to include
faulty syllogisms.2 Informal fallacies are the remaining fallacies-the errors that occur in
informal debate.3

The first known systematic study of fallacies was due to Aristotle in his De Sophisticis
Elenchis (Sophistical Refutations), an appendix to the Topics. He listed thirteen types.
After the Dark Ages, fallacies were again studied systematically in Medieval Europe. This
is why so many fallacies have Latin names. The third major period of study of the
fallacies began in the later twentieth century due to renewed interest from the
disciplines of philosophy, logic, communication studies, rhetoric, psychology, and
artificial intelligence.

The more frequent the error within public discussion and debate the more likely it is to
have a name. That is one reason why there is no specific name for the fallacy of
subtracting five from thirteen and concluding that the answer is seven, though the error
is common.

The term "fallacy" is not a precise term. One reason is that it is ambiguous. It can refer
either to (a) a kind of error in an argument, (b) a kind of error in reasoning (including
arguments, definitions, explanations, and so forth), (c) a false belief, or (d) the cause of
any of the previous errors including what are normally referred to as "rhetorical
techniques." Philosophers who are researchers in fallacy theory prefer to emphasize (a),
but their lead is often not followed in textbooks and public discussion.

Regarding (d), ill health, being a bigot, being hungry, being stupid, and being
hypercritical of our enemies are all sources of error in reasoning, so they could qualify
as fallacies of kind (d), but they are not included in the list below. On the other hand,
wishful thinking, stereotyping, being superstitious, rationalizing, and having a poor
sense of proportion are sources of error and are included in the list below, though they
wouldn't be included in a list devoted only to faulty arguments. Thus there is a certain
arbitrariness to what appears in lists such as this. What have been left off the list below
are the following persuasive techniques commonly used to influence others and to cause
errors in reasoning: apple polishing, using propaganda techniques, ridiculing, being
sarcastic, selecting terms with strong negative or positive associations, using innuendo,
and weaseling. All of the techniques are worth knowing about if one wants to reason
well.

In describing the fallacies below, the custom is followed of not distinguishing between
a reasoner using a fallacy and the reasoning itself containing the fallacy.
Real arguments are often embedded within a very long discussion. Richard Whately,
one of the greatest of the 19th century researchers into informal logic, wisely said, "A
very long discussion is one of the most effective veils of Fallacy; ...a Fallacy, which when
stated barely...would not deceive a child, may deceive half the world if diluted in a
quarto volume."

KINDS OF FALLACY

1. HASTY GENERALIZATION

 Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample

that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes
about people (“librarians are shy and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” etc.)
are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

Example: “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is
hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!” Two people’s experiences are, in this
case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions
or experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If
so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion.
(Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes
are hard for some students” would not be a hasty generalization.)

MISSING THE POINT

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not

the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving
is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be
the punishment for drunk driving.” The argument actually supports several
conclusions—”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in
particular—but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is
warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask
yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them.
Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to
support such a conclusion, and then see if you’ve actually given that evidence. Missing
the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be
especially careful if you know you’re claiming something big.
POST HOC (also called false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which
translates as “after this, therefore because of this.”

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes

one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register
for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused
the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t
really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.

Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up.
Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.” The increase in taxes might or might not be
one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused
the other.

Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some
explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced
higher crime rates. And that’s what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If
you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused
B than just that A came first and B came later.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire
consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that
assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery
slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t
stop partway down the hill.

Example: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect
life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder.
Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their
lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should
make animal experimentation illegal right now.” Since animal experimentation has
been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear
that this chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even if we believe that
experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us
more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—
we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet
been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make
animal experimentation illegal right now.

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a
chain of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here’s an
example that doesn’t seem fallacious: “If I fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate.
If I don’t graduate, I probably won’t be able to get a good job, and I may very well
end up doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year.”

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B,
and if B, then C,” and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

WEAK ANALOGY

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas,
or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the
relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it
commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be
used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of
hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and
hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and
being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to
restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large
numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be
hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the
argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any
two things in the world: “My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger
when it rains (I work more when I’m stuck inside) and they’re both kind of murky.”
So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove
much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently

compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would
violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether
these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult
humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights? If the property
that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of human
experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and
the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive
on one’s own, adult humans and fetuses don’t share it, and the analogy is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see
whether the two things you’re comparing both share those properties.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources

or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If,
however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a
famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an
expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as
actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” While Guy
Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no
particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is
probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the
paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make
sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second,
rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to
explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her
opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It
also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable,
rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

AD POPULUM

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several
versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of
the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire
to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common
versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience
to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the
opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should
have, it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time
where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their
opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to
agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your readers believe your
conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will
like you better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion
is not always the right one.
AD HOMINEM AND TU QUOQUE

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem
(“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on
people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the
conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for
not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a
hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her
opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography
harms women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?”
Dworkin’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so
ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as
evidence is fallacious.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done
the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be
listened to. Here’s an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why
you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your
health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you
used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!” The fact that your parents
have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put
forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your
response is fallacious.

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents’ reasoning, rather than on their
personal character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument
about someone’s character—if your conclusion is “President Jones is an untrustworthy
person,” premises about her untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

APPEAL TO PITY

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept
a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me
an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really
hard for me to study!” The conclusion here is “You should give me an A.” But the
criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the
course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week
deserve A’s) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel
relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion—but the
information isn’t logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here’s another
example: “It’s wrong to tax corporations—think of all the money they give to charity,
and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!”

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audience to agree with you
by making them feel sorry for someone.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no
conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion
on this issue.”

Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one
has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing
argument that commits the same fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove
that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God
exists.” In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a
positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing
this is not fallacious: if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to
search for something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing
people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes
some evidence that it doesn’t exist.

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw
a conclusion from that lack of evidence.

STRAW MAN

Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and
respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man
fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score
points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man (like a
scarecrow) isn’t very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your
opponent’s argument isn’t very impressive either.

Example: “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at
it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn
and its fans should be left in peace.” The feminist argument is made weak by being
overstated. In fact, most feminists do not propose an outright “ban” on porn or any
punishment for those who merely view it or approve of it; often, they propose some
restrictions on particular things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are
hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers—not viewers—for damages. So the
arguer hasn’t really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.
Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately,
and sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an
opponent’s argument, then you’ve really accomplished something.

RED HERRING

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a
side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer
never returns to the original issue.

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all,
classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along
well.” Let’s try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what’s wrong with this
argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting
along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a
tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it
more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict.
But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important
and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a
curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many
issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise
supports the conclusion?

FALSE DICHOTOMY

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are
only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we
are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.
But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought
about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new
building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s
safety, so we must tear the building down.” The argument neglects to mention the
possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students
from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape,
perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.
Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between
just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t
mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they,
too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there
are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false
dichotomy and should also be avoided.

BEGGING THE QUESTION

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to

detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that
begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing
real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the
conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular
reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the
argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of
general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons
for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help

another human being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-
conclusion form:

Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering
through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same
thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally
acceptable,” and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means
something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active
euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn’t yet
given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking
“well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs”
(that is, evades) the real question.

Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is
needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong.
So active euthanasia is morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active
euthanasia is murder.” And that is a debatable premise—again, the argument “begs”
or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating
the premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on the uncontroversial premise,
“Murder is morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.
Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and
conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are
required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the
conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements
are controversial and you’ve just glossed over them, you might be begging the
question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same
thing as the conclusion (but in different words). If so, you’re probably begging the
question. The moral of the story: you can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial
evidence the very thing you’re trying to prove.

EQUIVOCATION

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single

word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to
our money.” The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both
something that is correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and
something to which someone has a claim (as in “everyone has a right to life”).
Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like
“freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake
or misunderstanding. Either way, it’s important that you use the main terms of your
argument consistently.

Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask
yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you
aren’t slipping and sliding between those meanings.
SYLLOGISM
 Is a form of deductive reasoning where you arrive at a specific conclusion by
examining two other premises or ideas. Syllogism derives from the Greek
word syllogismos, meaning conclusion or inference.
Three components:
1. Major Premise
2. Minor Premise
3. Conclusion

Example:
Major premise: All roses are flowers.
Minor premise: This is a rose.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am holding a flower.

TYPES OF SYLLOGISM

Categorical Syllogism
As we know, our first example about roses was a categorical syllogism. Categorical
syllogisms follow an "If A is part of C, then B is part of C" logic.
Let's look at some more examples.
 All cars have wheels. I drive a car. Therefore, my car has wheels.

o Major Premise: All cars have wheels.
o Minor Premise: I drive a car.
o Conclusion: My car has wheels.
 All insects frighten me. That is an insect. Therefore, I am frightened.

o Major Premise: All insects frighten me.
o Minor Premise: That is an insect.
o Conclusion: I am frightened.
Conditional Syllogism
Conditional syllogisms follow an "If A is true, then B is true" pattern of logic. They're
often referred to as hypothetical syllogisms because the arguments aren't always valid.
Sometimes they're merely an accepted truth.
 If Katie is smart, then her parents must be smart.

o Major premise: Katie is smart.
o Conclusion: Katie's parents are smart.
 If Richard likes Germany, then he must drive an Audi.

o Major premise: Richard likes Germany.
o Conclusion: He must like all things German, including their cars.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Disjunctive syllogisms follow a "Since A is true, B must be false" premise. They don't
state if a major or minor premise is correct. But it's understood that one of them is
correct.
Major Premise: This cake is either red velvet or chocolate.
Minor Premise: It's not chocolate.
Conclusion: This cake is red velvet.
Major Premise: On the TV show Outlander, Claire's husband is either dead or alive.
Minor Premise: He's not alive.
Conclusion: Claire's husband is dead.
Enthymemes
An enthymeme is not one of the major types of syllogism but is what's known as
rhetorical syllogism. These are often used in persuasive speeches and arguments.
Generally, the speaker will omit a major or minor premise, assuming it's already
accepted by the audience.
 He couldn't have stolen the jewelry. I know him.

o Major Premise: He couldn't have stolen the jewelry.
o Minor Premise: I know his character.
 Her new purse can't be ugly. It's a Louis Vuitton.

o Major Premise: Her new accessory can't be ugly.
o Minor Premise: It's made by famous designer Louis Vuitton.
In an enthymeme, one premise remains implied. In the examples above, being
familiar with someone or something implies an understanding of them.
Syllogistic Fallacy
Some syllogisms contain false presumptions. When you start assuming one of the
major or minor premises to be true, even though they're not based in fact - as with
disjunctive syllogisms and enthymemes - you run the risk of making a false
presumption.
 All crows are black. The bird in my cage is black. Therefore, this bird is a crow.

o Major Premise: All crows are black.
o Minor Premise: The bird in my cage is black.
o Conclusion: This bird is a crow.
 The scenery in Ireland is beautiful. I'm in Ireland. Therefore, the scenery must be
beautiful.

o Major Premise: The scenery in Ireland is beautiful.
o Minor Premise: I'm in Ireland.
o Conclusion: The scenery is beautiful.
Of course, not every black bird is a crow and not all of Ireland is beautiful. When
preparing a speech or writing a paper, we must always make sure we're not making
any sweeping generalizations that will cause people to make false presumptions.
RULES OF SYLLOGISM
There are six known rules of syllogism. However, they mainly apply to categorical
syllogism, since that is the only category that requires three components: major
premise, minor premise, conclusion. Here are six rules that will ensure you're making
a strong and accurate argument.
1. Rule One: There must be three terms: the major premise, the minor premise, and
the conclusion - no more, no less.
2. Rule Two: The minor premise must be distributed in at least one other premise.
3. Rule Three: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the
relevant premise.
4. Rule Four: Do not use two negative premises.
5. Rule Five: If one of the two premises are negative, the conclusion must be
negative.
6. Rule Six: From two universal premises, no conclusion may be drawn.

VENN DIAGRAM

CONCEPT 1: Some A is B

Diagram

The possible conclusions are,

1. Some A is B
2. Some B is A

CONCEPT 2: Some A is B and Some B is C

Diagram
 Now the Possible Conclusions are

Between A and B Between B and C

Some A is B Some B is C
Some B is A Some C is B

There is no DIRECT CONNECTION between A and C. So it is not possible to derive

any conclusion between A and C.

CONCEPT 3: All A is B

Diagram

The Conclusions are

All A is B
Some A is B
Some B is A

NOTE: when the statements are positive, the conclusions must be positive.

CONCEPT 4: All A is B and All B is C

Diagram
 The Conclusions are:

Between A and B Between B and C Between A and C

All A is B All B is C All A is

Some A is B Some B is C Some A is C
Some B is A Some C is B Some C is A

Concept 5: Some A is B. All B is C.

Diagram

The possible conclusions are:

Between A and B Between B and C Between A and C

Some A is B All B is C Some A is C

Some B is A Some B is C Some C is A
Some C is B

Concept 6: All A is B and Some B is C

Diagram
 The possible conclusions are:

Between A and B Between B and C

All A is B Some B is C
Some A is B Some C is B
Some B is A

Note: There is no DIRECT CONNECTION between A and C. So it is not possible to derive

any conclusion between A and C.

Concept 7: All B is A and All C is A

Diagram

The possible conclusions are:

Between A and B Between A and C

All B is A All C is A
Some B is A Some C is A
Some A is B Some A is C

Note: There is no DIRECT CONNECTION between B and C. So it is not possible to derive

any conclusion between B and C.

Concept 8: No A is B

Diagram
 The Possible Conclusions are:

No A is B
No B is A
Some A is not B
Some B is not A

Note: When NO comes in Statement, Some-not should follow in Conclusion

Concept 9: All A is B and No B is C

Diagram

The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B Between B and C Between A and C

All A is B No B is C No A is C
Some A is B No C is B Some A is Not C
Some B is A Some B is not C
Some C is not B

Concept 10: All A is B and No A is C

Diagram
 The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B Between A and C Between B and C

All A is B No A is C Some B is not C

Some A is B No C is A
Some B is A Some A is not C
Some C is not A

Concept 11: Some A is B. No B is C

Diagram

The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B Between B and C Between A and C

Some A is B No B is C Some A is not C

Some B is A No C is B
Some B is not C
Some C is not B

Concept 12: Some A is B: No A is C

Diagram
 The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B Between A and C Between B and C

Some A is B No A is C Some B is not C

Some B is A No C is A
Some A is not C
Some C is not A

Note: In all the above, the conclusions are made based on the statements. There are
only one case where the conclusions are determined based on the conclusion itself. It
is called as Merging Concept.

MERGING CONCEPT

 This concept is applicable when more than one conclusion does not follows.

Rules:

1. The two non-following conclusions must be of same character.

2. One conclusion must be positive (All/Some)
3. One conclusion must be negative (No/Some-not)
4. Let me explain this concept with some examples.

Example 1

Statement: All Lotus are Flowers; No Lilly is Lotus.

Conclusion: No Lilly is a flower; Some Lilly is Flowers.

Venn Diagram

Conclusions:

I. No Lilly is a flower. (It’s not true)

II. Some Lilly is flowers. (It is also not true)

Note: Two conclusions are false. And both are same characters (Lilly and Flower).
One is Positive and one is negative. It satisfies all the rules of Merging Concept.

Thus, the Answer is either (I) or (II).

Example 2

Statement: Some Cameras are Radios; Some Statues are Cameras.

Conclusion: Some Radios are statues; No Radio is a Statue.

Venn Diagram

I. Some Statues are Radios (It is false) (No direct relation between Statue and Radio)

II. No Radio is a Statue (It is False) (It is a negative conclusion) (When statements are
positive, conclusions must be positive).

Note: Two Conclusions are False. They are of same character. One is Positive and
other is Negative.

Thus, the answer is either (I) or (II)

POSSIBILITY

 Whenever the term “Possibility” OR “Can” comes in Conclusion, we need to

check this simple table.

Explanation

Statements: Some Mangoes are Apples; Some Bananas are Apples; Some Branches are
Bananas

Conclusions: Some Mangoes are Bananas

Some Branches Being Apples is a Possibility
Some Branches are Mangoes
All Apples Being Mangoes is a Possibility

Venn Diagram

Conclusions

1. It is False. (No Direct Connection between them).

II. No relation between Branches and Apples. “Possibility” is there. (It is True)
III: It is False (No Direct relation)
IV: Between Apples and Mangoes “Some” can come. “Possibility is there”. It is also
true.
Thus, either II or IV

Important Rules:

 Draw Venn Diagrams (Basic Diagram & Possibility Diagram) according to the
Statement.
 If the conclusion does not satisfy the Basic Diagram then there is no need to
check the possibility diagrams.
 If the conclusion satisfies the Basic Diagram then it must satisfy all possibility
diagrams.
  The first Venn diagram in all images shown below are Basic Diagrams &
remaining are Possibility Diagrams.

All A are B:

Some A are B:

Some A are not B:

Examples

Statements: All Circles are Squares. Some Squares are Roses

Conclusion 1: Possibility Diagram

Conclusion 2: Possibility Diagram

Conclusions:
I. All Roses being Square is a possibility
II. Can all Circles be Roses
Both (I) and (II) follow

NEGATIVE AND POSTIVE SYLLOGISM BASED ON PALALI CASE:

NEGATIVE
Major Premise: Certificate of Land Title is the only evidence of ownership of real
property.
Minor Premise: Tax Declaration is the only evidence of the petitioner over the
subject matter.
Conclusion: Therefore, Petitioner has no proof of evidence of ownership over
the subject matter.

EXPLANATION: The conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is negative,

but both of the premises are positive or drawing a negative
conclusion from affirmative premises.

POSITIVE

Major Premise: Strong evidence of ownership is the only way to convince the
court of better right to subject property.

Minor Premise: Petitioner was able to prove his and his predecessor’s actual, open,
continuous and physical possession of the subject property.

Conclusion: The preponderance of evidence is therefore clearly in favor of

petitioner, as the actual possessor under claim of ownership.

EXPLANATION: A positive premise requires a positive conclusion, and a positive

conclusion requires a positive premise.
Fallacy

Fallacy Definition

A fallacy is an erroneous argument dependent upon an unsound or illogical

contention. There are many fallacy examples that we can find in everyday
conversations.

Types of Fallacy

Here are a few well-known types of fallacy you might experience when making an
argument:

1. Appeal to Ignorance

 Appeal to ignorance happens when one individual utilizes another individual’s

lack of information on a specific subject as proof that his or her own particular
argument is right.

2. Appeal to Authority

 This sort of error is also known as “Argumentum Verecundia” (argument from

modesty). Instead of concentrating on the benefits of an argument, the arguer
will attempt to append their argument to an individual of power or authority,
in an effort to give trustworthiness to their argument.

3. Appeal to Popular Opinion

 This sort of appeal is when somebody asserts that a thought or conviction is

correct, since it is the thing that the general population accepts.

4. Association Fallacy

 Sometimes called “guilt by affiliation,” this happens when somebody connects

a particular thought or issue to something or somebody negative, so as to infer
blame on another individual.

5. Attacking the Person

  Also regarded as “argumentum ad hominem” (argument against the man), this
is a common fallacy used during debates, where an individual substitutes a
rebuttal with a personal insult.

6. Begging the Question

 The conclusion of a contention is accepted as a statement of the inquiry itself.

7. Circular Argument

 This fallacy is also known as “circulus in probando.” This error is committed

when an argument takes its evidence from an element inside the argument
itself, instead of from an outside source.

8. Relationship Implies Causation

 Also called “cum hoc ergo propter hoc,” this fallacy is a deception in which the
individual making the contention joins two occasions that happen
consecutively, and accepts that one created or caused the other.

False Dilemma/Dichotomy

Sometimes called “bifurcation,” this sort of error happens when somebody presents
their argument in such a way that there are just two conceivable alternatives left.

Illogical Conclusion

This is a fallacy wherein somebody attests a conclusion that does not follow from the
suggestions or facts.

Slippery Slope

This error happens when one contends that an exceptionally minor movement will
unavoidably prompt great and frequently ludicrous conclusions.

Syllogism Fallacy

This fallacy may also be used to form incorrect conclusions that are odd. Syllogism
fallacy is a false argument, as it implies an incorrect conclusion.
Examples of Fallacy in Literature

To understand the different types of fallacy better, let’s review the following
examples of fallacy:

Example #1: Appeal to Ignorance

“You can’t demonstrate that there aren’t Martians living in caves on the surface of
Mars, so it is sensible for me to accept there are.”

Example #2: Appeal to Authority

“Well, Isaac Newton trusted in Alchemy, do you suppose you know more than Isaac
Newton?”

Example #3: Appeal Popular Opinion

“Lots of people purchased this collection, so it must be great.”

Example #4: Association Fallacy

“Hitler was a veggie lover, so I don’t trust vegans.”

Example #5: Attacking the Person

“Don’t listen to Eddie’s contentions on teaching, he’s a simpleton.”

Example #6: Begging the Question

“If the neighbor didn’t take my daily paper, who did?” (This accepts that the daily
paper was really stolen).
Example #7: Circular Argument

“I accept that Frosted Flakes are incredible, since it says so on the box.”

Example #8: Relationship Implies Causation

“I saw a jaybird, and ten minutes later I crashed my car. Jaybirds are really bad luck.”

Example #9: False Dilemma/Dichotomy

“If you don’t vote for this applicant, you must be a Communist.”

Example #10: Illogical Conclusion

“All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, so clearly he is not Irish.”

Example #11: Slippery Slope

“If we permit gay individuals to get married, what’s next? Permitting people to marry
their dogs?”

Example #12: Syllogism Fallacy

“All crows are black, and the bird in my cage is black. So, the bird in my cage is a
crow.

Logical Fallacies Errors in reasoning that invalidate the argument

2. Ad Hominem – “Argument against the man” • Unfairly attacking a person instead

of the issue • Attacking the character and/or reputation of a position’s supporters;
“Guilt by association” •Example: We cannot listen to John’s opinion on global
warming because he is a tree hugger.

3. Begging the Question • The opinion to be proved is given as if it were already

proved. • Example: Global warming doesn’t exist because the earth is not getting
warmer.
4. False Cause (Cause and Effect) • Citing a false or remote cause to explain a
situation • Example: The increase in global warming in the past decade is because
more teenagers are using hairspray.

5. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause) • “After this, therefore because of this” •
Assuming that because two things happened, the first one caused the second one •
Example: Every time my brother Bill uses hairspray, it is an extremely hot day.

6. Either or Fallacy • Discussing an issue as if there are only two alternatives • This
fallacy ignores any other possible alternatives • Example: We either ban hairspray or
the world will end.

7. Evasion • Ignoring or evading the questions • Example: Reporter: “Senator, what is

your view on global warming? Senator: “Global warming is definitely something we
need to look into.”

8. False Analogy • Making a comparison between two subjects that have more
dissimilarities than similarities. • Example: Using hairspray everyday is like launching a
nuclear weapon.

9. Oversimplification • Making a complicated issue seem very simple by using simple

terms or suppressing information • Example: Global warming is caused by using
hairspray and other beauty products.

10. Rationalization • Giving incorrect reasons to justify your position • Example: I

don’t believe in global warming because I like using hairspray.

11. Red Herring • Presenting an argument unrelated to your subject in order to

distract the reader • Example: In order to really look at the problem of global
warming, we must first consider how the homeless suffer when it is cold.

12. Slippery Slope • Implying that one small step in the wrong direction will cause
catastrophic results • Example: If we use just one more can of hairspray this month,
earth as we know it will no longer exist.

13. Two wrongs make a right • Defending something done wrong by citing another
incident of wrong doing • Example American does not need to regulate pollution
because China is producing more pollution than we are.

14. Hasty Generalization • An inference drawn from insufficient evidence • It is

warmer this year in Las Vegas as compared to last year; therefore, global warming is
rapidly accelerating.

15. Straw Man • An argument in which an opponent’s position is represented as being

more extreme than it actually is • Al Gore feels that all companies are irresponsible
and should be punished for allowing emissions which causes global warming.
16. Equivocation • Juvenile tricks of language • If there really is global warming, how
come it is cooler in Fullerton this year?

17. Non Sequitur • “It does not follow” • Argument in which claims, reasons, or
warrants fail to connect logically. • Example We should stop using hairspray because
it is snowing in New York.

Definition

A syllogism is a systematic representation of a single logical inference. It has three

parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The parts are defined this
way:

The major premise contains a term from the predicate of the conclusion

The minor premise contains a term from the subject of the conclusion

The conclusion combines major and minor premise with a “therefore” symbol (∴)

When all the premises are true and the syllogism is correctly constructed, a syllogism is
an ironclad logical argument.

II. Examples and Explanation

The most famous syllogism in philosophy is this:

All men are mortal (major premise)

Socrates is a man (minor premise)

∴Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

Notice that the major premise provides the predicate, while the minor premise
provides the subject. As long as both premises are true, the conclusion must be true as
well.

That first syllogism was pretty easy, since no one would ever argue with its premises.
But syllogisms become more difficult when the premises are more complicated or
debatable. For example:
Cats make good pets (major premise)

Dogs and cats are equally good as pets (minor premise)

∴ dogs make good pets (conclusion)

Is this argument true? It depends! Some people might disagree with the premises, or
with the conclusion. It’s a matter of opinion. However, the logical validity of the
syllogism is not a matter of opinion, because the conclusion really does follow from
the premises. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as
well. That makes it a logically valid syllogism regardless of whether or not you agree
with the premises or the conclusion!

You can also have cases where a syllogism is logically sound, but factually incorrect.
For example:

This car is expensive (minor premise)

All expensive cars are Ferraris. (major premise)

∴ this car is a Ferrari. (conclusion)

The major premise in this syllogism, of course, is wrong. In terms of its logical
structure, there’s nothing wrong with the syllogism. But it’s based on a faulty
assumption, and therefore the argument doesn’t work. If the major premise were
true, then the conclusion would follow, which means the syllogism is perfectly logical.
It just so happens that the premise isn’t true.

III. The Importance of Syllogisms

Syllogisms represent the strongest form of logical argument, so if you could build an
argument entirely out of syllogisms it would probably be very persuasive! Like
triangles in architecture, the syllogism is the strongest logical structure. When formed
correctly, they are indisputable in terms of their logical validity.

However, it’s important to remember what syllogisms don’t do: they don’t prove
their own premises. So you could build an argument out of very strong syllogisms, but
it wouldn’t work if its original premises weren’t correct. Thus, you have to ensure that
the starting point of your argument is solid, or no amount of syllogisms will make the
argument successful as a whole.

IV. How to Write a Syllogism

Start with the conclusion. Most of the time, you’re writing a syllogism as a way of
laying out the steps in your argument – steps you’ve already worked out in your
head. So you can easily start with the conclusion. That’s the most important part of
the syllogism, the part that you’re trying to prove through logic.

Example: Although most have live young, some mammals lay eggs.

Break the conclusion down into subject and predicate. The grammar of your
conclusion will dictate the logical structure of the syllogism you use to support it. So
you have to be able to recognize subject and predicate in the sentence.

Although most have live young, some mammals (subject)

lay eggs (predicate)

Locate the key terms. Take the subject and predicate, and boil them down to their
key terms. Get rid of unnecessary adjectives and other extraneous words, and just
focus on the word or words that carry the weight of the sentence.

mammals | lay eggs

Craft your premises. Remember that the major premise will contain the key terms of
the predicate, while the minor premise contains the key terms of the subject. Craft
separate sentences around these key terms such that they fit together into a syllogism.

Echidnas are mammals (minor premise)

Echidnas lay eggs (major premise)

Check whether the conclusion follows from the premises. Can you make a persuasive
“if…then” statement using your premises to prove your conclusion? If not, the
syllogism is not logically structured and will not work in your argument.

If echidnas are mammals AND echidnas lay eggs, then of course it follows that some
mammals must lay eggs.

Check whether the premises are persuasive. If you think the reader will accept both
premises, and the syllogism is logically sound, then this step in your argument will be
beyond criticism. However, bear in mind that a skeptical reader will often find ways
to doubt your premises, so don’t take them for granted!

Echidnas are mammals (persuasive because of scientific consensus)

Echidnas lay eggs (persuasive because of empirical observation)

V. When to Use a Syllogism

Syllogisms are very abstract representations, and you rarely see them outside of
formal logic and analytic philosophy. In other fields, it’s probably best not to write
the syllogism out as part of your paper. However, it can still be very useful as a
mental exercise! Even if you don’t end up showing the whole syllogism to your
reader, you can write it out on scratch paper as a way of evaluating your own
argument. If you can write your argument out in syllogism form, then you know it’s
logical. If not, then there may be more work for you to do before the argument is
ready for submission.

VII. Examples in Philosophy and Literature

Ambrose Bierce famously satirized the syllogism form in his Devil’s Dictionary:
60 men together can work 60 times as quickly as one man alone.

One man alone can dig a whole in one minute.

Therefore, 60 men can dig a whole in one second.

Each step in this syllogism seems to make sense, and the syllogism itself is logically
sound. But the conclusion is clearly wrong! That’s because premise #1 is deceptive: in
theory it’s true that 60 men can work 60 times as fast as one. But in practice things
are not so simple, as Bierce’s clever example shows.

Aristotle invented the example in §2, the one about Socrates being mortal. But he also
used another example to demonstrate how a valid syllogism could produce a false
conclusion if based on faulty premises (despite the syllogism itself being logically
valid).

Everything white is sweet

Salt is white

∴ salt is sweet.

Clearly, premise #2 is wrong, and the conclusion is wrong as well. But if premise #2
were correct, then the conclusion would be correct as well. That means the syllogism
is logically valid though factually incorrect

VIII. Examples in Popular Culture

It can be fun to locate (and critique) the hidden syllogisms in the world around us. In
advertising, for example, there is always a hidden syllogism with “therefore, you
should buy our product” as its conclusion. For example, many liquor ads are based on
the following syllogism:

Women like men who buy [this brand of alcohol].

You are a man and you want women to like you.

Therefore, you should buy [this brand].

There are many potential problems with this argument, but the most obvious one is
that it (probably) has at least one false premise: women probably don’t truly prefer
men who purchase that particular brand. In addition, the viewer may well be a
woman or a gay man, in which case the other premise is also false.

“That’s a faulty syllogism. Just because you call Bill a dog doesn’t mean he is a dog.”
(Dr. House, House)

In one episode of House, the title character refers to a “faulty syllogism” in a way
that’s not entirely clear. But the syllogism he’s referring to looks like this:

I call Bill a dog.

Things are whatever I call them.

∴ Bill is a dog.

The syllogism is clearly faulty because premise #2 is false.